Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Friend Quote 5
"I'm waiting to meet the man I want to be with. To love him fully, be his emotional support and to be his sexual slave."
Thursday, November 18, 2010
2010: The growing appeal of sex without commitment
Buddies in bed times: the growing appeal of sex without commitment
ZOSIA BIELSKI
Published Thursday, Nov. 18, 2010 3:01PM EST
Emma Franklin doesn’t have time for a boyfriend, so her best friend Adam Kurtzman will have to do.
“I’m a doctor,” she tells him in her bedroom. “I work 80 hours a week. I need someone who’s going to be in my bed at 2 a.m. who I don’t have to eat breakfast with.”
“I hate breakfast,” he responds.
And it’s on.
The couple, played by Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher, lead No Strings Attached (due out in January), one of a slew of new films about busy, urban thirtysomethings taking up the friends-with-benefits arrangement.
There is Love and Other Drugs, out next week and featuring Jake Gyllenhaal as a Viagra salesman and Anne Hathaway as his cynical sex buddy; and Friends with Benefits (coming next July), starring Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis as best friends who alternate sex with chest bumps. A new show by the same name is slated to premiere on NBC next year.
Once the domain of college seniors, the friends-with-benefits sexual arrangement (FWB) is being picked up by middle-class professionals in their 30s who have decided they’re too busy for full-blown romantic relationships.
“They’re trying to figure it out and make a commitment to what they can commit to, which in many instances might be their work,” says Margaret McCraw, author of the recent book The Relationship Code.
The idea of prioritizing career over committed romantic relationships takes hold in university: Undergraduates who ranked financial security as their top value in life were most likely to be in a friends-with-benefits relationship, according to a 2008 survey of 1,000 undergraduates published in the College Student Journal.People who are at the start of their careers want something “cozy, casual and convenient,” says Cynthia Loyst, host of the television show Sex Matters on CP24.
“We have our friends as an extended family nowadays. They’re the closest ones to us and we spend a lot of time with them.”
The friends-with-benefits phenomenon has evolved from merely pals who shag to a wide variety of sexual arrangements, including exes who hook up occasionally and bar patrons who stumble home together now and again. More than a one-night stand and less than a monogamous relationship, FWB relieves physical desires without the pretense of emotional or physical commitment.
A 2007 Michigan State University survey of 125 students published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 60 per cent had dabbled in an FWB arrangement. The relationships had more in common with friendships than romances, and were low on passion and commitment.
Aside from their busy careers, friends with benefits count the marital failings of their parents as one reason not to commit.
“They’re a bit gun-shy: There aren’t that many great models for marriage out there for most people. They’re missing that in their lifetime,” says Dr. McCraw, who is also president of the Behavioral Healthcare Consulting & Training Institute in Baltimore.
But is the arrangement also linked to Generation Y’s childish commitment phobia? In Friends with Benefits, Ms. Kunis’s character Jamie climbs aboard Justin Timberlake and then wonders aloud if they’re too old to be having casual sex, which seems “college-y” to her.
Ms. Loyst echoes Dr. McCraw’s point on this one: “I think it’s less about perpetual adolescence and more a reflection of cynicism or realism around marriage and monogamy. More people are choosing not to put all their eggs in the marriage basket. Many couples I know are starting to think about and discuss the limitations of sex till death do us part.”
Dr. McCraw even hazards that FWBs are more “thoughtful” than their counterparts who went headlong into “starter marriages” in their late 20s.
As for how gender roles play out in the casual-sex pact, a 2010 Colorado State University study revealed some double standards: Men are typically motivated by sex and women by “emotional connection.”
Dr. McCraw says women often want “something more from the beginning,” with some agreeing to the arrangement simply out of desperation. “They wanted something rather than nothing.”
Despite popular assumptions that it’s the woman who ends up getting burned in no-strings-attached arrangements with friends, two of the three new films feature female instigators.
“Women [in their 30s] are extraordinarily focused on career and financial independence. It makes sense that they’d seek out other forms of independence, and that includes sexual independence,” Ms. Loyst says.
But she admits there are consequences, thanks mostly to the muddled linguistics: “On paper, it’s one of those things that sounds really good. You keep it ‘casual’ and ‘simple.’ It’s just about release and sexual playtime. But obviously human beings are complex and emotional, so a lot can go wrong.”
For starters, you can mutilate a friendship, she says. “Even it does work out, it can make for awkward gatherings when you do get involved with more serious partners and still continue to be a part of each other’s social orbits.”
And unless two people are completely honest with themselves and each other, and maintain candour as the relationship evolves, “it’s a huge emotional risk,” Dr. McCraw says. “There’s a physical risk, too, because if they don’t really have a solid foundation with the other partner it’s a health risk.” (The 2008 study found that FWBs are often sleeping with several partners simultaneously.)
Given all the built-in insecurities, it’s somewhat astonishing that thirtysomethings see FWB as a safe emotional alternative to committing to another person. Still, it’s a gamble many are willing to take – given the other options.
“It’s a generation that’s exhausted from dating and this idea of trying to find The One,” Ms. Loyst says.
“If you had the choice between going out to bars, trying to navigate the shark-infested waters of the online scene, or picking up the phone and calling a friend or an ex who you already know and trust, which would you choose?”
See article and more comments here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/family-and-relationships/the-growing-appeal-of-sex-without-commitment/article1804708/
ZOSIA BIELSKI
Published Thursday, Nov. 18, 2010 3:01PM EST
Emma Franklin doesn’t have time for a boyfriend, so her best friend Adam Kurtzman will have to do.
“I’m a doctor,” she tells him in her bedroom. “I work 80 hours a week. I need someone who’s going to be in my bed at 2 a.m. who I don’t have to eat breakfast with.”
“I hate breakfast,” he responds.
And it’s on.
The couple, played by Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher, lead No Strings Attached (due out in January), one of a slew of new films about busy, urban thirtysomethings taking up the friends-with-benefits arrangement.
There is Love and Other Drugs, out next week and featuring Jake Gyllenhaal as a Viagra salesman and Anne Hathaway as his cynical sex buddy; and Friends with Benefits (coming next July), starring Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis as best friends who alternate sex with chest bumps. A new show by the same name is slated to premiere on NBC next year.
Once the domain of college seniors, the friends-with-benefits sexual arrangement (FWB) is being picked up by middle-class professionals in their 30s who have decided they’re too busy for full-blown romantic relationships.
“They’re trying to figure it out and make a commitment to what they can commit to, which in many instances might be their work,” says Margaret McCraw, author of the recent book The Relationship Code.
The idea of prioritizing career over committed romantic relationships takes hold in university: Undergraduates who ranked financial security as their top value in life were most likely to be in a friends-with-benefits relationship, according to a 2008 survey of 1,000 undergraduates published in the College Student Journal.People who are at the start of their careers want something “cozy, casual and convenient,” says Cynthia Loyst, host of the television show Sex Matters on CP24.
“We have our friends as an extended family nowadays. They’re the closest ones to us and we spend a lot of time with them.”
The friends-with-benefits phenomenon has evolved from merely pals who shag to a wide variety of sexual arrangements, including exes who hook up occasionally and bar patrons who stumble home together now and again. More than a one-night stand and less than a monogamous relationship, FWB relieves physical desires without the pretense of emotional or physical commitment.
A 2007 Michigan State University survey of 125 students published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 60 per cent had dabbled in an FWB arrangement. The relationships had more in common with friendships than romances, and were low on passion and commitment.
Aside from their busy careers, friends with benefits count the marital failings of their parents as one reason not to commit.
“They’re a bit gun-shy: There aren’t that many great models for marriage out there for most people. They’re missing that in their lifetime,” says Dr. McCraw, who is also president of the Behavioral Healthcare Consulting & Training Institute in Baltimore.
But is the arrangement also linked to Generation Y’s childish commitment phobia? In Friends with Benefits, Ms. Kunis’s character Jamie climbs aboard Justin Timberlake and then wonders aloud if they’re too old to be having casual sex, which seems “college-y” to her.
Ms. Loyst echoes Dr. McCraw’s point on this one: “I think it’s less about perpetual adolescence and more a reflection of cynicism or realism around marriage and monogamy. More people are choosing not to put all their eggs in the marriage basket. Many couples I know are starting to think about and discuss the limitations of sex till death do us part.”
Dr. McCraw even hazards that FWBs are more “thoughtful” than their counterparts who went headlong into “starter marriages” in their late 20s.
As for how gender roles play out in the casual-sex pact, a 2010 Colorado State University study revealed some double standards: Men are typically motivated by sex and women by “emotional connection.”
Dr. McCraw says women often want “something more from the beginning,” with some agreeing to the arrangement simply out of desperation. “They wanted something rather than nothing.”
Despite popular assumptions that it’s the woman who ends up getting burned in no-strings-attached arrangements with friends, two of the three new films feature female instigators.
“Women [in their 30s] are extraordinarily focused on career and financial independence. It makes sense that they’d seek out other forms of independence, and that includes sexual independence,” Ms. Loyst says.
But she admits there are consequences, thanks mostly to the muddled linguistics: “On paper, it’s one of those things that sounds really good. You keep it ‘casual’ and ‘simple.’ It’s just about release and sexual playtime. But obviously human beings are complex and emotional, so a lot can go wrong.”
For starters, you can mutilate a friendship, she says. “Even it does work out, it can make for awkward gatherings when you do get involved with more serious partners and still continue to be a part of each other’s social orbits.”
And unless two people are completely honest with themselves and each other, and maintain candour as the relationship evolves, “it’s a huge emotional risk,” Dr. McCraw says. “There’s a physical risk, too, because if they don’t really have a solid foundation with the other partner it’s a health risk.” (The 2008 study found that FWBs are often sleeping with several partners simultaneously.)
Given all the built-in insecurities, it’s somewhat astonishing that thirtysomethings see FWB as a safe emotional alternative to committing to another person. Still, it’s a gamble many are willing to take – given the other options.
“It’s a generation that’s exhausted from dating and this idea of trying to find The One,” Ms. Loyst says.
“If you had the choice between going out to bars, trying to navigate the shark-infested waters of the online scene, or picking up the phone and calling a friend or an ex who you already know and trust, which would you choose?”
See article and more comments here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/family-and-relationships/the-growing-appeal-of-sex-without-commitment/article1804708/
Friend Quote 4
"A woman should never feel flattered when a man asks if he can come inside after a date."
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Cognitive Dissonance is Alive and Well Today
Cognitive Dissonance - The Art of Ignoring What We Not Want to Know
03.01.2009 07:02
http://newsguide.us/index.php?path=/education/psychology/Cognitive-Dissonance-The-Art-of-Ignoring-What-We-Not-Want-to-Know/
The human race is supposed to be rational. The human race is supposed to look at all the available information and make decisions based on rational analysis. That just does not happen.
What really happens is that we live by paradigms. A paradigm is a world view. We live in societies that have a particular world view. If a person lives according to a Christian paradigm they have a different perception of the world to someone who lives according to an Islamic paradigm. There is nothing rational about either, or any other paradigm.
If we lived our rationally our paradigms would be in a constant state of flux, being continuously modified as each new piece of rational information is added. That just does not happen. What does happen is cognitive dissonance as each new piece of information is added.
Cognitive is basically perception, and dissonance is conflict. It would be helpful if psychologists spoke English. But since cognitive dissonance is the official terminology I had better stick to it.
We have a paradigm that has been created by our society, or some sub-group of our society. It is unlikely that our paradigm has any basis in the rational. There is nothing is the concept of paradigm dictating that it needs to be rational other than to support a paradigm that cannot be supported in any other way.
Another, less polite way of defining paradigm is groupthink, where a group thinks as one and the individual conforms to official form of thinking. Groupthink would be used to describe the behavour of the German people in the Nazi years when the individual became an instrument of the state. We are much more polite than that so we live according to paradigms.
The usual way of dealing with cognitive dissonance, individually and collectively, is to be completely blind to anything that conflicts with our paradigm. If we ignore it, it will go away. We have a Western paradigm that relies heavily on an oil based society. If we ignore global warming long enough it will go away. This is an example of how rationality has no place in our paradigms.
This of course will cause conflict. There are those who want to upset our paradigm by bringing changes that may or may not be rational. Cleaning up the planet may be rational but so far the advocates of curbing carbon emissions have so far only created cognitive dissonance, not a paradigm shift.
A paradigm shift occurs when cognitive dissonance becomes too great to ignore and the old paradigm is overthrown. A paradigm shift is not rational. It is not evolutionary. It is revolutionary. It involves major conflict. Sometimes paradigm shifts are bloodless, and some times bloody, but as with physical revolutions the new dictator often becomes as despotic as the old.
A paradigm shift will throw out the good with the bad. Everything is destroyed to make way for the new. We need a shift our attitudes to pollution and other environmental attitudes. There is an urgent need to look at our contribution to conflict around the world. There are many other things that need to be done, but not everything about our present paradigm is bad.
What has this to do with spirituality? Everything. The spiritual movement is filled with literature about the need for a paradigm shift. How a new consciousness or awakening is going to sweep away the old and make the human race bright and shiny again. This revolutionary attitude will not cure all our ills any more than the Bolsheviks bought peace and prosperity to Russia.
Many who follow a spiritual path seek or expect a moment of 'enlightenment', a flash of understanding that changes their paradigm for ever. If we follow this way we ignore everything we don't want to know about until it will just not go away. Then the old is destroyed by the new. Whether or not this 'enlightened' state will be any better than the old paradigm is debatable. Not everything in our 'un-enlightened' state is bad, but it will all be destroyed.
What is the way forward? Be aware of cognitive dissonance. Be aware that we all have a habit of ignoring what we don't want to know about. Ask yourself if you want truth or a truth you will like. The two are not always the same.
If you decide you want truth don't dismiss something just because you don't like it. Instead look at what it holds for you. You might decide to accept it or reject it. More likely is that you will not either accept or reject. Instead the probability is that whatever it holds of value to you will be assimilated and you paradigm becomes evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
Remember the old advice that a journey begins with a single step. Each place along the way is another first step. Enlightenment is a journey of little steps, not a blinding flash of light.
As a writer on spiritual concepts cognitive dissonance has a special meaning to me. If I write close to the existing spiritual paradigm (that hasn't shifted in thirty years, same book, different author) lots of people read what I write. If I push the boundaries cognitive dissonance kicks in and I am ignored. This can be frustrating but is all part of the process until evolutionary paradigms take over from revolutionary paradigms.
Hopefully people seeking a spiritual path can come understand that a little small step at a time outside the safety zone will not cause the sky to fall in. That small step soon becomes comfortable is assimilated into the safety zone, and it is time for the next small step.
Learning how to overcome cognitive dissonance is one of those small steps and leads to our spiritual path becoming enjoyable and evolutionary rather than filled with drama and conflict.
To view David's work, and to contact David please go to his website http://www.david-young.com.au. There is a comment question/answer box on the Article page where you can post your question. You can also link through my Bio link on this page.
David Young has been writing for twenty years on any subject relating to the human condition. The human race is capable of much greater things than it has achieved in the past. The key to greater achievements, and the elimination of negatives like war, greed, poverty and oppression (to name a few) is for people to make informed choices based on understanding instead of just leaving it to the experts to tell us what to think.
Much of David's work involves looking at issues and translating them into plain language. If the expert spoke in plain language we would understand that the experts know no more than we do. We are both spiritual and physical beings. The two must go together if we are to be complete in this world. When writing on spiritual subjects this is always tempered with bringing our spiritual being into the world. If one or the other is neglected we suffer. These are the twin motivators of my work. Physical well being and understanding issues so that we have choices, and making those choices from a spiritual base of knowing who we are.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=David_Jon_Young
03.01.2009 07:02
http://newsguide.us/index.php?path=/education/psychology/Cognitive-Dissonance-The-Art-of-Ignoring-What-We-Not-Want-to-Know/
The human race is supposed to be rational. The human race is supposed to look at all the available information and make decisions based on rational analysis. That just does not happen.
What really happens is that we live by paradigms. A paradigm is a world view. We live in societies that have a particular world view. If a person lives according to a Christian paradigm they have a different perception of the world to someone who lives according to an Islamic paradigm. There is nothing rational about either, or any other paradigm.
If we lived our rationally our paradigms would be in a constant state of flux, being continuously modified as each new piece of rational information is added. That just does not happen. What does happen is cognitive dissonance as each new piece of information is added.
Cognitive is basically perception, and dissonance is conflict. It would be helpful if psychologists spoke English. But since cognitive dissonance is the official terminology I had better stick to it.
We have a paradigm that has been created by our society, or some sub-group of our society. It is unlikely that our paradigm has any basis in the rational. There is nothing is the concept of paradigm dictating that it needs to be rational other than to support a paradigm that cannot be supported in any other way.
Another, less polite way of defining paradigm is groupthink, where a group thinks as one and the individual conforms to official form of thinking. Groupthink would be used to describe the behavour of the German people in the Nazi years when the individual became an instrument of the state. We are much more polite than that so we live according to paradigms.
The usual way of dealing with cognitive dissonance, individually and collectively, is to be completely blind to anything that conflicts with our paradigm. If we ignore it, it will go away. We have a Western paradigm that relies heavily on an oil based society. If we ignore global warming long enough it will go away. This is an example of how rationality has no place in our paradigms.
This of course will cause conflict. There are those who want to upset our paradigm by bringing changes that may or may not be rational. Cleaning up the planet may be rational but so far the advocates of curbing carbon emissions have so far only created cognitive dissonance, not a paradigm shift.
A paradigm shift occurs when cognitive dissonance becomes too great to ignore and the old paradigm is overthrown. A paradigm shift is not rational. It is not evolutionary. It is revolutionary. It involves major conflict. Sometimes paradigm shifts are bloodless, and some times bloody, but as with physical revolutions the new dictator often becomes as despotic as the old.
A paradigm shift will throw out the good with the bad. Everything is destroyed to make way for the new. We need a shift our attitudes to pollution and other environmental attitudes. There is an urgent need to look at our contribution to conflict around the world. There are many other things that need to be done, but not everything about our present paradigm is bad.
What has this to do with spirituality? Everything. The spiritual movement is filled with literature about the need for a paradigm shift. How a new consciousness or awakening is going to sweep away the old and make the human race bright and shiny again. This revolutionary attitude will not cure all our ills any more than the Bolsheviks bought peace and prosperity to Russia.
Many who follow a spiritual path seek or expect a moment of 'enlightenment', a flash of understanding that changes their paradigm for ever. If we follow this way we ignore everything we don't want to know about until it will just not go away. Then the old is destroyed by the new. Whether or not this 'enlightened' state will be any better than the old paradigm is debatable. Not everything in our 'un-enlightened' state is bad, but it will all be destroyed.
What is the way forward? Be aware of cognitive dissonance. Be aware that we all have a habit of ignoring what we don't want to know about. Ask yourself if you want truth or a truth you will like. The two are not always the same.
If you decide you want truth don't dismiss something just because you don't like it. Instead look at what it holds for you. You might decide to accept it or reject it. More likely is that you will not either accept or reject. Instead the probability is that whatever it holds of value to you will be assimilated and you paradigm becomes evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
Remember the old advice that a journey begins with a single step. Each place along the way is another first step. Enlightenment is a journey of little steps, not a blinding flash of light.
As a writer on spiritual concepts cognitive dissonance has a special meaning to me. If I write close to the existing spiritual paradigm (that hasn't shifted in thirty years, same book, different author) lots of people read what I write. If I push the boundaries cognitive dissonance kicks in and I am ignored. This can be frustrating but is all part of the process until evolutionary paradigms take over from revolutionary paradigms.
Hopefully people seeking a spiritual path can come understand that a little small step at a time outside the safety zone will not cause the sky to fall in. That small step soon becomes comfortable is assimilated into the safety zone, and it is time for the next small step.
Learning how to overcome cognitive dissonance is one of those small steps and leads to our spiritual path becoming enjoyable and evolutionary rather than filled with drama and conflict.
To view David's work, and to contact David please go to his website http://www.david-young.com.au. There is a comment question/answer box on the Article page where you can post your question. You can also link through my Bio link on this page.
David Young has been writing for twenty years on any subject relating to the human condition. The human race is capable of much greater things than it has achieved in the past. The key to greater achievements, and the elimination of negatives like war, greed, poverty and oppression (to name a few) is for people to make informed choices based on understanding instead of just leaving it to the experts to tell us what to think.
Much of David's work involves looking at issues and translating them into plain language. If the expert spoke in plain language we would understand that the experts know no more than we do. We are both spiritual and physical beings. The two must go together if we are to be complete in this world. When writing on spiritual subjects this is always tempered with bringing our spiritual being into the world. If one or the other is neglected we suffer. These are the twin motivators of my work. Physical well being and understanding issues so that we have choices, and making those choices from a spiritual base of knowing who we are.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=David_Jon_Young
Monday, November 15, 2010
Practical Ways to Control Your Woman
By Lawrence Mitchell
Relationship Correspondent
http://www.askmen.com/dating/dating_advice_100/107_dating_tips.html
Machiavellian: Suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli; marked by cunning, duplicity or bad faith.
The Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli, author of Il Principe ( The Prince ), was an exponent of unscrupulous action in the pursuit of political power. His view was that the world of politics was inherently amoral and that as a result, there were no rules. While not a benevolent maxim, it is not altogether illogical even today. When you operate within a dishonorable system, it is reasonable to achieve authority and dominance by any means necessary.
Of course, love and relationships are not amoral pursuits, although some might disagree. Nor will I pretend that they are comparable to the cesspool of corruption that Machiavelli wrote about some 500 years ago in his landmark treatise. Men today can benefit however, from the great philosopher's advice on how to win influence and gain power over others. In this case, "others" refers to women. How convenient.
First you get the women
The topic at hand is as a result, how to manipulate women and get your way. This is what men try to do on a regular basis but with calamitous results. The hold they have on their significant others is so temporary, so weak and so deceptive, that before they even sense it, their woman has them by the balls again.
Is it amoral, as the political reality of Machiavelli was, to dispense this advice? Is it wrong? How can a man and woman foster a lifetime commitment on trust and respect when one is out to manipulate the other for personal gain and satisfaction? Simple. She must never know your intentions or methods to influence her mind.
With wily deceit, you must approach this technique like a martial art: discipline, prudence and stealth are your friends. But whereas in practice martial arts seek to exploit the physical leverage of an opponent to gain the advantage, female mind manipulation in the context of a relationship must use mental leverage to do the same.
Despite the cloak of Machiavellian wisdom, female mind manipulation borrows from the restraint of Confucius, the quiet ruthless practices of Sun Tzu and the meditation of Zen. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it make a sound? If you bend your woman to your will and she is oblivious to the fact, did you even manipulate her mind in the first place? Think about it.
Do you have to be a Jedi Knight of the subconscious to pull this off? Does it have to be this complex? Well to be honest with you, yes. Women are intricate creatures and, unless vulnerable because of innate insecurity, trauma or low intelligence, resist deception with maddening ease.
They question our judgment. They question our expertise. They question our intelligence. They question our taste. It drives us absolutely crazy. In our quest to carve a better life, all we want is an impression of obedience and submission to our masculine dominance.
And I think we deserve it if we earn it. You have to earn it. Otherwise you give real men who know how to control their women with a soft hand and sharp mind a bad name. So here's what you do:
Be a contender, not a pretender...
In order to exert influence and win infinite support from your woman, you need to hold a position of worth in life. You have to stand for something significant. You have to command reverence in your respective field. People should respect your dignity and moral resilience. Why? Simple. Women gravitate toward men of strong character and go to bat for them time and time again. You can be a university professor, a neurosurgeon or a janitor. It matters not. Just be the man who people turn to for advice, counsel and wisdom.
Bend like a reed
Stop me if you know this one:
If a stronger enemy assails you,
better bend like the reed by the stream.
Do not rear like an angry snake
if unremitting prosperity is what you seek.
Following the lowly manner of the reed
a man gains great prosperity in time.
Adopting the overbearing manner of the snake,
he is simply courting death.
*Excerpt from Pancatantra
Your woman may not be a "stronger enemy" or even an enemy at all. There are times however, when she may prove to be a stubborn and formidable adversary. Apply the advice above in order to scuttle convention and curry her favor and loyalty. Remember the moral at hand. Better to bend like a reed than attack like a snake. The reed is buoyant, pliable and endures with time. Mighty oaks may break in a vicious storm, but reeds stand firm and last.
Condition your woman
You have to think like Pavlov in order to condition your woman to behave the way you desire. Your woman may expect you to bark orders at her, criticize her or become angry when she upsets you. But you choose to remain quiet, cast her an intense gaze and speak in a soft tone. Again, you are a reed. In a quarrel or conflict, if you transmit the depth of your disappointment, anger and even rage toward your woman in a cool and quiet manner, not only will you scare her straight, you will gain immeasurable respect and obedience. In good times, when the two of you are in bliss, express your love with as much warmth as possible. Be spontaneous and romantic. Make love to her. Be the man and be her man.
In other words, reward her with affection and attention when she warrants it. Make it comfortable, easy and to her great advantage to submit to you.
Draw her natural feminine instincts out
I'll let you in on a secret: Women want men who take control, not men who are control freaks. The difference is important. Control freaks are narcissists who put their desires and needs first. Men who take control are protectors and leaders. The satiation of their desires and needs are the natural result of the effortless and invisible control they wield. Men who take control take care of their women. They treat them like royalty. They shelter them from harm. They love them and they are loyal. But with a stern voice and demeanor and an unflappable charisma, they engender passionate loyalty in return.
A woman who displays the latter will do anything for her man. She will be a whore in the bedroom, a good mother to his children, a partner in business or in crime, and a fierce defender to his detractors.
The Clint Eastwood tour de force Mystic River has a scene at the end between Sean Penn and Laura Linney that best demonstrates the theory in discussion. In a display of impressive spousal devotion, Linney assures her husband of her steadfast support in the face of a heinous crime. Incredulous, Penn rests his head on the bed as his wife expresses her allegiance and obedience with not only words, but also aggressive sexual advances. "You are the King," she whispers.
How did Sean Penn's character provoke such loyalty in his wife? He was a man who took care of his family. Their respect and the respect of his peers were absolute and pure. As a result, his wife, while no pushover and a strong character in her own right, was ready to exercise his whims and let him lead.
Then you get the power
Be a real man and apply the advice in this article in order to manipulate the mind of your woman and gain control in your relationship. Remember; manipulation is neither cruel nor wrong if you love her. It is wise.
Relationship Correspondent
http://www.askmen.com/dating/dating_advice_100/107_dating_tips.html
Machiavellian: Suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by Machiavelli; marked by cunning, duplicity or bad faith.
The Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli, author of Il Principe ( The Prince ), was an exponent of unscrupulous action in the pursuit of political power. His view was that the world of politics was inherently amoral and that as a result, there were no rules. While not a benevolent maxim, it is not altogether illogical even today. When you operate within a dishonorable system, it is reasonable to achieve authority and dominance by any means necessary.
Of course, love and relationships are not amoral pursuits, although some might disagree. Nor will I pretend that they are comparable to the cesspool of corruption that Machiavelli wrote about some 500 years ago in his landmark treatise. Men today can benefit however, from the great philosopher's advice on how to win influence and gain power over others. In this case, "others" refers to women. How convenient.
First you get the women
The topic at hand is as a result, how to manipulate women and get your way. This is what men try to do on a regular basis but with calamitous results. The hold they have on their significant others is so temporary, so weak and so deceptive, that before they even sense it, their woman has them by the balls again.
Is it amoral, as the political reality of Machiavelli was, to dispense this advice? Is it wrong? How can a man and woman foster a lifetime commitment on trust and respect when one is out to manipulate the other for personal gain and satisfaction? Simple. She must never know your intentions or methods to influence her mind.
With wily deceit, you must approach this technique like a martial art: discipline, prudence and stealth are your friends. But whereas in practice martial arts seek to exploit the physical leverage of an opponent to gain the advantage, female mind manipulation in the context of a relationship must use mental leverage to do the same.
Despite the cloak of Machiavellian wisdom, female mind manipulation borrows from the restraint of Confucius, the quiet ruthless practices of Sun Tzu and the meditation of Zen. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it make a sound? If you bend your woman to your will and she is oblivious to the fact, did you even manipulate her mind in the first place? Think about it.
Do you have to be a Jedi Knight of the subconscious to pull this off? Does it have to be this complex? Well to be honest with you, yes. Women are intricate creatures and, unless vulnerable because of innate insecurity, trauma or low intelligence, resist deception with maddening ease.
They question our judgment. They question our expertise. They question our intelligence. They question our taste. It drives us absolutely crazy. In our quest to carve a better life, all we want is an impression of obedience and submission to our masculine dominance.
And I think we deserve it if we earn it. You have to earn it. Otherwise you give real men who know how to control their women with a soft hand and sharp mind a bad name. So here's what you do:
Be a contender, not a pretender...
In order to exert influence and win infinite support from your woman, you need to hold a position of worth in life. You have to stand for something significant. You have to command reverence in your respective field. People should respect your dignity and moral resilience. Why? Simple. Women gravitate toward men of strong character and go to bat for them time and time again. You can be a university professor, a neurosurgeon or a janitor. It matters not. Just be the man who people turn to for advice, counsel and wisdom.
Bend like a reed
Stop me if you know this one:
If a stronger enemy assails you,
better bend like the reed by the stream.
Do not rear like an angry snake
if unremitting prosperity is what you seek.
Following the lowly manner of the reed
a man gains great prosperity in time.
Adopting the overbearing manner of the snake,
he is simply courting death.
*Excerpt from Pancatantra
Your woman may not be a "stronger enemy" or even an enemy at all. There are times however, when she may prove to be a stubborn and formidable adversary. Apply the advice above in order to scuttle convention and curry her favor and loyalty. Remember the moral at hand. Better to bend like a reed than attack like a snake. The reed is buoyant, pliable and endures with time. Mighty oaks may break in a vicious storm, but reeds stand firm and last.
Condition your woman
You have to think like Pavlov in order to condition your woman to behave the way you desire. Your woman may expect you to bark orders at her, criticize her or become angry when she upsets you. But you choose to remain quiet, cast her an intense gaze and speak in a soft tone. Again, you are a reed. In a quarrel or conflict, if you transmit the depth of your disappointment, anger and even rage toward your woman in a cool and quiet manner, not only will you scare her straight, you will gain immeasurable respect and obedience. In good times, when the two of you are in bliss, express your love with as much warmth as possible. Be spontaneous and romantic. Make love to her. Be the man and be her man.
In other words, reward her with affection and attention when she warrants it. Make it comfortable, easy and to her great advantage to submit to you.
Draw her natural feminine instincts out
I'll let you in on a secret: Women want men who take control, not men who are control freaks. The difference is important. Control freaks are narcissists who put their desires and needs first. Men who take control are protectors and leaders. The satiation of their desires and needs are the natural result of the effortless and invisible control they wield. Men who take control take care of their women. They treat them like royalty. They shelter them from harm. They love them and they are loyal. But with a stern voice and demeanor and an unflappable charisma, they engender passionate loyalty in return.
A woman who displays the latter will do anything for her man. She will be a whore in the bedroom, a good mother to his children, a partner in business or in crime, and a fierce defender to his detractors.
The Clint Eastwood tour de force Mystic River has a scene at the end between Sean Penn and Laura Linney that best demonstrates the theory in discussion. In a display of impressive spousal devotion, Linney assures her husband of her steadfast support in the face of a heinous crime. Incredulous, Penn rests his head on the bed as his wife expresses her allegiance and obedience with not only words, but also aggressive sexual advances. "You are the King," she whispers.
How did Sean Penn's character provoke such loyalty in his wife? He was a man who took care of his family. Their respect and the respect of his peers were absolute and pure. As a result, his wife, while no pushover and a strong character in her own right, was ready to exercise his whims and let him lead.
Then you get the power
Be a real man and apply the advice in this article in order to manipulate the mind of your woman and gain control in your relationship. Remember; manipulation is neither cruel nor wrong if you love her. It is wise.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)