What Women Want

[watchin]

It seems that men are feeling quite sensitive to the honest observation I made when a handful of men chose not to walk up to the "Underwood Project", to say "Hello". The couple of women who, incidentally crashed the party, even came up just to thank us for the calling. I thought it gracious, and appreciated their introducing themselves. Granted I'm a successful American woman. I'll not apologize for it, so anyone who is about to crack me open...please refrain. Please, don't say anything!



In thinking about the can of very interesting worms...some of which I don't necessarily feel like eating, I was thinking about a conversation we Gorgeous women were having just before the first of the guys approached us. We all agreed that the most appealing man in American cinema to date is Johnny Depp. After having a slew of writings from men who Really dislike their role as "Men", I thought about this iconic figure...and what makes him so damned appealing to us. Mind you guys, he rarely appears fighting. When he does in Pirates of the Caribbean, he is does it with effeminate grace, with rotting teeth, and thick prostitutesque eyeliner. Why is this guy so intriguing to us women?



What women want is finesse, sensitivity, and a person who is willing to take a risk to get whatever it is they want. I for one am drawn to the pirate type, because I am a non-conformist (in most ways). This (risk) is the part I purposefully referred to in "Peaceful Women", as (testosterone). Please do not correct me. I intended to say that, and still mean it! Now granted, it has been said that I have balls...which I shall only take as a compliment... what is meant by that is that I am not afraid to speak my mind. Shoot me, hang me, throw tomatoes if you want...I speak off the cuff and have fun doing so. When I have offended someone, (my feet taste quite delicious) I feel badly and will do my best to understand where I when wrong and make amends. Amen! Such is life with a big mouth.



Back to Johnny...In Edward Scissor Hands, he was childlike. He was downright sexy as the guitar slinging Gypsy River Boy in Chocolat, quirky, hysterically funny, and down to earth in Benny and Joon. He is sensitive because he takes time to listen, (a very, very important feature to women). We like that he is creative. When given artistic license, he takes his character over the top...to a place that combines an overt, assuredness, never violent, but always honest and human. I speak of him because in so many of the emails I have received...some of them quite laborious to read, men are freaking out because they don't want to live up to the John Wayne/Bruce Willis/Sylvester Stalone character or role they think we women want. Perhaps...and I mean perhaps, these cultural ideas regarding who you are supposed to model yourselves after are skewed due to their source... growing up with TV in the 50s and 60s, watching football, and perhaps having fathers who told you not to cry. If you ask me...I say cry! I do it everyday...for all sorts of reasons!



Don't take what I'm saying for the bible. Check it out for yourself. Ask the women in your lives who their favorite male role is...in life or in the movies... and ask them why they like that character. Perhaps my group of friends are in a bubble of our own...but my guess is that there is a pulse here that is quite modern and American.



We like Johnny's American Indian roots...which are earth loving. We love that he adores his family, and that his favorite thing to do at home is watch his wife be a Mommy. We like that he looks you in the eye. We like that when he's sitting in a boring circle on Good Morning America, he sloshes some wine down just to deal with the strangeness of it all...the circus act that it feels. In Don Juan de Marco, he weaves a story of his parent's love for one another, and of his own love for a woman, with such mesmerizing drama, he changes forever, the life of the psychiatrist who attends him, so that he (the psychiatrist) no longer has a choice, but must begin to understand what is important to the wife he'd lived with for 30 years and still does not know. What does she feel? He wants to spend the rest of his life discovering her.


Steve was a rather shy guy who came right up to us on the first night at the Underwood. I loved watching his nervousness. He felt, so obviously self-conscious. He drew up the courage to engage despite it all. His expressions were like watching a child who is clearly on the spot for doing something bad. He was writhing with uncertainty...and so human. Suddenly, he started joking in a Transylvanian accent..."I love you...I kill you!" "You are so sweet...I must have you... ah but you must die." It was sick, compassionate, lustful, delicious, and fabulously funny. I laughed...and am still laughing. That guy pulled up his bootstraps...we like that! Steve...where the hell are you? Type with one finger at a time!


There you have it...more words to twist into hopefully beautiful bows of life!

A Gorgeous Woman

The above writing is intended for those who seek to understand what is going on in a Sonoma County woman's head. It does not represent the entire poplulation of Sonoma County women. If you are one of those on the other side of of the fence, or my brain, please, rather than correcting this woman's head, write what it is you would like. Men...feel free to do the same. It is kind of fun! If it doesn't seem like fun, then this is an opportunity to break out of that straight-jacket and begin. Don't hesitate to use expletives...I never read any rules!

[Sonomamark]

This is interesting, but also seems to have some blind spots. I find the whole Johnny Depp thing particularly telling, because I can't think of a single Depp role wherein he hasn't ended up resorting to violence at some point, while being sensitive and somewhat effeminate elsewhen. Sure, he hot when he's open and warm and feeling, so long as he's still up for running some steel through a Bad Guy in the fourth act. What the poster is talking about, at root, is power: she wants a guy to have it, to have the sense that it's there, but for him actually to use it only very rarely.

My experience with this--as a strong-willed kind of guy who has two volumes of poetry out, sings early music and hasn't been in a fight since middle school (fencing in college doesn't count)--has been that guys who are ONLY soft don't do well in the relational game. And I've seen a good bit of the stereotypical deal, as well, where the sensitive sweet guy ends up an involuntarily celibate confidant to women "friends" while the bad guy biker dudes get all the horizontal action.

l find that generalizations about what X kind of person wants are about as useful as, say, the generalization that to repair a flat tire, you need some kind of tool. True, but insufficiently defined to be of value. There's somebody out there who will be attracted to any kind of person who has ever walked the earth. But finding partnership is a numbers game--it's no consolation knowing someone is out there for you if the odds are there are only three on the whole planet.

Back to Depp. Disneyfied images of "pirates" aside, real pirates are and were Macchiavellian, violent, and selfish. So I'm not sure where the attraction is--I imagine that part of it has to do with flamboyant clothing, since the modern uniform for guys allows so little latitude for creativity and color. When I read about the attractiveness of a person who is "willing to take a risk to get whatever it is he wants," I find myself thinking of Michael Milken, Oliver North and Ken Lay. But somehow, I don't think that was what the writer was thinking of.

So I read the subtext of this post as saying, "I (and she generalizes to "we", which is...well, ambitious, to say the least) want an emotionally available guy who nonetheless has a willingness to resort to aggression if it gets the job done." That's a far cry from "I want a sensitive New Age guy." It throws "peacefulness" out the window, if necessary. And it raises problematic questions about why--and whether it's appropriate-- an incipient capacity for some level of violence seems to be a prerequisite for attractiveness in men.

I will say from experience that back in the 80s, I was in grad school in women's studies at San Francisco State and I was bending over backwards to be peaceful and 70s-era-feminism-compliant nonaggressive. Yet my repeated experience in relationships (with self-possessed feminist women of that same context) was that we would always arrive at a point where it was "discovered" that despite all the conscientious values we were learning and expressing in our seminars, what my partners wanted was a lot more aggressiveness on my part. What was hot turned out to be what was wrong, forbidden, &c, not what Andrea Dworkin and Susan Griffin were telling us we were supposed to like. You know, it doesn't take too much of that kind of feedback before you start to go with what you want instead of what you've been told you're supposed to want.

Bottom line: it's a big ol' world, full of Ozzie and Harriet wannabees and female tops and male bottoms and every other power dynamic under the sun. You can't draw general conclusions, and trying to do so to hit on a "winning formula" for approaching a gaggle of unattached men or women is a losing proposition at the outset. Be yourself, and go. If you encounter a wall of attitude, either what you have isn't wanted or you're dealing with people who have issues with intimacy and and have a hard time getting close. Or both. Don't take it personally and move on. But for the sky's sake don't try to pretend to be somebody else. That way lies madness, misery, and, even if it works short-term, an ugly reckoning.

[pexpert6]

People routinely delude themselves about what they want, how they would behave or respond in a given situation. Sonomamark has some astute insight in this regard.

There's wisdom in the saying "pay attention to what he/she DOES, not what they say." If watchin someday reports she's marrying Steve (and we get the FULL story on Steve's nature), then I might believe what she's said.

I've observed thousands of women TALK about what they want (and often confess they don't know what they want). Yet when that sort of man shows up and gives them attention, they ignore him and choose someone else. Someone else who is NOT like they claim to want hardly at all. And the ensuing relationships are generally not healthy, nor do they often last. The women, upon looking back, reaffirm what they "want", yet don't choose it.

When I was young, I was a SNAG (sensative new age guy). Oh, I got laid, I got relationships, but they didn't last. And believe me, I cried. I realized eventually that women are generally full of shit about this stuff they proclaim. What's more, I realized I needed to stop trying to be someone that someone else thought I should be, and be true to me... and took time to figure out who exactly that was.

Another thing I noticed is that women are every bit as superficial as they accuse men of being. It became so predictable, I could use it to get women to pursue me, sexually. Yet if I showed parts of myself that didn't fit their fantasy pictures, they'd disappear quickly.

Now that I've used the word "fantasy," notice that watchin has chosen fantasies to focus her desires upon. Actors, playing a part. Actors in a film and celebrities in the spotlight are likely NOT so much like the persona they portray. AND what you see from a distance for a few minutes is quite different when you live with someone 365 days a year.

16 years ago, I dated a woman who asked "are you romantic?" I knew that this was a loaded question, so I asked what "romantic" was to HER. She replied with the usual "flowers/roses." So I posed two scenarios. In one, a very geeky, homely guy brings her 2 dozen long stemmed red roses. Her reaction, and that of dozens of other women I've posed it to: ICK.

Next, I asked them to imagine they're expecting to go on a date with a dreamy guy who ends up being an hour late without calling. As he dashes up to her door, sweatty, disheveled and out of breath, he spies some dandelions in her yard. He scoops them up, knocks, and as she opens the door, he sheepishly hands them to her, looks down and apologizes. Every woman I've posed THIS scenario to visibly swoons in front of me.

I had already figured out what women RESPOND to as "romantic," but this experiment confirmed it. And it DOES depend on WHO is doing it: women have much more rigid fantasies about the men they want than men do about women.

And by the way, this woman eventually decided I didn't measure up to her Fantasy, she chose another guy to marry... and has been struggling with his anger issues in a rocky marriage ever since.

I've spent over 30 years ferreting out my own hidden limiting beliefs, observing and working with others to do the same. 99% + of everyone you meet (and damn near certainly you) believe their own BS. They point to one or two examples as proof positive, without looking at EVERY instance (particularly the ones that work).

Believe results. Believe repeated behavior. If it agrees with what they say, great.

But I'll point to the discrepancy in how many lasting happy relationships exist around here versus Middle America or some other country. Around here, LOTS more single unhappy people, generally blaming something or someone else.

Not only for myself, but in observing others, when one seriously works on themselves, finds their own happiness, and shares that happy self freely with others, FAR more wonderful and compatible people fill their lives. And no one else is wrong for how they are. Wounded, misguided, ineffectual, perhaps. Just people who haven't discovered the Secret.

The Secret AIN'T trying to be Johnny Depp.

[Looksgood]

People routinely delude themselves about what they want, how they would behave or respond in a given situation. Sonomamark has some astute insight in this regard.
...
The Secret AIN'T trying to be Johnny Depp.

I think both of you have some very astute thoughts about this. I had read the original post and was mulling over a response, and before I had set finger to keyboard, the above two resonses said pretty much everything I had been thinking. And all in what seems to me to be a gentle and non-confrontational manner. This is exactly the kind of discussion I enjoy reading and participating in.

Patrick

[watchin]

Wowee Boys…


Thanks for the Tomatoes, they were delicious….Heirloom I believe!
Indeed…blind spots, missing data.

The knee jerk response called, “What Women Want”, was to this, only
one of a handful of private emails I laboriously dragged myself through on how some men around here feel about the roles they believe society is pushing them into. The point which I failed to effectively make, was that if you are trying to attract us based on what you think we want, it ain’t John Wayne, Bruce Willis, or Sylvester Stallone. Of course there still exist women who are attracted to these guys...they don’t happen, yet, to hang with my friends. Please try not to take me literally. I am talking about an image projected by these guys, which men model themselves after. “Our culture's male heroes reflect those characteristics.”


The very kind gentleman who sent this privately to me appropriately titled it, “More Blather”. I’m now fairly certain that many of you guys will be given some of the answers you’ve been looking for. Answers can be illuminating.
If you have a difficult time getting through it all, you are allowed to skip to the point I was trying to make below it....However I warn you...it is just more blather.


The High Cost of Manliness
by Robert Jensen


It's hard to be a man; hard to live up to the demands that come with the dominant conception of masculinity, of the tough guy.


So, guys, I have an idea -- maybe it's time we stop trying. Maybe this masculinity thing is a bad deal, not just for women but for us.


We need to get rid of the whole idea of masculinity. It's time to abandon the claim that there are certain psychological or social traits that inherently come with being biologically male. If we can get past that, we have a chance to create a better world for men and women.


That dominant conception of masculinity in U.S. culture is easily summarized: Men are assumed to be naturally competitive and aggressive, and being a real man is therefore marked by the struggle for control, conquest and domination. A man looks at the world, sees what he wants and takes it. Men who don't measure up are wimps, sissies, fags, girls. The worst insult one man can hurl at another -- whether it's boys on the playground or CEOs in the boardroom -- is the accusation that a man is like a woman. Although the culture acknowledges that men can in some situations have traits traditionally associated with women (caring, compassion, tenderness), in the end it is men's strength-expressed-as-toughness that defines us and must trump any female-like softness. Those aspects of masculinity must prevail for a man to be a "real man."

That's not to suggest, of course, that every man adopts that view of masculinity. But it is endorsed in key institutions and activities -- most notably in business, the military and athletics -- and is reinforced through the mass media. It is particularly expressed in the way men -- straight and gay alike -- talk about sexuality and act sexually. And our culture's male heroes reflect those characteristics: They most often are men who take charge rather than seek consensus, seize power rather than look for ways to share it and are willing to be violent to achieve their goals.


That view of masculinity is dangerous for women. It leads men to seek to control "their" women and define their own pleasure in that control, which leads to epidemic levels of rape and battery. But this view of masculinity is toxic for men as well.

If masculinity is defined as conquest, it means that men will always struggle with each other for dominance. In a system premised on hierarchy and power, there can be only one king of the hill. Every other man must in some way be subordinated to the king, and the king has to always be nervous about who is coming up that hill to get him. A friend who once worked on Wall Street -- one of the preeminent sites of masculine competition -- described coming to work as like walking into a knife fight when all the good spots along the wall were taken. Masculinity like this is life lived as endless competition and threat.


No one man created this system, and perhaps none of us, if given a choice, would choose it. But we live our lives in that system, and it deforms men, narrowing our emotional range and depth. It keeps us from the rich connections with others -- not just with women and children, but other men
-- that make life meaningful but require vulnerability.

This doesn't mean that the negative consequences of this toxic masculinity are equally dangerous for men and women. As feminists have long pointed out, there's a big difference between women dealing with the possibility of being raped, beaten and killed by the men in their lives, and men not being able to cry. But we can see that the short-term material gains that men get are not adequate compensation for what we men give up in the long haul -- which is to surrender part of our humanity to the project of dominance.

Of course there are obvious physical differences between men and women -- average body size, hormones, reproductive organs. There may be other differences rooted in our biology that we don't yet understand. Yet it's also true that men and women are more similar than we are different, and that given the pernicious effects of centuries of patriarchy and its relentless devaluing of things female, we should be skeptical of the perceived differences.

What we know is simple: In any human population, there is wide individual variation. While there's no doubt that a large part of our behavior is rooted in our DNA, there's also no doubt that our genetic endowment is highly influenced by culture. Beyond that, it's difficult to say much with any certainty. It's true that only women can bear children and breastfeed.

That fact likely has some bearing on aspects of men's and women's personalities. But we don't know much about what the effect is, and given the limits of our tools to understand human behavior, it's possible we may never know much.


At the moment, the culture seems obsessed with gender differences, in the context of a recurring intellectual fad (called "evolutionary psychology"
this time around, and "sociobiology" in a previous incarnation) that wants to explain all complex behaviors as simple evolutionary adaptations -- if a pattern of human behavior exists, it must be because it's adaptive in some ways. In the long run, that's true by definition. But in the short-term it's hardly a convincing argument to say, "Look at how men and women behave so differently; it must be because men and women are fundamentally different"
when a political system has been creating differences between men and women.

From there, the argument that we need to scrap masculinity is fairly simple.
To illustrate it, remember back to right after 9/11. A number of commentators argued that criticisms of masculinity should be rethought.
Cannot we now see -- recognizing that male firefighters raced into burning buildings, risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives to save others -- that masculinity can encompass a kind of strength that is rooted in caring and sacrifice? Of course men often exhibit such strength, just as do women.

So, the obvious question arises: What makes these distinctly masculine characteristics? Are they not simply human characteristics?


We identify masculine tendencies toward competition, domination and violence because we see patterns of differential behavior; men are more prone to such behavior in our culture. We can go on to observe and analyze the ways in which men are socialized to behave in those ways, toward the goal of changing those destructive behaviors. That analysis is different than saying that admirable human qualities present in both men and women are somehow primarily the domain of one gender. To assign them to a gender is misguided and demeaning to the gender that is then assumed not to possess them to the same degree. Once we start saying "strength and courage are masculine traits," it leads to the conclusion that woman are not as strong or courageous.

Of course, if we are going to jettison masculinity, we have to scrap femininity along with it. We have to stop trying to define what men and women are going to be in the world based on extrapolations from physical sex differences. That doesn't mean we ignore those differences when they matter, but we have to stop assuming they matter everywhere.


I don't think the planet can long survive if the current conception of masculinity endures. We face political and ecological challenges that can't be met with this old model of what it means to be a man. At the more intimate level, the stakes are just as high. For those of us who are biologically male, we have a simple choice: We men can settle for being men, or we can strive to be human beings.
****************************************************************************************

Back to the point I failed to make…



Using (forgive me Johnny), a model who really has a positive effect on my girlfriends and I, my attempt was to utilize the behavior represented in a handful of films and the little bit I know of this lovely man’s private life, to convey TRAITS we are attracted to. This is not to say we wish you all to become Johnny Depp, although a few more of him would not be a bad thing…lol. My goal was to let you know that the softer yous are ok….you don’t need to be Mr. macho tough guy to find us…in a bistro or in life.


In answer to the Pirate thing…in the winter I read a book called Frenchman’s Creek. His was the Disneyfied character on which I formulated my Pirate attraction. More importantly, was “her” distaste for the blather inherent in society…and so she retreats to the country where she happens upon “Him”.

Hence the fact that I live in the country and after all this…am looking to go deeper! Envision the long grey haired (gorgeous) witch living amongst the animals, singing them songs and living happily ever after.

The part that thoroughly confuses me over and over again is why 6 emails and numerous postings have referred to aggressiveness….when I am talking about walking across the room to say “Hello”. Aggression is a fear based behavior. Assertiveness (which does not require “bloodshed”), is when one sets fear aside and takes a step forward. Perhaps I misunderstand these words?

It is statements like, “Women are generally full of shit about this stuff they proclaim”, that make me wonder if I waste my time.

“Be yourself, and go.”
“Pay attention to what he/she does, not what they say”
These are suggestions that two of you made which I ring true to my experience. Thank you for reminding us all..



Yes, women talk…sometimes just to figure out what it is we think and feel. Words are to try to figure life out. Where do we fit in…who do we feel right with? That’s why women talk. It’s not a bad thing. There are even a few who have managed to find what it is they “Want”. This gives hope to those who dream.


A gorgeous woman with tomato seeds dripping from her chin.

[Dixon]

I wanna add my $.01 worth to the cogent comments of pexpert (who, with a name like that, is presumably a urologist :) and Sonomamark. Their observations largely match mine.

Evolutionarily, it makes sense for women to choose strong, aggressive men, men who will get food and bring it home to baby even if they have to kick another guy's ass and steal it from him. Such men's DNA is more likely to be passed down to the next generation, partly because women choose them as mates, and partly because such men obey the evolutionary imperative to get their seed into as many wombs as possible, sometimes through the simple expedient of rape, more often through aggressive behavior such as being pushy, jealous, possessive, domineering etc.

In modern times, male strength has little to do with muscles and a lot to do with money, which takes us back to my previous point that women, consciously or otherwise, tend to screen out poorer men when they seek lovers. And again, as they're just following their genetic programming, it's pointless for us to be mad at women about this, just as it's pointless to be mad at men just because our genetic programming causes us to lust after every young cutie we see.

The result is that guys like myself, who respect women and try to follow the Golden Rule, making sure we're not transgressing their boundaries, suffer (considerably) from the "Galahad Syndrome"--i.e., we have lots of female friends who see us as their brother (or maybe more like their sister), but we rarely get rewarded sexually. One of life's tragic lessons is to live year after year in our loneliness while all around us we see less considerate guys being rewarded by women for being aggressive and macho and not taking "no" for an answer. Women typically "like" sensitive guys, but are sexually turned on by "bad boys".

An example from my own experience: In the early 80's my roommate Monica, to whom I was very attracted, came to me complaining that our other roomie Alex was harrassing her for sex and not taking "no" for an answer. I listened empathically and suggested that since the harrassment was typically done in a joking matter, maybe he didn't realize that her "no" was serious. I told her to tell him very seriously, in no uncertain terms, that she really meant her "no" so he would know it wasn't all a big joke, and I promised that if he didn't back off then, I would intervene with him. The next thing I knew, Monica and Alex were lovers. Here's what I learned from this: "No" doesn't always mean no; sometimes it means "Show me you really want me by continuing to harass me and I'll reward you for it, you sexy bad boy".

Another example from my experience: In the late 80's, my very attractive friend Helen expressed some interest in me, so we got together. She gave me hints that she had some submissive tendencies, so I started to get a bit aggressive with her, but she kept stopping me. (At that time I was inexperienced and didn't know about the concept of a "safety word", an agreed-upon code word that allows aggressive sex play to continue even if one partner says "No" or "Stop"). Out date dissolved in mutual frustration, and we never got together again, much to my dismay. A couple of years later, I was talking about this with her, and she said "Yeah, you sure gave up easily". Here's what I learned from this: "No" doesn't always mean no; sometimes it means "Force me, because that really turns me on."

I'm also reminded of something a girlfriend told me about how she responds to men who ask if they may kiss her: her policy is "If you have to ask, the answer is no".

So "Galahads" like me who err on the side of making sure we aren't harassing or forcing women are punished with unwanted celibacy, frustration and loneliness, while aggressive bad boys who violate women's stated boundaries, or make lots of $$ by exploiting people, trashing the planet for short-term profit, etc., are commonly rewarded by women. And to top it off, most women are in denial of the fact that they themselves are partly responsible for men's nasty behavior because they're rewarding it.

I think that what most women really want is for men they find unattractive to honor their stated boundaries, and for men they find attractive to "violate" them by being sexually aggressive. Of course, since we men aren't telepathic, we rarely know for sure which category we're in, so we're faced with a choice between two policies: err on the side of being an unaggressive Galahad who makes sure he's never transgressing a woman's boundaries, or err on the side of being an aggressive bad boy who's willing to step on women in order to get the occasional sexual reward, even though that's dangerous if you misread a woman's signals and end up getting in trouble for "harassment" or worse.

I hope this sheds some light on both the issues and the feelings involved.

Love;

Dixon

[Dixon]

A brief postscript to my previous post: Helen, if you're out there (you know who you are), call me at 527-6163. I promise to treat you roughly, "violate" you in various deliciously nasty ways, and not take "No" for an answer.

Tough love;

Dixon

[saysni]

...I find the whole Johnny Depp thing particularly telling, because I can't think of a single Depp role wherein he hasn't ended up resorting to violence at some point...

As i recall i believe good ol' Johnny D. did not resort to violence in the movie "Blow", although it's just as likely he was involved in some violence at some point in the flicker; it kind of went with the territory. Most certainly(?) he did NOT go there (at least outwardly) in the movie "Beyond Neverland" (i think that's what it was called, about C.C. Lewis[?] - my recall SUCKS and i only read Tolkien as a child, no bookworm i). But i digress...

I just want to say: Thanks everyone re: ...Gorgeous Women/What They Want; what a minefield relationships and courtship (does THAT even exist anymore?) can be. It's been SO long for me i do believe i've forgotten how. However, i'm confident(!) when "it" happens again it'll be just like riding a bicycle. Although these days i feel more like a fish than a man.
Marsha, are you (still) out there? I'm still here...with time running out...your last words whispered in my ear still echoing, "Have a nice life". I'm still alive so it must be all right...
Well wishes to all,
-Stuart

[quaaquaaa]

in the pirate movie, johnny depp was a disappointment to me. the notorious bad guy always in trouble and ultimately in need of rescue Likely to wait 5 yrs for him to get out of prison only to have him marry several other women all at the same time, running off with all their bank accounts and drinking himself into oblivion. Johnny depp in other movies was , on the other hand much more interesting. But I wouldnt call him my fantasy man, and I probably dont have one, altho Lord Brahma would be my first choice. As for the choice between the Siva aspects and the Vedic aspects, a balance would be nice. Lord Siva for the bedroom, or kitchen table for that matter, and Vishnu for the soul. Right now i would like to find a mortal man who is sound of body, strong of heart, and clear of thought, sexy as hell. I prefer a man with dark flaming eyes who does not have a propensity for duality of purpose, but who may have a multifaceted personality, reasonably educated, artistic tendencies, who wants a one man one woman relationship. [email protected]

In thinking about the can of very interesting worms...some of which I don't necessarily feel like eating, I was thinking about a conversation we Gorgeous women were having just before the first of the guys approached us. We all agreed that the most appealing man in American cinema to date is Johnny Depp. After having a slew of writings from men who Really dislike their role as "Men", I thought about this iconic figure...and what makes him so damned appealing to us. Mind you guys, he rarely appears fighting. When he does in Pirates of the Caribbean, he is does it with effeminate grace, with rotting teeth, and thick prostitutesque eyeliner. Why is this guy so intriguing to us women?
{snip}

[ThePhiant]

the only thing interesting about your rant is that YOU desire to be with a man that is 1)not available 2) not real(this is a movie role) 3) someone you will most likely never meet!
are you really intereted in relationships or do you just want to masterbate your mind???

It seems that men are feeling quite sensitive to the honest observation I made when a handful of men chose not to walk up to the "Underwood Project", to say "Hello". The couple of women who, incidentally crashed the party, even came up just to thank us for the calling. I thought it gracious, and appreciated their introducing themselves. Granted I'm a successful American woman. I'll not apologize for it, so anyone who is about to crack me open...please refrain. Please, don't say anything!

In thinking about the can of very interesting worms...some of which I don't necessarily feel like eating, I was thinking about a conversation we Gorgeous women were having just before the first of the guys approached us. We all agreed that the most appealing man in American cinema to date is Johnny Depp. After having a slew of writings from men who Really dislike their role as "Men", I thought about this iconic figure...and what makes him so damned appealing to us. Mind you guys, he rarely appears fighting. When he does in Pirates of the Caribbean, he is does it with effeminate grace, with rotting teeth, and thick prostitutesque eyeliner. Why is this guy so intriguing to us women?

{snip}

[rodeogal]

Interesting that you believe that men like this don't exist. Actually, I think it's sad that you're so limited in your thinking, and that you assume that she is the ONLY one who wants a man like that. I, in fact, have a man like what she described, and he is wonderful! Never assume that men like that are not available, not real or that we women will never meet someone like that. My suggestion for you is to expand your mind to infinite possibilities, due to the fact that nothing is impossible. Especially for those of us who believe that.


And Watchin, I would love to know more about your project! It sounds really interesting!

And by the way, I also think Johnny Depp is delicious! Yummy!!

the only thing interesting about your rant is that YOU desire to be with a man that is 1)not available 2) not real(this is a movie role) 3) someone you will most likely never meet!
are you really intereted in relationships or do you just want to masterbate your mind???

[Barry]

And Watchin, I would love to know more about your project! It sounds really interesting!

I'm sorry to say that Watchin decided to leave WaccoBB.net several weeks ago because she was unhappy by my decision to move this thread into the new Conscious Relationship category.

[Sabrina]

I second, Johnny Depp is delicious, especially in "Don Juan"!

[ThePhiant]

Interesting that you believe that men like this don't exist. Actually, I think it's sad that you're so limited in your thinking, and that you assume that she is the ONLY one who wants a man like that. I, in fact, have a man like what she described, and he is wonderful! Never assume that men like that are not available, not real or that we women will never meet someone like that. My suggestion for you is to expand your mind to infinite possibilities, due to the fact that nothing is impossible. Especially for those of us who believe that.


And Watchin, I would love to know more about your project! It sounds really interesting!

And by the way, I also think Johnny Depp is delicious! Yummy!!

Johnny Depp is delicious??????????? wow!!!
Do you KNOW him or are you just in lalala land with his movie characters?
I too know a man who has all those wonderful and wild qualities of JD' characters, he hasn't had a steady job all of his life, but he always finds a woman to take care of him.
COULD THAT BE YOU?

[pbrinton]

This thread has had me gaping for some time now. It makes me wonder what the reaction of our female participants would have been if the same post (mutatis mutandis) had been written by a man. I have long fantasized over Michelle Pfeiffer, for instance (among others!), but I have a firm grasp on the fact that this is a fantasy, and that the roles she plays have nothing to do with the person she is, or with real life, and that even what I know (from newspapers and magazines) about her personal life is probably equally fictional. And even if all the things that attract me about her are really true, she may very well have other sides to her character that would be a real turn-off to me. And even if that were not true, I doubt she (or her fantasy double) would even give me the time of day, since such a paragon would have a large percentage of the male population to choose from!

I would never dream of expecting the real women I meet to fulfill these fantasies, and I am astouded that apparently adult women would indulge in this kind of conversation in a public forum. If this is typical of West Sonoma County women, maybe it is time to move somewhere more in touch with reality.

Patrick

Johnny Depp is delicious??????????? wow!!!
Do you KNOW him or are you just in lalala land with his movie characters?
I too know a man who has all those wonderful and wild qualities of JD' characters, he hasn't had a steady job all of his life, but he always finds a woman to take care of him.
COULD THAT BE YOU?

[rodeogal]

You know, it's amazing to me that people cannot read something and not take every single letter for gospel, and furthermore, reads so much more into what was meant. Now, tell me dear men in this community, that none of you think of any actresses as delicious? If you say you don't, you are a liar. The fact that many of us women delight in Johnny Depp is nothing more than admiring the qualities that he portrays in his movies or in real life (at least those parts that we see). Do I want someone exactly like him? No, I don't. Now, ThePhiant, regarding my man......no he is not some charismatic bum that I support. The qualities that my man has that I was speaking of were the sensitive, able to cry, able to communicate, works a consistant and well-paying job (we each pay half of all the house bills), takes pride in his work and his community (as do I).....basically the qualities that Watchin was trying to say would be nice to see more of in men. On that note, I agree with her......I just happen to be one of the lucky ones that does have a REAL man with sensitive AND STRONG qualities (and I do not mean physically strong). Patrick, if you are so astounded that women would talk about such things, maybe you need to realize that women are in touch with reality, just that women are not wired the same as men.........or maybe you just need to get out of the 40's where such things are not to be talked about!! (God forbid!)

The basic bottom line here for some of us women, as I will not speak for all women, is that although we do have our fantasies (which is PERFECTLY okay), we do not expect our men to be that exactly. On the other hand, these same of us women, I for sure, do realize that men have fantasies about delicious women (and unless you're gay, if you don't there's something wrong with you--IN MY OPINION), yet they do not expect their women to be that fantasy. It's amazing to me when I read these threads that so many people take so much offense to so many things, and make such effort to say hurtful things. Yes, ThePhiant, I think Johnny is delicious.....and there's something wrong with that? Hmm.....don't think you're someone I want to have in my immediate life. It's too bad people have to be like this........

This thread has had me gaping for some time now. It makes me wonder what the reaction of our female participants would have been if the same post (mutatis mutandis) had been written by a man. I have long fantasized over Michelle Pfeiffer, for instance (among others!), but I have a firm grasp on the fact that this is a fantasy, and that the roles she plays have nothing to do with the person she is, or with real life, and that even what I know (from newspapers and magazines) about her personal life is probably equally fictional. And even if all the things that attract me about her are really true, she may very well have other sides to her character that would be a real turn-off to me. And even if that were not true, I doubt she (or her fantasy double) would even give me the time of day, since such a paragon would have a large percentage of the male population to choose from!

I would never dream of expecting the real women I meet to fulfill these fantasies, and I am astouded that apparently adult women would indulge in this kind of conversation in a public forum. If this is typical of West Sonoma County women, maybe it is time to move somewhere more in touch with reality.

Patrick

[ThePhiant]

Yes, ThePhiant, I think Johnny is delicious.....and there's something wrong with that? Hmm.....don't think you're someone I want to have in my immediate life. It's too bad people have to be like this........

your last sentence proves my point; you are very judgemental about people you don't even know. did you by the way think that I was a man................

[rodeogal]

My sentence proves nothing except that you take one thing someone says and decide who and what that person is about in their entire life. And I'm judgemental? I'm only making an observation that you are not someone who I want in my immediate life based on all your ranting. I'm actually not a judgemental person at all......I make my decisions on my observations. You can do what you want, I just choose to not have you around me.........although if I saw you in public, I would be polite as I am to everyone. I've also made no judgement as to whether you're a man or woman, and it makes no difference to me. I'll say again........it's too bad people have to be like this.

"Yes, ThePhiant, I think Johnny is delicious.....and there's something wrong with that? Hmm.....don't think you're someone I want to have in my immediate life. It's too bad people have to be like this........"

your last sentence proves my point; you are very judgemental about people you don't even know. did you by the way think that I was a man................

[ThePhiant]

My sentence proves nothing except that you take one thing someone says and decide who and what that person is about in their entire life. And I'm judgemental? I'm only making an observation that you are not someone who I want in my immediate life based on all your ranting. I'm actually not a judgemental person at all......I make my decisions on my observations. You can do what you want, I just choose to not have you around me.........although if I saw you in public, I would be polite as I am to everyone. I've also made no judgement as to whether you're a man or woman, and it makes no difference to me. I'll say again........it's too bad people have to be like this.

Dear rodeogal,

I had no idea that by making some observations about self-righteous people, I was at the same time applying to become part of your exclusive circle of friends.
did I want to be "around" you???
I liked the one about; "all your ranting". most curious since you outwrite me 10-1 with superficial blabber
"decide who and what that person is about in their entire life", this is quite a statement, what do you base this on? what does it mean?
your vaguest assumption comes at the end:"it's too bad people have to be like this", Are you talking abou yourself? people like this? what does that mean?? like what?

I hope you had a pleasant T-day

[Barry]

From Mrs. Wacco:

Kids! Play nice!....This repartee between rodeogal and ThePhiant is a fine example of people relating not consciously. you're both guilty of poking each other unnecessarily.

Linda

[ThePhiant]

From Mrs. Wacco:

Kids! Play nice!....This repartee between rodeogal and ThePhiant is a fine example of people relating not consciously. you're both guilty of poking each other unnecessarily.

Linda

But mama, she started it, and I was only poking consciously. doesn't that count for something....................

[Dixon]

Hi, Patrick;

In fairness to the ladies, I don't think we need to interpret their previous posts as meaning that they confuse Johnny Depp's screen roles with his real personality. I assumed that they were simply invoking his cinema image(s) as an archetype representing qualities they like in a man (including Mr. Depp's physical beauty), without implying that the real Johnny Depp is much like his cinema images.

But who knows, you could be right--maybe some of the ladies who posted confuse the cinema images with the real Johnny Depp? After all, millions of people apparently voted for Ahnold the Governator because they confused his heroic screen image with reality.

Cheers!

Dixon

This thread has had me gaping for some time now. It makes me wonder what the reaction of our female participants would have been if the same post (mutatis mutandis) had been written by a man. I have long fantasized over Michelle Pfeiffer, for instance (among others!), but I have a firm grasp on the fact that this is a fantasy, and that the roles she plays have nothing to do with the person she is, or with real life, and that even what I know (from newspapers and magazines) about her personal life is probably equally fictional. And even if all the things that attract me about her are really true, she may very well have other sides to her character that would be a real turn-off to me. And even if that were not true, I doubt she (or her fantasy double) would even give me the time of day, since such a paragon would have a large percentage of the male population to choose from!

I would never dream of expecting the real women I meet to fulfill these fantasies, and I am astouded that apparently adult women would indulge in this kind of conversation in a public forum. If this is typical of West Sonoma County women, maybe it is time to move somewhere more in touch with reality.

Patrick

[Mrs. Wacco]

But mama, she started it, and I was only poking consciously. doesn't that count for something....................

Frankly, no. Let's try to practice responsible, respectful communication, even if you think someone is full of s__t. We're trying to make a better world here folks.

[fun2bbobbie]

The title "What Women Want" is a fetching topic. It's definitely given me the opportunity to raise the bar and review what I want. Over the years, depending on that particular stage in my life, I have wanted different things from men and being a woman that changes my mind consistently, which I am sure is true for most, considering our hormonal differences in reference to men, there seems to be a thread that remains the same. "Women want to want." I used to live in a community that was dedicated to researching this particular topic, and it seems that this concurred with the majority of women, no matter what age. The experiences may change but not the theme. If one were to follow this theme as being true, then Men would do well by paying attention to their women with delight when they see that enthusiastic smile or squeel of joy. Some women do know what they want, but my observation is that they would like "menus", sort of like going to a restaurant. i.e. Would you like this, or this, or that. Obviously creativity with this menu, raises the bar each time out. There is a general point of view out there, that men try to stay away from women that are high maintenance, yet, who wants to be with a woman that is not asking her guy to produce lovely experiences for her, so that she can feel gratified with him for being her Hero.
Sometimes, women want to want what they want, and only follow that idea until they see they have had enough of that experience, or they want more, but that is the joy of being with a woman. It keeps the relating fun and exciting. B

[ThePhiant]

hummm,
from your point of view, a man is only a servant to please a woman's whims?????????
I presume that his reward is sex, that is if he has been a good boy.
I am sure that a lot of men feel that way

The title "What Women Want" is a fetching topic. It's definitely given me the opportunity to raise the bar and review what I want. Over the years, depending on that particular stage in my life, I have wanted different things from men and being a woman that changes my mind consistently, which I am sure is true for most, considering our hormonal differences in reference to men, there seems to be a thread that remains the same. "Women want to want." I used to live in a community that was dedicated to researching this particular topic, and it seems that this concurred with the majority of women, no matter what age. The experiences may change but not the theme. If one were to follow this theme as being true, then Men would do well by paying attention to their women with delight when they see that enthusiastic smile or squeel of joy. Some women do know what they want, but my observation is that they would like "menus", sort of like going to a restaurant. i.e. Would you like this, or this, or that. Obviously creativity with this menu, raises the bar each time out. There is a general point of view out there, that men try to stay away from women that are high maintenance, yet, who wants to be with a woman that is not asking her guy to produce lovely experiences for her, so that she can feel gratified with him for being her Hero.
Sometimes, women want to want what they want, and only follow that idea until they see they have had enough of that experience, or they want more, but that is the joy of being with a woman. It keeps the relating fun and exciting. B

[fun2bbobbie]

Well, I wouldn't put it quite that way, but seeing as you have what's so wrong with wanting to pleasure a woman - surely you remember "Women first in pleasure, men first in danger". I don't think I referred to the reward being sex, although I'm sure there's a lot of men out there that would be more than happy with that response. I think the reward as you put it, is more on the level of joy that a woman feels when she feels fully free to express all of who she is, then she has surplus love and attention for her guy and many other things in her life. Men enjoy women who feel gratified. It's a two way street.
I like to serve friends, clients and lovers (all in different ways), because it feels good to me - I don't see that as a bad thing - it's just a matter of interpretation. By the way, Good boy/bad boy - that's a nice combination if the first one represents who you are, and the second one represents who you are in bed! .... sounds good to me.:shades:

hummm,
from your point of view, a man is only a servant to please a woman's whims?????????
I presume that his reward is sex, that is if he has been a good boy.
I am sure that a lot of men feel that way

[ThePhiant]

I don't know how this happens, but people like to read thiings that weren't written, at least not by me.
I was just trying to bring some clarity to your post.
I don't see anything wrong with pleasuring a woman, it can be quite delicious.
and yes, men do enjoy women who feel gratified, but it is not a two way street if only one party gets what they want, need or feel

Well, I wouldn't put it quite that way, but seeing as you have what's so wrong with wanting to pleasure a woman - surely you remember "Women first in pleasure, men first in danger". I don't think I referred to the reward being sex, although I'm sure there's a lot of men out there that would be more than happy with that response. I think the reward as you put it, is more on the level of joy that a woman feels when she feels fully free to express all of who she is, then she has surplus love and attention for her guy and many other things in her life. Men enjoy women who feel gratified. It's a two way street.
I like to serve friends, clients and lovers (all in different ways), because it feels good to me - I don't see that as a bad thing - it's just a matter of interpretation. By the way, Good boy/bad boy - that's a nice combination if the first one represents who you are, and the second one represents who you are in bed! .... sounds good to me.:shades:

[Totchune]

Wowee Boys…


Thanks for the Tomatoes, they were delicious….Heirloom I believe!
Indeed…blind spots, missing data.

The knee jerk response called, “What Women Want”, was to this, only
one of a handful of private emails I laboriously dragged myself through on how some men around here feel about the roles they believe society is pushing them into. The point which I failed to effectively make, was that if you are trying to attract us based on what you think we want, it ain’t John Wayne, Bruce Willis, or Sylvester Stallone. Of course there still exist women who are attracted to these guys...they don’t happen, yet, to hang with my friends. Please try not to take me literally. I am talking about an image projected by these guys, which men model themselves after. “Our culture's male heroes reflect those characteristics.”


The very kind gentleman who sent this privately to me appropriately titled it, “More Blather”. I’m now fairly certain that many of you guys will be given some of the answers you’ve been looking for. Answers can be illuminating.
If you have a difficult time getting through it all, you are allowed to skip to the point I was trying to make below it....However I warn you...it is just more blather.


The High Cost of Manliness
by Robert Jensen


It's hard to be a man; hard to live up to the demands that come with the dominant conception of masculinity, of the tough guy.


So, guys, I have an idea -- maybe it's time we stop trying. Maybe this masculinity thing is a bad deal, not just for women but for us.


We need to get rid of the whole idea of masculinity. It's time to abandon the claim that there are certain psychological or social traits that inherently come with being biologically male. If we can get past that, we have a chance to create a better world for men and women.


That dominant conception of masculinity in U.S. culture is easily summarized: Men are assumed to be naturally competitive and aggressive, and being a real man is therefore marked by the struggle for control, conquest and domination. A man looks at the world, sees what he wants and takes it. Men who don't measure up are wimps, sissies, fags, girls. The worst insult one man can hurl at another -- whether it's boys on the playground or CEOs in the boardroom -- is the accusation that a man is like a woman. Although the culture acknowledges that men can in some situations have traits traditionally associated with women (caring, compassion, tenderness), in the end it is men's strength-expressed-as-toughness that defines us and must trump any female-like softness. Those aspects of masculinity must prevail for a man to be a "real man."

That's not to suggest, of course, that every man adopts that view of masculinity. But it is endorsed in key institutions and activities -- most notably in business, the military and athletics -- and is reinforced through the mass media. It is particularly expressed in the way men -- straight and gay alike -- talk about sexuality and act sexually. And our culture's male heroes reflect those characteristics: They most often are men who take charge rather than seek consensus, seize power rather than look for ways to share it and are willing to be violent to achieve their goals.


That view of masculinity is dangerous for women. It leads men to seek to control "their" women and define their own pleasure in that control, which leads to epidemic levels of rape and battery. But this view of masculinity is toxic for men as well.

If masculinity is defined as conquest, it means that men will always struggle with each other for dominance. In a system premised on hierarchy and power, there can be only one king of the hill. Every other man must in some way be subordinated to the king, and the king has to always be nervous about who is coming up that hill to get him. A friend who once worked on Wall Street -- one of the preeminent sites of masculine competition -- described coming to work as like walking into a knife fight when all the good spots along the wall were taken. Masculinity like this is life lived as endless competition and threat.


No one man created this system, and perhaps none of us, if given a choice, would choose it. But we live our lives in that system, and it deforms men, narrowing our emotional range and depth. It keeps us from the rich connections with others -- not just with women and children, but other men
-- that make life meaningful but require vulnerability.

This doesn't mean that the negative consequences of this toxic masculinity are equally dangerous for men and women. As feminists have long pointed out, there's a big difference between women dealing with the possibility of being raped, beaten and killed by the men in their lives, and men not being able to cry. But we can see that the short-term material gains that men get are not adequate compensation for what we men give up in the long haul -- which is to surrender part of our humanity to the project of dominance.

Of course there are obvious physical differences between men and women -- average body size, hormones, reproductive organs. There may be other differences rooted in our biology that we don't yet understand. Yet it's also true that men and women are more similar than we are different, and that given the pernicious effects of centuries of patriarchy and its relentless devaluing of things female, we should be skeptical of the perceived differences.

What we know is simple: In any human population, there is wide individual variation. While there's no doubt that a large part of our behavior is rooted in our DNA, there's also no doubt that our genetic endowment is highly influenced by culture. Beyond that, it's difficult to say much with any certainty. It's true that only women can bear children and breastfeed.

That fact likely has some bearing on aspects of men's and women's personalities. But we don't know much about what the effect is, and given the limits of our tools to understand human behavior, it's possible we may never know much.


At the moment, the culture seems obsessed with gender differences, in the context of a recurring intellectual fad (called "evolutionary psychology"
this time around, and "sociobiology" in a previous incarnation) that wants to explain all complex behaviors as simple evolutionary adaptations -- if a pattern of human behavior exists, it must be because it's adaptive in some ways. In the long run, that's true by definition. But in the short-term it's hardly a convincing argument to say, "Look at how men and women behave so differently; it must be because men and women are fundamentally different"
when a political system has been creating differences between men and women.

From there, the argument that we need to scrap masculinity is fairly simple.
To illustrate it, remember back to right after 9/11. A number of commentators argued that criticisms of masculinity should be rethought.
Cannot we now see -- recognizing that male firefighters raced into burning buildings, risking and sometimes sacrificing their lives to save others -- that masculinity can encompass a kind of strength that is rooted in caring and sacrifice? Of course men often exhibit such strength, just as do women.

So, the obvious question arises: What makes these distinctly masculine characteristics? Are they not simply human characteristics?


We identify masculine tendencies toward competition, domination and violence because we see patterns of differential behavior; men are more prone to such behavior in our culture. We can go on to observe and analyze the ways in which men are socialized to behave in those ways, toward the goal of changing those destructive behaviors. That analysis is different than saying that admirable human qualities present in both men and women are somehow primarily the domain of one gender. To assign them to a gender is misguided and demeaning to the gender that is then assumed not to possess them to the same degree. Once we start saying "strength and courage are masculine traits," it leads to the conclusion that woman are not as strong or courageous.

Of course, if we are going to jettison masculinity, we have to scrap femininity along with it. We have to stop trying to define what men and women are going to be in the world based on extrapolations from physical sex differences. That doesn't mean we ignore those differences when they matter, but we have to stop assuming they matter everywhere.


I don't think the planet can long survive if the current conception of masculinity endures. We face political and ecological challenges that can't be met with this old model of what it means to be a man. At the more intimate level, the stakes are just as high. For those of us who are biologically male, we have a simple choice: We men can settle for being men, or we can strive to be human beings.
****************************************************************************************

Back to the point I failed to make…



Using (forgive me Johnny), a model who really has a positive effect on my girlfriends and I, my attempt was to utilize the behavior represented in a handful of films and the little bit I know of this lovely man’s private life, to convey TRAITS we are attracted to. This is not to say we wish you all to become Johnny Depp, although a few more of him would not be a bad thing…lol. My goal was to let you know that the softer yous are ok….you don’t need to be Mr. macho tough guy to find us…in a bistro or in life.


In answer to the Pirate thing…in the winter I read a book called Frenchman’s Creek. His was the Disneyfied character on which I formulated my Pirate attraction. More importantly, was “her” distaste for the blather inherent in society…and so she retreats to the country where she happens upon “Him”.

Hence the fact that I live in the country and after all this…am looking to go deeper! Envision the long grey haired (gorgeous) witch living amongst the animals, singing them songs and living happily ever after.

The part that thoroughly confuses me over and over again is why 6 emails and numerous postings have referred to aggressiveness….when I am talking about walking across the room to say “Hello”. Aggression is a fear based behavior. Assertiveness (which does not require “bloodshed”), is when one sets fear aside and takes a step forward. Perhaps I misunderstand these words?

It is statements like, “Women are generally full of shit about this stuff they proclaim”, that make me wonder if I waste my time.

“Be yourself, and go.”
“Pay attention to what he/she does, not what they say”
These are suggestions that two of you made which I ring true to my experience. Thank you for reminding us all..



Yes, women talk…sometimes just to figure out what it is we think and feel. Words are to try to figure life out. Where do we fit in…who do we feel right with? That’s why women talk. It’s not a bad thing. There are even a few who have managed to find what it is they “Want”. This gives hope to those who dream.


A gorgeous woman with tomato seeds dripping from her chin.

Interesting thoughts about male roles, and control and dominant power...
Anyone, male or female, who has done deep feeling therapy long enough to become real knows that the needs for control and power originate in fear...In judgmental terms, it could be said that it is those who are the most cowardly who need to develop the largest psychological defenses (and systems of aggression, bully-style) or mightiest actual physical weapons (which does not speak well for America), but the truth is that it is those who are the most deeply damaged psychologically who at times will attempt to protect the "wounded child within" by seeking to control and overpower others, so as to appease their own bottomless terrors...
Because women are, generally speaking, more open and expressive of their emotions and feelings, they have a tendency to be somewhat healthier, even though they are also living in and contributing to a rather sick society. They would have a chance to be healthier still if so many in America and the world were not molested or abused as children, or raped or abused or battered or oppressed as adults...there seems to exist a rampant hatred towards the feminine which goes back thousands of years, it is even expressed in a centuries-old war against nature and a rape of the planet, which is symbolly associated with the feminine, and it is high time it ends if we are going to survive as a species.
But as far as the so-called "macho" image, it is so transparent and unreal as to easely reveal, to those who have eyes to see, scared little boys hiding within testosterone-saturated bodies, and furthermore men extremely insecure of their masculinity, who think that to be a man is to overpower, subdue, defeat other men, rather than love a woman and share more time and more intimacy with her (I won't make any jokes about macho men-or even the corporate type-being driven to top other men here, but you get the drift about the true, hidden nature of competition, Julius Ceasar style, upon which our societies, and the military-industrial complex, are founded...)
Here is a hint: there is a difference between the real self and the culturally conditioned self...The real male or female self reacts spontaneously according to its own nature, and certainly nature has provided amply for mutually rich and satisfying resonses, at all levels. The conditioned self plays a narrow role according to a rigid, unreal cultural script. Here I have to comment on the present madness of increasing breasts and lips and even penis sizes, which seems to reveal a complete absence of understanding concering true, that is to say profoundly felt, masculinity or feminity, and leads to caricatural and absurd results which betray a deep-seated cultural neurosis.
(See GI joe and its counterpart, embodied in the flesh by Paris Hilton).
Furthermore, the male cultural script has not changed much since we were hunting mastodons...consequently fear still rules the world, and the pathological pursuits of control and dominant power permeate all our activities, from science attempting to control all of nature to the pantagon's mad and dangerous ambitions to militarize space, to of course males and females attempting to overpower each other, with males generally winning because the odds have been in their favors since cultures became patriarchal and aggressive patriarchal religions imposed their perverted concepts of a male God. If it was not all so sad and globally destructive, it would be hilarious, to see such masses of humanity struggling to get on top of one another and claim power over each other, all the while wetting their pants at the thought of what could be lurking in the dark (of their unconscious)...
If you want to know who you are as male or female, look deeper into your own true nature, not at what the other sex is thinking, which is just as conditioned, culturally, that is to say messed up, as you are, most likely. Then just understand people as being either open-hearted, sensitive, honest, courageous, generous, authentic and loving and sensual or just too damn neurotic, and you will have a much easier time being human.