Why am I always attracted to cocky dominating guys?

[integral]

18 hours ago, Preety_India said:

For example I'd describe romantic qualities in men as - cocky, protective, smart, dominant, quick, decisive, moralistic, high integrity, fun, funny, sexy, affectionate, persuasive, witty, loyal, bold, courageous, attentive, active, disciplined, masculine, strong, intelligent, caring, loving, intimate,poetic. 

I've never seen an example of a guy who was cocky with high integrity. High integrity tends to line up with being humble? 

I get the image here of the man who loves himself and is blowing forward throw life. But isn't that exhausting to deal with at some point?

[Preety_India]

Just now, integral said:

I've never seen an example of a guy who was cocky with high integrity. High integrity tends to line up with being humble? 

I get the image here of the man who loves himself and is blowing forward throw life. But isn't that exhausting to deal with at some point?

Why not? 

I don't see why cocky should be associated with integrity. 

I have seen virtuous men being cocky. It's just a superficial trait mostly. 

This is like saying a woman who is too proud has to be a bitch. 

That's judgement 

[integral]

@Preety_India Im not smart enough to make sense of this. What i know from experience is to stay far away from people who display pride or cockiness. Its always in practice becomes an issue. 

[Tortured Soul]

23 hours ago, Preety_India said:

What do you mean by she will come back? 

 

Have sex with me, date me whatever

[zazen]

Quoted from Illimitable man: 

Women are enthusiastically attracted to cocky men. The more brutish, rough, arrogant, selfish, cruel, risk taking and self-superior he is, the more attracted she is to him. And all these qualities make for a terrible husband. Strength = survival, and in the mating game women are hardwired to secure strength in a man, in any of its forms be it good or bad. This is why women can be bad at picking men - they are specifically drawn to the primal,  raw strength, rather than refined strength. Even if the mind (logic) says this man is bad, it the body and nature responding instinctively, rather than intellectually. 

 

Because of this specific attraction towards what is deemed toxic men, we hear about how terrible men are, despite knowing plenty who are very much good. Women can pick or have eyes on predominantly the worst of men, then besmirch all men. They have apex vision (only such men are visible to them or come on their radar excluding the rest of the normal guys who don't garner any attention, especially romantically). Men are constantly incentivised to become the very worst they can possibly be, to be shadow possessed (by animal nature) and stay shadow possessed so they have access to a plethora of women - women are unknowingly incentivising and rewarding the very thing they constantly complain about. 

Primarily and primally attracted to and giving sexual attention to dark triad men, narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths, criminals (Hybristophilia) and all the rest, to the exclusion of good neurotypical men, and then have the nerve to call men as a group terrible despite their continual preference for deviance and brutality. They did not care those men had those traits when they were seduced by them, they only found them repulsive when they were used to betray them and hurt them. Only then did they have a problem with it. They are drawn to raw strength, but only renounce it once it's done with them.

 

Regular men see this, and it creates a perverse incentive structure in society. They think "how can I become a narcissist?" or the 'bad boy' - because they see "toxic men" with little regard for morals having so much success with women. Women are malleable, but aren't blind. They tend to be more socially intelligent than most men - and yet they continuously date the very worst men. So can we say the socially and emotionally superior gender's ignorant? No. It is a matter of subconscious preference for primal strength. 

 

Most men would rather become what women want, than be what they believe is right (most likely not men on this forum). Meaning if they see women always sleeping with terrible guys, they will aspire to become terrible in order to sleep with them too. Show him the villains get all the girls, and guess what he wants to be? Men must have a sense "the good guy gets the girl" to inspire heroism. There must be some pretence of this, even if it's not the pure and unmitigated truth, or we cultivate degeneracy amongst our men. Women and human biology isn't going to change in our life times or any time soon, biological evolution is far slower than cultural or technological evolution. 

 

This doesn't mean women are bad. It's more the case that they do not reject raw forms of strength that evolutionary served us over Millenia in harsh environments. It entices and tempts them easily, and they enjoy it. It is far rarer to see healthier forms of masculinity which can take that raw strength and refine it, it doesn't come as easily. 

 

Women fall to temptation first (wicked men) and because she is his temptation, he aspires to become what she is tempted by (a wicked man) and thus we have this unholy and unvirtuous feedback loop of sorts. He becomes his temptation's temptation to win the desires of his temptation, but in failing to restrain her, he has lost to her. Because he allowed her (women) to dictate the kind of man he would be, rather than aspire to be the kind of man he believes he should be.

 

Many men today lose in this way, but they all feel like winners. Of course they do. They are sleeping with beautiful women, so why would they think they lost? It would never dawn on them. They wouldn't think they lost their soul. They'd believe they improved and evolved. Sad. There is a kind of dark poetry to the notion that in surrendering his goodness in order to become wicked enough to sleep with women, she in turn surrenders her body to him. It is a perverse kind of reciprocity. 

 

This is the damage free + unlimited female choice has on society, without the oversight of patriarchs to protect daughterly integrity and discriminate against deviant men, deviant men have their pick of the women, and the women's unconscious preferences encourage men as a whole to be deviant. So next time you hear a woman complain about her ex boyfriend being a narcissist, a sociopath, an abuser or some such, she is either wrongfully defaming a good man, or putting herself forward as proof and living testament of these words.

Edited June 2, 2022 by zazen

[Razard86]

On 5/23/2022 at 10:18 AM, Gesundheit2 said:

I think feeling attracted to ass is a result of propaganda brainwashing. At least, I think that's the case for me. When I was a kid I wasn't attracted to ass, mostly lips and breasts, which is also propaganda brainwashing, imo.

It's sick if you think about it, like why would anyone be attracted to a shit factory? Like, seriously, why?! That's where the perverted part is coming from.

You do realize the vagina is on the ass too right? Have you ever heard of doggy style? 

[petar8p]

On 5/23/2022 at 9:29 AM, Preety_India said:

@integral should I be honest about what attracts me or should I be dishonest? 

I am never attracted to guys who don't stand up, who don't confront, who are always staying too passive, submissive, who are easily nervous/scared, who don't initiate, who don't lead/dominate, who listen to everything that is said to them, who say yes to everything, who stand behind the woman like a slave, who fail to protect, who don't challenge her, who don't stare her down but look away or look down, who are nerdy, or too insecure and impatient, say stupid things just to appear smart, are overly aggressive/insecure, unnecessarily critical, who can't fight, who can't say no, who are too shy, who are afraid of conflict or too peaceful. Sorry if the man is passive and agrees to everything I say, I don't feel stimulated. I find him lacking in confidence and cowardly. It doesn't attract me. I don't see strength in him. I find such men weak and docile and that doesn't make me want them. They don't look exciting to me. They don't inspire stimulation and excitement. They get me bored. Even if it's a genuinely  nice guy. 

On the other hand men who are too bossy and patriarchal seem very uptight and aggressive and insecure to me. Like I have to bend to their demands. Nope. Such men repel me because they don't allow the woman to be a woman, they consume all space. 

The middle ground is a cocky  guy who is not overly dominating (not like the big old patriarchal preachy guy) who is dominating enough to maintain polarity but allows room for me to act out my feminine desires and gives space for my mistakes and deficit. The patriarchal guy is overly judgemental and I don't want to feel like I'm in a prison. I don't like overly aggressive guys because that shows they are too insecure and vapidly dominating me for their ego. 

If a guy dominates me, he should do this with some grace and substance, something that I can respect. He shouldn't present frivolous challenges. That would make me lose respect. If he does challenge me, it should have some substance to it. I want to be able to admire the guy. I want to look at him in awe and be inspired by him. 

So if he is cocky, it shouldn't be vacuous or shallow or empty cockiness/false pride/ego without character/depth/substance. 

He should be cocky definitely but have some substance to back up his cockiness. 

I want to look at him in awe and I want to admire him enough to feel attracted and fall in love. 

Seeing his confidence should make my knees go weak. 

So cocky is fine as long as it's backed by real  confidence, raw courage, trustworthy behavior and substance to his pride. 

Empty confidence and over confidence appears fake and farcical and suggests over compensation, "wanna be", "trying too hard" and reeks of insecurity and immaturity. 

 

 

This is one of the best, honest pieces I've read from a woman, thanks. 

 

It reminds me a lot of what Teal Swan is getting at in this video: 

https://youtu.be/qwy_F1eC83g

[petar8p]

On 5/23/2022 at 9:38 AM, ZenAlex said:

Not all confident men are expressive and go out of their way to dominate. It's not all about being dominant and submissive.

She is not philosophically defining what makes a man confident, she is describing what makes her turned on by a man. 

[petar8p]

You are attracted to them for all the right, biological-filtering-mechanism reasons. 

 

It's not perhaps everything that should evaluate a man in your life, but you're already cautious of that. 

 

You can perhaps make it an exercise to try to boost confidence of guys afraid to be cocky, turn it into an art. Just a suggestion though ?

[Razard86]

21 minutes ago, petar8p said:

This is one of the best, honest pieces I've read from a woman, thanks. 

 

It reminds me a lot of what Teal Swan is getting at in this video: 

https://youtu.be/qwy_F1eC83g

I am not a fan of Teal Swan, but she says some things that are true.

[vinc3nc]

"The more brutish, rough, arrogant, selfish, cruel, risk taking and self-superior a man is, the more atavistically attracted a woman is to him. And all these qualities make for a terrible husband.

This is why women are bad at picking men - they are specifically drawn to the terrible.

And because of this specific attraction to and near exclusive tendency to date only the terrible, we have to hear them infinitely whine about how terrible men are, despite knowing plenty who are very much good. They pick predominantly the worst of us, then besmirch all of us."

[something_else]

3 minutes ago, vinc3nc said:

"The more brutish, rough, arrogant, selfish, cruel, risk taking and self-superior a man is, the more atavistically attracted a woman is to him. And all these qualities make for a terrible husband.

This is why women are bad at picking men - they are specifically drawn to the terrible.

And because of this specific attraction to and near exclusive tendency to date only the terrible, we have to hear them infinitely whine about how terrible men are, despite knowing plenty who are very much good. They pick predominantly the worst of us, then besmirch all of us."

Whoever wrote this is definitely a virgin

[Preety_India]

@lxlichael Thank you for the kindness 

 

[Raze]

 

https://youtu.be/LlJLLjE9_To?t=1260

 

 

[petar8p]

9 hours ago, lxlichael said:

@Preety_India because they don’t take any freaking bullshit that’s why.

If you’re not a cocky dominating guy it means you’re either intelligent or you haven’t mastered your intelligence.

Most “cocky dominating guys” aren’t the brightest bunch though and the same with guys at the other end of the spectrum.

It’s all love but it’s all truth as well, most people can’t handle the latter and they want to take advantage of the former or just take it for granted, got my new mrs here and she’s a peach so far and I try to be on my best behaviour, she’s taught me more tactfulness now, we both admire different qualities we both have and I think that’s really important for both love and truth.

 

Why would cockiness be connected with smaller intelligence? 

Edited June 4, 2022 by petar8p

[Michael Jackson]

On 2.6.2022 at 9:07 PM, zazen said:

Quoted from Illimitable man: 

Women are enthusiastically attracted to cocky men. The more brutish, rough, arrogant, selfish, cruel, risk taking and self-superior he is, the more attracted she is to him. And all these qualities make for a terrible husband. Strength = survival, and in the mating game women are hardwired to secure strength in a man, in any of its forms be it good or bad. This is why women can be bad at picking men - they are specifically drawn to the primal,  raw strength, rather than refined strength. Even if the mind (logic) says this man is bad, it the body and nature responding instinctively, rather than intellectually. 

 

Because of this specific attraction towards what is deemed toxic men, we hear about how terrible men are, despite knowing plenty who are very much good. Women can pick or have eyes on predominantly the worst of men, then besmirch all men. They have apex vision (only such men are visible to them or come on their radar excluding the rest of the normal guys who don't garner any attention, especially romantically). Men are constantly incentivised to become the very worst they can possibly be, to be shadow possessed (by animal nature) and stay shadow possessed so they have access to a plethora of women - women are unknowingly incentivising and rewarding the very thing they constantly complain about. 

Primarily and primally attracted to and giving sexual attention to dark triad men, narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths, criminals (Hybristophilia) and all the rest, to the exclusion of good neurotypical men, and then have the nerve to call men as a group terrible despite their continual preference for deviance and brutality. They did not care those men had those traits when they were seduced by them, they only found them repulsive when they were used to betray them and hurt them. Only then did they have a problem with it. They are drawn to raw strength, but only renounce it once it's done with them.

 

Regular men see this, and it creates a perverse incentive structure in society. They think "how can I become a narcissist?" or the 'bad boy' - because they see "toxic men" with little regard for morals having so much success with women. Women are malleable, but aren't blind. They tend to be more socially intelligent than most men - and yet they continuously date the very worst men. So can we say the socially and emotionally superior gender's ignorant? No. It is a matter of subconscious preference for primal strength. 

 

Most men would rather become what women want, than be what they believe is right (most likely not men on this forum). Meaning if they see women always sleeping with terrible guys, they will aspire to become terrible in order to sleep with them too. Show him the villains get all the girls, and guess what he wants to be? Men must have a sense "the good guy gets the girl" to inspire heroism. There must be some pretence of this, even if it's not the pure and unmitigated truth, or we cultivate degeneracy amongst our men. Women and human biology isn't going to change in our life times or any time soon, biological evolution is far slower than cultural or technological evolution. 

 

This doesn't mean women are bad. It's more the case that they do not reject raw forms of strength that evolutionary served us over Millenia in harsh environments. It entices and tempts them easily, and they enjoy it. It is far rarer to see healthier forms of masculinity which can take that raw strength and refine it, it doesn't come as easily. 

 

Women fall to temptation first (wicked men) and because she is his temptation, he aspires to become what she is tempted by (a wicked man) and thus we have this unholy and unvirtuous feedback loop of sorts. He becomes his temptation's temptation to win the desires of his temptation, but in failing to restrain her, he has lost to her. Because he allowed her (women) to dictate the kind of man he would be, rather than aspire to be the kind of man he believes he should be.

 

Many men today lose in this way, but they all feel like winners. Of course they do. They are sleeping with beautiful women, so why would they think they lost? It would never dawn on them. They wouldn't think they lost their soul. They'd believe they improved and evolved. Sad. There is a kind of dark poetry to the notion that in surrendering his goodness in order to become wicked enough to sleep with women, she in turn surrenders her body to him. It is a perverse kind of reciprocity. 

 

This is the damage free + unlimited female choice has on society, without the oversight of patriarchs to protect daughterly integrity and discriminate against deviant men, deviant men have their pick of the women, and the women's unconscious preferences encourage men as a whole to be deviant. So next time you hear a woman complain about her ex boyfriend being a narcissist, a sociopath, an abuser or some such, she is either wrongfully defaming a good man, or putting herself forward as proof and living testament of these words.

@zazen Very good quote.

[Michael Jackson]

15 hours ago, lxlichael said:

@Preety_India because they don’t take any freaking bullshit that’s why.

If you’re not a cocky dominating guy it means you’re either intelligent or you haven’t mastered your intelligence.

Most “cocky dominating guys” aren’t the brightest bunch though and the same with guys at the other end of the spectrum.

It’s all love but it’s all truth as well, most people can’t handle the latter and they want to take advantage of the former or just take it for granted, got my new mrs here and she’s a peach so far and I try to be on my best behaviour, she’s taught me more tactfulness now, we both admire different qualities we both have and I think that’s really important for both love and truth.

 

@lxlichael Had to report you because all-caps signatures are not allowed.

Have a nice day.

[integral]

A guy can enter into a cocky state when there feeling themselves and enjoying the moment. When mature men do it, its hot. The word cockyness is like i said not the right word, playful-confidence is more like it. 

0:47 Cockyness done wrong. They hold them selves as the best, its assumptions, its accusatory, they throw you under the bus to prove there point and to show how much better they are then you.

Edited June 4, 2022 by integral

[Federico del pueblo]

@Knowledge Hoarder

Sure. The thing about chemistry though is that if you have certain traits as a man, women tend to feel like there is chemistry much more frequently ?

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

On 5/23/2022 at 9:29 AM, Preety_India said:

He should be cocky definitely but have some substance to back up his cockiness. 

I want to know what mean by "substance". Do you mean substance as in intellectual/emotional depth, or do you mean more of a "groundedness" meaning that the guys confidence is based on emotional maturity, rather than overcompensation? Or do you mean something else entirely?