# What do men NOT want?
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/what-do-men-not-want/21447
**Category:** Psychology and Mind
**Created:** [June 2, 2008, 10:31pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/what-do-men-not-want/21447 "2008-06-02T22:31:46Z")
**Posts on this page:** 6
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Joker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Joker)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/what-do-men-not-want/21447/21 "2008-06-04T17:02:34Z")
> [@Smears](#):
>
> So do you guys have girlfriends?
I haven’t abducted one in shackles yet…I’m working on it though.
---
### Author:  [@Joker](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Joker)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2008, 5:04pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/what-do-men-not-want/21447/22 "2008-06-04T17:04:04Z")
> [@realunoriginal](#):
>
> Why should women be respected intellectually? Was the original purpose of women one of which caused them to defend/hunt outside the social circle?
>
> Women deserve respect where it’s earned–the same applies vice versa.
How many women philosophers are there again in contrast to men? 😛
( New age spiritualism doesn’t count. 😆 )
---
### Author:  [@Sidd](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Sidd)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2008, 7:43pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/what-do-men-not-want/21447/23 "2008-06-04T19:43:06Z")
> [@](#):
>
> > [@Sidd](#):
> >
> > That you’re saying, as I understand it, that one person or the other has to submit and be controlled. That either I eat out of your hand or you eat out of mine. I don’t believe this to be the case.
>
> Why not? Just because things can be balanced doesn’t mean the forces aren’t in flux. Control is give-and-take; that’s how I determine what relationships between people are “successful”. Those unions empower all participants.
I’m not saying that there must be only balance. That in itself is a contradiction in that it’s too absolute to allow real balance itself. I agree that there has to be variation in the absolute and otherwise. This doesn’t mean that I, because I am female, should perpetually submit to male desire and this does not mean either that my boyfriend, being male, must perpetually submit to me. I give and I take as much as my male counterparts give and take. We are equal. Not purely because ‘pure’ is too absolute as well. Our strengths and weaknesses balance out and complement each other like protein and substrate(excuse the analogy. it’s the first that came to mind). Both are necessary, neither can be determined to be superior to the other. Researching the evolution of gender, specifically in Japanese society, I have also observed that men are more frequently without their original purpose, their superiority, their strength. Many male politicians are in an uproar as to how to approach this because it is dramatically affecting birth rates(just for an example). Women have more freedom and purpose in life while men are restricted to their traditional, unevolved societal expectations and traditions. I say this not with glee but with sympathy. Clinging to tradition rather than embracing modern sentiments of equality leaves them lost. This does not really fit the picture of superiority…
> [@](#):
>
> > [@Sidd](#):
> >
> > You yourself admitted to adhering to some sort of balance system which we agree on. Why is it any different here? Or are you saying that only males can be the master of their own lives? In which case why are you giving the suggestions that you do in that some fit my sex and some do not? Ambivalent much?
>
> Yes, males are masters (or slaves) of their own lives. I will not claim to know a [female] in the same regard as a [male], because I myself am “male”. Do you want me to tell you what women feel? Why don’t you tell me and relinquish me of my ambivalence? Though, no matter what you say, I am going to focus on your word-content, which is going to contradict my “thoughts” of your “feelings”. Don’t you see the problem?
Tell me what you think women know. Tell me what you feel as a male. How can I ever come close to any understanding if not given an explanation from a male? Biopsychology and sociology only go so far. Knowledge is nothing to me without experience.
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> > [@realunoriginal](#):
> >
> > It’s not ironic–everything happens for a reason.
>
> Hm??
> [@](#):
>
> Even if everything happens for a reason (which I obviously imply), that does not necessarily mean there is a “fate” or “destiny” that I am aware of. This seems like a contradiction, but in fact it’s not. The more reasonable I am, the more I will realize & actualize my supposed fate. However, it is not until I approach absolution that fate appears as absolutely determined or willed. Free-will? The question is inconsequential to my life and thoughts, I live to live, it doesn’t really matter to me whether it is “actually” determined or willed. I’m going to interact with forces I cannot completely comprehend regardless of my metaphysical beliefs.
And yet that’s exactly what fate is…now if you were to suggest some sort of chaos theory and a reason for events based on the choices you make(I see it as a very intricate web if that makes sense), then I would be inclined to agree with you and more importantly understand. But it ultimately sounds very eclectic without any syncretism…
> [@](#):
>
> > [@Sidd](#):
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > If you seek my definition of “power”, then it’s more appropriate to be spoken of in other discussion threads. I’d need to devote a lot of time to that.
> >
> > A quick escape.
>
> Not at all. Start a discussion with me in a thread or PM if you want me to talk with you about “power”. It would not be a short conversation…
No succinct definition? I may have to take you up on that offer when I have more time. It makes it rather difficult to understand your perspective without a definition. This makes it rather unfair to engage in debate on the subject.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@Sidd](#):
> >
> > > [@](#):
> > >
> > > What else can a woman offer to a man except sex and domestic abilities? Why should she try to offer more than these things?
> >
> > At some point we are more than male or female. You cross the physical into the mental. At that point there is much more to offer than sex and dinner.
>
> Oh really? This is news to me–do you care to explain? When does a male become female; when does a female become male? Where is the point that there is more to offer one another than sex and dinner?
We all possess qualities that we generally ascribe to the opposite sex although I’m not saying I become you and you become me. I’m merely saying that relationships will transcend sexual desire at some point and turn into something more substantial. Mentally speaking. Simply male and female relations are not restricted to satiating elemental desires(though I don’t deny they play a very big role for a great portion of our lives). We have mental needs as well. What men and women need from each other is relative to our age, mental and physical, and both in relation to the other.
> [@](#):
>
> > [@Sidd](#):
> >
> > You have found that it pleases those women the most. Not women in general. So you and they are not averse to polyamorism. Others are different.
>
> Prove it. Prove to me that a [female] is not a [female]. Tell me that I’m clueless about women and then show me why.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
>
> Female and male both possess qualities of the other. There was a study done on hermaphrodites that showed that male and female characteristics was based in very large part upon the hormones secreted relative to the sexual organs their parents chose when they were young. Social actions played an equally large part. I will try and find the study later…I know that it’s in one of my textbooks. While I won’t call you clueless I do believe that you are misguided in many respects because you restrict your knowledge of women to your own speculation(or so it seems so far). I might call infants nocturnal by nature because I heard one cry at night once thus, coming to that conclusion from my own thoughts on the subject without consulting other, previously discovered knowledge.
>
> > [@Sidd](#):
> >
> > This “rebuttal” suggests a tongue more feminine than that belonging to most women in my family. But then ours is a different breed. Perpetually shunned from social circles for it too. Not all women fit your internal idea of them.
>
> Clever retort–you are practiced in subtleties–so am I.
>
> Prove to me that the world does not fit my ideal. I’ve been waiting a long time for it. Satyr has bested me before–I hope you are next.
[/quote]
Time and patience. Perhaps you can do the same for me in some respect though I cannot stand down when it comes to alleged male superiority.
---
### Author:  [@Sidd](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Sidd)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2008, 7:45pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/what-do-men-not-want/21447/24 "2008-06-04T19:45:16Z")
> [@Joker](#):
>
> How many women philosophers are there again in contrast to men? 😛
How much freedom were women given to make their philosophical pondering known as opposed to men? Women and their voices were oppressed and muted. You cannot use a blind and silent past as proof.
---
### Author:  [@realunoriginal](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/realunoriginal)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2008, 10:30pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/what-do-men-not-want/21447/25 "2008-06-04T22:30:54Z")
**moved some content from the other thread here**
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > If you were a male, then I’d listen to you in order to learn from you. Many males excel in thought and are very reasonable, but sometimes not at all. Within male-to-male conversations, guys focus on the word contents, the referential forms being spoken about and agreed upon. Guys compete for different kinds of success, based on practicality. A zoo keeper isn’t necessarily going to have much to talk about with a store clerk under a neutral context. Reason will flow to its source.
>
> And many females excel in thought and are very reasonable. Logic and intelligence are not peculiar to the male sex.
There’s a difference between “besting” people in arguments and understanding word-contents philosophically. (Luckily for you though, philosophy is very much dead) Females cannot beat males when it comes to [reason] simply because females are not males. Logic and intelligence may be utilized by both males & females, but the monopoly is owned by men, always. Am I right or wrong? If you say that I am wrong, then you need to learn how to trace reasons themselves. My argument and whether I’m right or wrong will become immediately inconsequential to you. I know for a fact that you are going to be lacking compared to males, because your “spirit” is different. Women do not negate–they create. I know where you are erring and I will expose it later in this response.
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Male-to-female conversations are based on sex, or business… superficiality. Why is sex superficial nowadays (in America)? It is similar to masterbation–the male is lying to get it (claiming “love”, or allegiance, to a woman prematurely). I don’t lie to get what I want; it takes away from my success in being. If I need to lie to get something I want, then I see it as a failure on my part, through my self.
>
> For the most part I don’t disagree. I’d come to that realization some number of years ago. However, I also believe that there is the possibility of other reason for speaking with the opposite sex. My close friend, who happens to be male, is not at all an object of sexual desire. I forget that he is male sometimes when we’re lost in discussion. I seek his company for mental fulfillment. Sex has nothing to do with it.
You exposed a lot of knowledge to me in this passage; thanks! 😉
I bolded some sections to show you some things that you may not be aware of. First of all, you “believe” that there is a possibility of reason for you to speak with men where sex is not concerned. I definitely agree, but why do you not already know the reason itself? If you have reasoned it, then you should know by now. You speak with men outside of your ideal mate, because they are feminized and weak. Why should they talk to you unless to have sex with you? Are you a master of reason–are you the “wise man” and they the pupils? I have my doubts in this. This is what I would say–you speak to your “friend”, because you desire to find the “wise man”. You are more drawn to powerful reason itself than your feeble friend is, because you are mentally “stronger” than him. It is not a matter of sexual desire in your eyes, because he is weak. If he is talking to you, then it is because he is attracted to you physically, it is a superficial business setting, or that you are annoying him to garner knowledge and lessons. In any case, you would find him sexually attractive if he were the “stronger” of you two, so I’m led to believe that this particular man is weak (in thought). Why would you forget that he is male, seek his company for mental fulfillment, and say sex has nothing to do with it? It is because you have already bested his mental strengths and you know it while he does not. He becomes weak, disgusting, and feminized in your eyes–[he] is not even a [male] to you, because you have exposed his gaping ignorance of the world where your own relation with ignorance is superior in relation. It seems to me that you do not even realize that when a woman bests a man intellectually and take away his “manhood”, that it disgraces and insults him more than any harm another man could do. That’s why the male ego is fragile when women dominate them–it’s not “supposed” to happen, nor is expected to happen in nature.
When women become better hunters than men while the men stay home raising the children and taking care of the campfire, then there will be a huge onset of existential anxiety within the given society. Women do not like being in charge (contextually) just as men do not like being slaves to anybody.
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > You will have to be more specific on what kind of understanding you want. Why am I the way I am? It was due to my space-time-reality, my socio-environmental & genetic composition. I was born by my parents, who raised me in a place, where I made certain friends, and then I arrived here talking to you over the internet for ends that are rather clear to me. My passion lies in knowledge and I learned very early that not only am I absolutely lacking it, everybody else is as well. Some people are just worse at hiding it (as if it were a weakness).
>
> Is it scientific? Is it introspection? Mere speculation? You say male and female thought is a difference in knowing and feeling. I want to know why you say that from genuine curiosity as to how someone reaches this conclusion.
Somebody reaches this conclusion by existing as [me]. Do you want to walk a mile in my shoes?
I will tell you a little secret I have found in my life–observe the concepts that people use daily–whenever somebody utters the word [know] or [feel], I want you to listen carefully. Every time a male says he [feels] something in public, it is (subconsciously) communally judged as a weakness from both men & women alike. Similarly, every time a female says she [knows] something in public, it is seen as both a threat to men and a chance for men to best you intellectually. Men want to put and keep women “in their place”. This is not a “good” or “bad” thing until men themselves become feminized…
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Since we’re on the subject, why would you not sleep with your father? Do you not find his qualities extremely attractive?
>
> My socio-environmental composition 😉 You know as well as I do why I don’t want to sleep with my father.
Because you’d cause strife between yourself and society as a whole, beginning with your mother. You’d risk losing your very [self] and essence as a woman–but still–the psychology exists. Freud was truly a genius.
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Why not? Just because things can be balanced doesn’t mean the forces aren’t in flux. Control is give-and-take; that’s how I determine what relationships between people are “successful”. Those unions empower all participants.
>
> I’m not saying that there must be only balance. That in itself is a contradiction in that it’s too absolute to allow real balance itself. I agree that there has to be variation in the absolute and otherwise. This doesn’t mean that I, because I am female, should perpetually submit to male desire and this does not mean either that my boyfriend, being male, must perpetually submit to me. I give and I take as much as my male counterparts give and take. We are equal. Not purely because ‘pure’ is too absolute as well. Our strengths and weaknesses balance out and complement each other like protein and substrate(excuse the analogy. it’s the first that came to mind). Both are necessary, neither can be determined to be superior to the other. Researching the evolution of gender, specifically in Japanese society, I have also observed that men are more frequently without their original purpose, their superiority, their strength. Many male politicians are in an uproar as to how to approach this because it is dramatically affecting birth rates(just for an example). Women have more freedom and purpose in life while men are restricted to their traditional, unevolved societal expectations and traditions. I say this not with glee but with sympathy. Clinging to tradition rather than embracing modern sentiments of equality leaves them lost. This does not really fit the picture of superiority…
I bolded again for emphasis. Although your strengths and weaknesses balance, I assure you that he is superior to you as a [male] when it comes to the male domains while you are superior to him as a [female] when it comes to the female domains. If this does not happen, then there will be strife, the relationship will not last or it will only live through a stage of superficiality.
Japanese males are losing their “strength”. As women gain “freedom” and “purpose” (male domains of individuality), men are “restricted” to “tradition” (female domains of society). All the while, you do not say these things with “glee”. You see the same problems that I and others do… Men are not meant to be enslaved by women.
[The Feminization of Man](http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=143894) continues!
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> Tell me what you think women know. Tell me what you feel as a male. How can I ever come close to any understanding if not given an explanation from a male? Biopsychology and sociology only go so far. Knowledge is nothing to me without experience.
I’m going to be obscure if you want to dig deeper into my metaphysics and my [self], so you’ll have to be patient before acquiring the reasons that you desire.
Men know & feel [no][thing]. Women know & feel [some][thing].
This is a huge division. It runs deeper than I can possibly imagine, outside of my space-time-reality. It necessarily is not going to make sense to you or anybody else, because you are unaware as to where my concepts came from, why I built them the way I did, and where they are going. Your concepts will necessarily be different, especially since you are a [female].
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> And yet that’s exactly what fate is…now if you were to suggest some sort of chaos theory and a reason for events based on the choices you make(I see it as a very intricate web if that makes sense), then I would be inclined to agree with you and more importantly understand. But it ultimately sounds very eclectic without any syncretism…
I own Chaos Theory. 
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Not at all. Start a discussion with me in a thread or PM if you want me to talk with you about “power”. It would not be a short conversation…
>
> No succinct definition? I may have to take you up on that offer when I have more time. It makes it rather difficult to understand your perspective without a definition. This makes it rather unfair to engage in debate on the subject.
Take me up whenever you like; I’m not going to half-ass such a “powerful” concept in order to make points here where they aren’t necessary.
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> We all possess qualities that we generally ascribe to the opposite sex although I’m not saying I become you and you become me.
You possess male qualities yet do not become male? How do you differentiate? Let me guess–is it conceptual?
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> I’m merely saying that relationships will transcend sexual desire at some point and turn into something more substantial. Mentally speaking.
Hahaha, no! Why are you trying to “transcend” sexual desire??? It’s already substantial, don’t you see? That’s why the male domains should be reinforced by males once again and the female domains should be reinforced by females once again. Embrace the “power” behind sex–don’t get ahead of yourself or you will make a mockery of all human beings.
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> Simply male and female relations are not restricted to satiating elemental desires(though I don’t deny they play a very big role for a great portion of our lives). We have mental needs as well.
I disagree. Show me something other than “satiating elemental desires”. That’s all animals do. And humans are animals without even knowing it (the disease).
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> What men and women need from each other is relative to our age, mental and physical, and both in relation to the other.
I agree–survival, reproduction, and reinforcing the social circle are all relative to age. Men & women have completely different roles.
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> Female and male both possess qualities of the other. There was a study done on hermaphrodites that showed that male and female characteristics was based in very large part upon the hormones secreted relative to the sexual organs their parents chose when they were young. Social actions played an equally large part. I will try and find the study later…I know that it’s in one of my textbooks. While I won’t call you clueless I do believe that you are misguided in many respects because you restrict your knowledge of women to your own speculation(or so it seems so far). I might call infants nocturnal by nature because I heard one cry at night once thus, coming to that conclusion from my own thoughts on the subject without consulting other, previously discovered knowledge.
Spare me from these subtleties; I am a philosopher. My purpose is to investigate ‘forms’, which is what I do rigorously. I learn by observation and self-examination. You learn from a text book and from the written/spoken words of “professionals” while I spend my time tracking where their reasons came from, where they’re going, and why.
What female qualities do men “possess” and what male qualities do women “possess”? Do they “own” these qualities? Do they define the male as “male” or female as “female”??? Ponder the last question well…
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> Time and patience. Perhaps you can do the same for me in some respect though I cannot stand down when it comes to alleged male superiority.
This is your “male” weakness and why males are meant to best women in reason, always. You mistake superiority as superiority in male-female thought.
One of us is learning from the other on a higher level, not the other way around. It depends on what you and I have to teach one another, if anything at all.
---
### Author:  [@realunoriginal](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/realunoriginal)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2008, 10:33pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/what-do-men-not-want/21447/26 "2008-06-04T22:33:12Z")
> [@Sidd](#):
>
> Women and their voices were oppressed and muted.
On the contrary, women’s voices were more powerful before.
Male & female philosophies speak together. The powerful words of a male bequeaths the powerful words of silent female(s) behind him.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/what-do-men-not-want/21447.md?page=1)