Men’s enlightenment: conquering the woman. Should we?

First, let’s define that a sign of attention and conquest are not the same thing. An ordinary sign of attention looks simple and does not humiliate anyone. “Take you out for a walk,” says the man. “Okay,” the woman replies. Both look at the partner, looking for traits favorable to the relationship.

Conquest, wooing, is different. It is when the woman demands adulation, obedience, and the man agrees. When the woman is capricious, and the man uncomplainingly indulges her whims. When a man does not offer, but begs, begs for meetings, sex, relationships. When a man spends all his money, time and energy on a woman who does not really need him. She is simply flattered that the best male resources are flying at her feet. When a man loses himself, his way and his purpose for a woman.

What we call “winning a woman,” “pursuing a woman” is a hypertrophied, grotesque courtship. They come from a patriarchal culture. Their meaning is to show the woman (and more so her parents) that the man:

– Has serious intentions for a woman (an affair without these is condemned or even prosecuted),

– has an opportunity and desire to support the woman and joint children (before marriage the woman is on her parents’ support, after marriage – on her husband’s support, not having his own income).

However, this is not all. In response to a man’s courtship, a woman must show a man that she is also ready for family life: that she is not promiscuous, has a malleable character, not grumpy and not hysterical, not stupid, economical, able to maintain a home, ready to create a comfortable rear for a man (husband) and become a faithful companion. Without these qualities, a woman is unfit for the family and relationships in general, so any conquests are out of the question.

As we are all well aware, it is silly to talk about patriarchal traditions now. For a long time now, women have had every right and excellent opportunities to earn as much as men. Women’s manners and behavior have long been unlike those of Turgenev’s girls, Elizabeth Bennett or Pushkin’s Tatiana.

In addition, there has been a dramatic shift in responsibilities. If the duties of courting, “winning” and “proving love” have not been abolished, then the symmetrical duties of women, listed two paragraphs above, have been declared obsolete and generally discrimination against the “weaker sex. “A woman should be happy, and she owes nothing to anyone else,” echo magazines, soap operas, parents, girlfriends, and “women’s” websites. Thus, it is incumbent upon men to go to great lengths to get women, while women have every right to arrogantly accept advances as a matter of course. A man who expects reciprocity in return for his advances is declared a loser, a wimp, a bore, a greedy and generally “not a man.

Despite such contradictions, however, the ritual of “wooing” is stubbornly maintained. Why? Let’s get to the bottom of it.

There is no point in talking about the motives of the “beneficiary” (i.e. the woman) – they are self-explanatory. Who does not want to be begged, showered with gifts and performed all your whims?

We are interested in the side of the man, i.e. the donor. What is the reason for him to “win” and “win”?

To begin with, even under patriarchy, not everything that is now presented as courting was encouraged.

For example, expensive gifts and going to a restaurant with a girl were not only discouraged, they were condemned. Expensive gifts could be accepted at the earliest during and after the engagement (at the time of the breakup they were returned), and a woman could go to a restaurant only with either her parents or her husband. Of course, it was out of the question to demand or beg for gifts or a restaurant from a man. Such behavior was a sign of a prostitute.

Such traditions, by the way, persisted much longer than the patriarchy. For example, even in the mid-to-late 1970s, it was not customary to take a girl, let alone a stranger, to a restaurant. It was also not customary to give and accept expensive gifts: it was thought that it was a strong obligation for the girl, and she would either have to give a gift in return (which was financially onerous) or to “thank” a man in some other way (which was morally unacceptable).

Female champions of conquest and winning actively invoke tradition, but are silent about what I wrote above. They prefer to act like they are in the twenty-first century, but demand to be treated like they are in the nineteenth century. They act like Cicciolina, but want to be perceived as Jane Eyre was perceived.

What motivates the modern man to conquer?

1. Following “tradition.” This is usually the behavior of romantic men who have read classical literature and are still convinced that manners have not changed since Jane Austen and her heroines. Such men are disconnected from life and live in an imaginary, rosy world. They are mostly raised by women (mother, grandmother) and are educated in the humanities. They stubbornly refuse to see that the average woman today resembles Elizabeth Bennet only anatomically.

2. the other version of following tradition is “you’re a masculine,” “I’m not a masculine what-if. The common bravado of the male gender and the associated confidence that “a woman has to prove that I’m tough. These are traditionalists who don’t realize that all tradition has long since been destroyed.

3. A related reason to point 2 is the masking by persistent and “beautiful” advances of their own shortcomings, sometimes critical to the family. I have noticed that men with major flaws (drinkers, drug addicts, gamblers, criminals, etc.) are the most active and “rich” in courtship. They subconsciously feel their inferiority and try to cover up their disadvantages with abundant (even intrusive) advances and generous gifts. This group includes married men who are not going to leave their family, but prefer to “buy” their mistress with gifts.

Two examples

The first, told by Sergei Borisov

One day a man is brought to him on duty with severe cirrhosis of the liver, ascites, and everything else that is due. The man looks like the last bum. His intelligence level is below the plinth. Zero culture. We barely got him out of a critical state. In the morning, his wife arrives. She is a beautiful, even chic woman, well-spoken and tastefully dressed. The doctors, seeing the extreme discrepancy between husband and wife, ask, “How is it possible that such a woman married such a man?” The answer stunned everyone: “Yes, he was drinking before the wedding, too. But how beautifully he courted! Every day he gave me a box of my favorite chocolates!”

The second example I saw in my life

A girl from a small town was studying in a metropolis. She was being courted by two guys. Back home, a car mechanic, a high-premium and not-so-high-ranking man. He drank, had work problems, but he showered the girl with gifts, did not leave her side, and drove away other suitors, some with his presence, some with his fists. After frequent alcoholic excesses, episodes of physical abuse, or other punctures typical of high-premium men with bad habits, he showered the girl with gifts, lay at her feet, and begged her to forgive him. In a megalopolis, he is a graduate of a prestigious university, a cultured, educated man in a good position, always well-dressed and smelling of expensive perfume. Low-premium, quiet, without bad habits and ponces. Self-confident. He did not shower her with gifts, wooed her calmly, evenly, without “wooing” and pleading. The girl hesitated, and the main role played by her parents, choosing a car mechanic. The motive was the same – “he loves you so much, he cares for you so much!” The outcome is predictable: this woman is now pulling on a child and a drunk, unemployed husband. So “beautiful” courtship man has achieved his goal – managed to disguise the vices that are incompatible with family life.

We know how the stories of beautifully courting hooligans end: the suitor degrades to an extreme degree (alcoholism, jail), and the happy girl is left alone with children, an idiot husband and embittered at all men. She is a victim. But not a victim of men, as is commonly thought, but of her instincts and the lack of a brain in her own head. She chose for herself. No one forced her. But that’s another story.

4. Often, the act of throwing money at a man is nothing more than an attempt to raise his visual rank, to rub dust in his girlfriend’s eyes. When a man has no other worth besides the amount he is willing to spend on a woman, he uses this as his only trump card. He demonstrates “wealth,” “success” (although the amount may be random, stolen, borrowed, etc.). The man knows that he has no special qualities. He also knows that the first thing women fall for is what shines – the visual rank. In the end, the loser who plays the role of the successful man gets what he wants. However, the woman also gets what she wants – money and a sea of attention. And when they run out, she leaves.

At the same time I would like to remind that a really established, self-confident, self-sufficient high-ranking man proves nothing to anyone. He does not depend on the opinion of others and does not try to pull dust in his eyes. He is not trying to buy a woman’s favor with gifts. He is valuable in his own right, and he knows it. And he also has no time for “winning”: position in society is acquired by hard work.

5. Often “conquest” characterizes people who are dependent on other people’s opinions. “Independence in action and judgment is the chief virtue of men,” wrote Vis Vitalis. And he wasn’t writing about such men.

6. And lastly, active pursuit and conquest often derive from common neediness. A lonely, man-starved woman begins to bare herself intensely, acting on her instincts. A man in such a situation becomes “conquered”: he loses money and begs for dates, runs on her heels, makes eye contact, imposes on her with services. All in order to get to the cherished place. This method is popularly called “by hook or by crook. It, too, affects the instincts of women. Both of these heroes get, but they get exactly what they act upon, not what they dream about. The woman gets only casual sex instead of big and pure love, and the man becomes a cash cow for the mercenary lady. He is very lucky if he gets occasional encouraging sex rather than sitting in a friendzone, feeding on promises and flirting.

“I have repeatedly heard confessions from women, more often divorced ones, from which it was clear that the husband (former or current) was a real monster. Despotic, selfish, unreasonably jealous, inattentive, unable to support his family, lazy, drunk, irresponsible, etc., etc. The question, “So why did you marry such a jerk?” was followed by the same sadly dreamy answer, “He was such a handsome wooer…”

As for me, I don’t even know what it means to be “wooed handsomely. I’ve had quite a few women in my life. And I loved every one of them. At least for a while. It never even occurred to me that I needed to “woo” them in any way.

This was because I saw each woman as a person equal to me. (Often this presumption proved false.) And if we are equals, what is the point of courting? Why should I be the one courting?

It makes perfect sense to me why “courting” becomes a monster. It’s a buying and selling scheme, after all. Whoever feeds the girl, dances her. I spent a lot of money on you during your courtship, now do me a favor. I bought you. And you sold me out. The situation is just like with the prostitute. Marat Vasilyev.

How is it really?

A man must understand that he is valuable as a person, not just as a source of benefits for women. If a woman is only interested in advances, then she is just looking for a tool to amuse her ego. Or to get richer. If a woman is not interested in you as a person, it is worth looking for someone who is. If no one is interested in you, it makes sense to think about what’s wrong and start pumping up your skills. This will help not only with women, but also in life in general.

Some women not only claim to conquer and woo, but also openly demand restaurants, gifts and other pleasures of consumer society. Often on the first date. I hope I don’t have to explain to you that this is substandard.

In general, a modern woman who demands a bowl of restaurant salad from a man looks pathetic. Like a beggar begging for alms. If she is not able to earn 200 rubles for the salad she needs so much, then what can we talk about? This person is completely unfit for life. Either that or she just has a consumerist attitude toward a man.

By the way, conquest is not just about money. It’s not even so much money. It’s time, effort and dignity. A man who kills himself for a woman, not only showering his lady of the heart with gifts. He spends a lot of time waiting for her (“I’m busy all the time,” “I’m breaking up with my boyfriend,” etc.), energy (the exhausting tension that the ever-elusive lady creates), and he throws his own dignity under the lady’s feet, begging to meet her and asking for sex. And that is the most mediocre waste of such resources imaginable. In this connection I remind you, reader, of the Friendzone: “You have resources. They are time, effort, money, knowledge, skill, experience. If you spend resources on yourself, you will have new resources and women. If you waste resources on women, you will lose resources and women. It’s as simple as that.

Of course, all of the above does not mean that a man has to walk around like a puffed-up turkey, looking down on others arrogantly and waiting for women to fall at his feet. Man makes the first step – there is nothing wrong with that (however, if the first step is made by a woman, it is now perceived as the norm, too). The man’s initiative does not indicate that he needs sex or anything else. In the end it is necessary to pay attention to the woman you like even with informational purposes – otherwise how could she even guess that you care about her? Not by the stars! But God save you, men, to humiliate, to achieve, to beg. This kind of behavior puts a man in the category of vomiting agents – like apomorphine. Or a friendzone, depending on your luck.

There’s nothing shameful about inviting a girl you like to a coffee shop or giving her a toy in honor of St. Basil’s Day. The criterion for faithfulness of your action is one: are you doing it because you want to or because otherwise the girl won’t go out with you, won’t agree to have sex, won’t love you (underline that)? Where is the right decision here, and where is the obedient reaction to manipulation, you decide for yourself.

Do not think that love can be bought with gifts. Buy can be at best a second-rate sex. Yes, and whether he will be pleasant to you if you know that the woman is with you not because she is interested in you as a person, but for a fancy smartphone? Do you want to be a milk cow? No? Then you’d better interest a woman in your personal qualities, not your gifts.

So the man makes the first move. If there is no reciprocation from the woman, if only he invests time, effort and money, and she only accepts it all graciously (or not so graciously – with caprice), then it is better to break this nipple system. You will never fall in love with such a person for one reason – her heart has been long and firmly occupied. Occupied by her own priceless person of royal blood.

It’s the same if the woman wiggles, says neither “yes” nor “no”. Does not give a clear answer to your initiatives, in general, evades an answer or in any other way evades. This means only one thing: you are not interested in her, and she plays cat and mouse with you. Just out of boredom. There are probably dozens of admirers like you grazing in her vast pasture-friendzone.

Persistence, of course, has not been abolished, but if there is no “yes” answer to your second or third initiative, then read the previous paragraph again. And study the “Forks and Traps” section.

Very often women say, “I didn’t say no,” “I didn’t give a negative answer.” Remember: any juggling words from her side, any slippage is a game of cat and mouse (I hope you know how it ends for the mouse, friend). So remember: a repeated lack of an answer or evasive answer means “no” to you personally. You’re just kept on a short leash in case you get bored, as a backup, or as a free labor force, a pocket philosopher and a moisture vest to drain your negativity. Women often say that no response, even repeatedly, means “ask me again.” Bullshit all of this. If she wants to, she’ll say yes. If she doesn’t, then she doesn’t want to. The first sentence is a warning shot. The second is a definitive shot to hit the target. The rest is just a trick question.

I will write it again, in capital letters:

DOUBLE NON-ANSWERS OR EVASIVE RESPONSES TO YOUR INITIATIVES SHOULD BE TAKEN AS A REJECTION.

You are not a puppet to play with. And you’re not a broken record to repeat sentences ten times over. Even a merciful priest doesn’t serve dinner twice. Develop some self-respect.

Remember: if a woman likes a man, if she is interested in him, she will not wiggle and slip away. Women – extremely pragmatic creatures, well aware of what they want and how to achieve it. A woman will make every effort to be with a man she likes. She explicitly and implicitly will initiate meetings and develop relationships. And certainly your initiatives will take with joy and pleasure. In a normal relationship, one step of a man is one step of a woman. No need to calculate, but keep in mind – necessarily. Otherwise, the relationship will be a one-way game.