Israfil

What should be clear?

Whichever way you choose to frame other people, there's evidence that supports that claim. You can generalize this statement to every belief you have. It's called confirmation bias. This kind of idealization of what a concept is is so far away from the truth that it hurts to see. You are watching a guy talk about his particular experiences and views about women and assuming it is true. That's akin to listening to someone who prefers dogs over cats describing a cat's appearance and behavior to you. The bias plays an important role in how he portrays the animal. In the given case, the average dating coach is not particularly interested in your relationship success, but in how to convince you that he has what it takes to give you success and keep you coming back whatever the result may be. People who talk about "female nature" and "male nature" often have little to no psychological or philosophical knowledge to sustain their analyses. Although some generalization is possible, the amount of cultural and geographical differences in the female population is so large, that it is shallow and unproductive to approach dating psychology in such a way. We have been through thousands of years of human life, living in various environments that pose different threats and needs to us. Nevertheless, we were practically genetically identical throughout this entire time, displaying very different behaviors and cultural values, even comparing societies that lived under the same geographical conditions. Social conditioning and cultural manifestations are accepted by anthropologists and biologists alike as the most prevailing factors in defining behavior in people. The point is that there is nothing inherently negative or positive to any of the genders' psychology necessarily. The crisis and problems we are facing between men and women today, and therefore, the "dark traits" people exhibit, are the fruit of the mode of socialization that is pervasive in our current society. The way we influence and build people's personalities has way more to do with dysfunctional relationships than an inherent evil trait in all of us.

This thumb is so manipulative it disgusts me.

Nervousness and anxiousness usually lead to unconscious behavior and that tends to lower the average of emotionally mature responses you get from someone. Mentally unstable people are usually emotionally unstable too.

Firstly, I would struggle to see any of the replies directed at you as a personal attack—advice or recommendation at best. And you even dismissed actual arguments as personal attacks. Secondly, the "intellectual discussion" you are trying to have is based solely on your biases. Socialization shouldn't adhere to idealistic rules you are stating they should follow, but it is a process that happens materially and can only be properly understood in practice. That's why anthropologists observe as people live, record their habits and rules, and report back. As long as you keep refraining from genuinely engaging with people, you will keep repeating this pattern of trying to describe the behavior of people, or worse, trying to prescribe how people should behave based on an ideal created over internet content. There's nothing "intellectual" about your arguments. You're simply using sophistry to justify your social inadequacy. That might be a good defense mechanism but is not exactly intellectual work. Thirdly, be open to the possibility that people on a self-development forum are interested in helping you develop yourself. Your defensiveness is only detrimental to both your social and intellectual development. Your refusal to engage with comments that challenge more deeply your convictions might be holding you back in the endeavor of constructing a more coherent worldview. May you find peace, man.

Stress is one of the greatest stimulants that are available to us endogenously. If you're depressed, you might unconsciously seek stress as a way to self-regulate. My caffeine abuse in my late teens was exactly this.

If done playfully, without excess, you can get more attention. But I'd say 9/10 people that would ask that question just would come out as weird or condescending. I'd advise you to not try this.

I wouldn't rewrite your entire post just to make a point about it. My point still stands. Nothing in the particular behaviors you described is necessarily masculine.

What I meant is that the characteristics you mentioned - authenticity (1), a realistic approach to dealing with the world (2) and not having a victim mentality (3) - are not necessarily "male characteristics". Also, "action" and "reaction" are labels you can arbitrarily place in behaviors. Every "action" can be reframed into a "reaction" if you argue differently.

I read all this, but I've met very feminine women doing those things. This doesn't seem like necessarily masculine.

"Wrong view of whats a man" is supposed to mean what, exactly?

This one is related to arousal. Higher heartbeat rate due to nervousness or sexual arousal. It "tricks" the brain into thinking that the girl is into you.

In Europe? Maybe. Many people get grossed out by armpit hair or even pubic hair. I do agree. But porn is a hiperstimulus. Seeing a pair of breasts is not.

I'd say those "tribal" people are much less sexualized than we are. The sexual act is way more respected than in most modern western societies. The bias of confusing technical material progress with development is one I see too frequently here. Also, the argument that the normalization of nudity decreases the arousal of observing a breast only proves my point. The social dimension of clothing norms, in this case, nearly nullifies completely the natural arousal of seeing a breast. Many other bodily changes that also indicate sexual maturity, such as the development of body hair is seen as neutral or even unattractive to most people. Attraction is a matter far deeper than "see big boob, get big dick".

There's nothing inherently sexual about tits, man. Indigenous tribes of the Americas don't walk with shirts and males from those tribes are not constantly walking around with boners.

If you read what I wrote you wouldn't have to ask me this. Plenty of cultures emphasize legs or the mouth over breasts, for instance. Socialization is not separated from biology. It is the "software" that is placed on top of the biological "hardware" to run the "human system". The fact that we feel attracted to each other is biological. What is erotic can be skewed to serve social purposes. Take foot binding or neck stretching. We were socialized to find these practices unattractive. Those people were socialized to find them attractive. So to answer your question, I was raised seeing big asses and tits in music videos and porn was pervasive on the entirety of the internet. This lead me to connect those physical features with what is attractive or not. In my adulthood, where I actually explored my sexuality, I find that what I authentically experience as attractive is not as simplistic as an "hourglass body, symmetrical I've met models and women with "the perfect body", that were beautiful, but not attractive to me. That's why I said you were being reductionist.

This is fine as long as you perceive it as your personal view on attraction, based on a series of social narratives you've been fed throughout your development. If you generalize this, although many people do share this perception of male attraction, you fall into the trap of reducing the very complex social, biological, psychological and spiritual phenomenon that is attraction to a series of material indicators that, for the most part, are the least important ones when evaluating it.

You repeated textbook liberal propaganda. This western exceptionalism narrative is ironically detrimental to western development in general. The nations that proclaim themselves to be the most enlightened are the ones committing the most heinous acts worldwide. And history repeats itself by coating it with the narrative that they're civilizing or defending their rights, when in reality they are sustaining the everlasting cycle of destabilization and then suppression of developing competitors of their imperialist system. The current and previous US and EU-backed conflicts are simply a way to keep western hegemony, coated with "we're saving them from tyranny and authoritarianism and terrorism", when the west is the largest investor in tyrannical dictators and terrorist groups in the world since it provides them with the so desperately needed demand for their military complex. It's the oldest play in the warmonger book. Putin's invasion is obviously an act of violence with little justification, but it shys away from the more than 30 wars and interventions the US has waged since WW2 and more than 70 coups and political interventions it has promoted across the globe. All in the name of "freedom". That number does not account for the proxy wars they make their "allies" fight for them. Those "freed" states were left in a state of utter chaos and almost none have recovered until today. And much like the colonization process we are barely getting out of, a view of a conscious and developed west "helping" the "underdeveloped" world is disseminated to the general population so the United-Statians can eat big macs watching the super bowl without feeling guilty for financing the market of blood which provides them with the material conditions they enjoy. As soon as the western population in general understand that the "underdeveloped nations" were underdeveloped on purpose, usually with the use of violence and economic terrorism, and actually pressure their governing elites into surrendering their grip over the lives of those people, we can maybe begin to have the possibility of leaving the world of mere demagogic narratives and enter into the world of factually describing an overarching western political mentality that is not predicated into exploring weaker nations.

I don't understand... Why do you write so many suspension points... And why do you split your sentences into different lines... It makes understanding you harder...

Imposing me a nationality that I don't have was supposed to do what exactly? That's why I used the word "instrumental", a goal that serves other goals. I had no aggressive tone when I wrote that. I just try to be concise when I'm writing. What I wrote is very practical. Your position is that there must be a reason to contain happiness or displays of joy, my point is that you could flip that argument and look for a reason to contain a harmless feeling. Smiling is simply that, smiling. People do it when they're joyful. If others perceive it as foolish or stupid it's their projection of a completely normal human behaviour. Maybe some people just wish to be confident enough to be more open with their emotions and shame people when they do it.

Have you ever felt happiness? Expressing happiness is simply joyful and pleasurable. That's why people express it. You seem too keen on looking for a reason to smile but, fundamentally, over 90% of what we do as a species is completely unnecessary. Theoretically, we just NEED to eat, drink water, shit, piss, and sleep. All else is superfluous or instrumental to that. If I feel like it, I will smile. There's no need to contain a harmless feeling for the sake of it too.

If you start ranting in front of me, especially if you interrupt me, I'll straight up turn my back and walk away.

Medicine for duck is poison for swan. Don't go around lecturing everyone on the nature of reality unsolicited. That's also egoism.

I just think the execution is poor. I listen to a lot of trollish or otherwise "bad" music. What cringes me is the lack of rhythm by Shapiro.

This is so bad in so many different ways. I think listening to this entire song is impossible.