Alpha Male Bible: Become a Casanova! Learn Charisma, Confidence, Self-Hypnosis, Eye Contact, Dating Strategies, Psychology of Attraction, Flirt With ... & Self-Discipline of a Real Seducer Man - Dale Cardone 2021
Intimate Relationships: Attraction, Love, And Culture
Two phenomena associated with intimate relationships are personal attraction and love. The attraction is one of the reasons that can lead us to establish a loving relationship.
Some authors consider that affiliation is the basic phenomenon on which the processes of attraction and love rest. Affiliation is a basic human tendency that leads to seeking other people's company and whose primary function is to ensure the survival of both the individual and the species. In this sense, it is considered that one of the objectives of the affiliation is to enter into relationships, express love and sexuality.
As defined by Baron and Byrne, interpersonal attraction can be understood as the judgment that one person makes of another along an attitudinal dimension whose extremes are positive evaluation (love) and negative evaluation (hate). In addition to this cognitive-evaluative dimension, this judgment is associated with behaviors (e.g., trying to do things with the person that attracts us), feelings (e.g., feeling sad when we cannot be with that person), and other cognitions (e.g., attributing to that person many positive characteristics).
Moya summarizes the main psychosocial explanations of the attraction that have had the most support in recent years:
The search for cognitive consistency. Theories, such as Festinger's cognitive dissonance, consider that people try to maintain coherence between our attitudes and between them and our behaviors. Therefore, according to this perspective, we will try to have the same ideas and hobbies as our partner, and in unstable situations, we could change our ideology or get divorced.
The consequences of association and reinforcement. The effects of the association on interpersonal attraction, following classical conditioning principles, consist of being attracted to those who appear associated with good experiences for us. We will dislike those associated with bad experiences. In this sense, the MUM effect consists of people resist transmitting bad news to others, even if we have nothing to do with them. When transmitting it, we will appear associated with the negative event before our eyes of the receiver. We will therefore be unattractive to them.
Exchange and interdependence. Authors such as Blau and Kelley and Thibaut consider that according to the theory of social exchange, a person will be attractive if we believe that the rewards derived from such a relationship are greater than the costs involved. The judgment of the person's attractiveness involved in a said relationship depends on the comparisons we make using two criteria: a) the comparison level based on past experiences. Any current situation will only be judged as beneficial depending on this comparison, which previous love relationships can form, and, b) the level of comparison with alternatives. A somewhat good relationship can be the best evaluated if it is the only alternative we have.
In addition to these psychosocial explanations, a series of factors play a fundamental role in the appearance and maintenance of the attraction that we come to feel towards certain people. Next, we will review the most relevant ones.
Proximity doesn't just get people to know each other, and it often influences dating and marriages. Research by Festinger, Schachter, and Back showed that the three people with whom college students living in a dorm had the best relationships were the people who lived closest to each other. Likewise, authors such as Byrne and Buehler have verified that the relationships established by the students during the semester are a function of the distance between the seats, that is, that physical proximity influences the fact that the students get to know each other. . However, the correlations found between physical distance and attraction do not assure us that proximity causes relationships, it could be that people who share certain characteristics (e.g., religion, economic status, etc.) prefer to live close to each other.
There are several explanations about the influence of physical proximity when establishing relationships:
● The people who are closest physically are also, generally, the most accessible.
● With repeated exposure, feelings of anxiety about the unknown decrease, and that new person gradually becomes more familiar.
● Proximity can increase familiarity, and familiarity can, in turn, increase attraction. The effect of mere exposure consists of the fact that the repeated perception of an initially neutral or positive stimulus leads to a greater attraction towards the stimulus.
● Similarity can also increase this familiarity since people who share certain spaces tend to resemble each other in other aspects, such as ideology, aspirations, problems, etc.; we will tend to get together well because we are similar or because we have been doing alike as a consequence of being together.
● Finally, according to the theories of cognitive consistency, when we have to spend a lot of time with a person, and the relationship is unpleasant, we tend to restore balance, either by trying to get away from it or by discovering that that person was not as unpleasant as we assumed.
● Proximity positively influences attraction as long as the person is initially positive or neutral, not negative.
Negative And Positive Affect
Experiments consistently show that positive feelings lead to positive evaluations of others, likes, and dislikes, while negative feelings lead to negative evaluations, dislike, and antipathy. Affection can influence attraction in two ways:
● First, someone else can do something that makes you feel good or bad; people who make you feel good will tend to like you, and if they make you feel bad, they will be disliked.
● Second, suppose a person is present only when your positive and negative feelings are activated (for whatever reason) as a consequence. In that case, this person will also be nice or unpleasant to you. The general idea is based on classical conditioning. When an attitudinal object is associated with a stimulus that causes negative or positive feelings, the observer develops negative or positive attitudes towards the object. Numerous experimenters have shown that positive affect leads to liking others, while negative affect leads to dislike.
If positive reactions can be transferred from person to person, so can negative reactions. If negative emotions make other people unpleasant to us, and if affection is easily associated with anyone, then we transfer our negative feelings from one person to another if we see them together. Research on stigmata, negatively perceived characteristics (e.g., race, age, foreign accent, physical disability, etc.) indicates that this negative association occurs as easily as positive associations. Even if a stigma is overcome, the previous stigma's effect will not necessarily dissipate.
Anderson found that the five most valued traits were being sincere, honest, understanding, loyal, and trustworthy. Likewise, in Moya's research, the best-evaluated personality characteristics were understanding, loyalty, ability to capture others' feelings, sincerity, and joy. Other studies have shown that the most valued traits in people are grouped into two sets: a) affection (e.g., affectionate, friendly, happy, and considerate), non-verbal cues (e.g., smiling, looking attentively, expressing emotions), and dispositions attitudinal (e.g., showing a liking for people); and, b) competence, which includes social skills and intelligence (e.g., having an interesting conversation, etc.).
Another series of attributes related to the power, prestige, or social position of the person we interact with is of considerable importance to qualify as attractive, especially for males. In fact, in press advertisements, women offer physical attractiveness and seek financial security, while men offer financial positions and request certain physical characteristics.
The results of psychosocial research show that, in general, as the similarity between people increases, so does attraction. The two dimensions of similarity that have been studied the most by social psychologists are attitudinal and personality similarity.
Attitude similarity refers to how two individuals share the same attitudes on several issues. Byrne indicates that the greater the similarity, the greater the attraction. This result has been found in people of all ages, in very different groups, and different countries.
The study by Smeaton, Byrne, and Murnen confirmed the proportion hypothesis that predicted that attraction differed according to the proportion of similar attitudes shared. Despite these results, several investigations indicated a slightly greater effect of different attitudes than similar ones, in part because most people assume that a stranger, especially an attractive one, harbors attitudes similar to those of the same.
This assumption of general agreement with one's opinions is called the false consensus effect, and a consequence is that agreement is expected while disagreement is surprising. Suppose on some special issues, and individuals believe that they have a minority opinion and that most people disagree. In that case, the disagreement will be expected and will have less effect than an unexpected disagreement.
In the case of personality similarity, the research results are less consistent. Moya argues that the lack of relationship between personality similarity and attraction can be explained because personality characteristics are not usually publicly exhibited. Other times, the personality trait's very nature attracts both alike and those who are different. In general, it has been shown that similarity produces greater attraction than difference, at least in the case of the following characteristics: sexual orientation (that is, if the person is male, female, or androgynous), depression, type A behavior, seeking sensation and cognitive style.
The following explanations show how similarity can influence attraction, both positively and negatively:
● Similar attitudes activate positive affect, while different attitudes activate negative affect, and affect leads to attraction.
● According to cognitive consistency and equilibrium theory theories, people naturally organize their likes and dislikes in a balanced way. In this way, balanced relationships occur when someone is similar, and we like them.
● The similarity is reinforcing. The most valuable proof that others approve of our ideas, customs, and tastes is the fact that they have them precisely. This formulation suggests that we are interested in other people's opinions not because we seek precision but solely because we want to verify what we already believe. However, when people resemble each other because they possess some negative characteristic, then it is possible that the similarity, instead of leading to attraction, leads to rejection. Sometimes the difference can be more reinforcing than the similarity since it allows us to learn new and valuable things. Also, feeling unique and special is highly valued
● The choice of people similar to us in certain dimensions (e.g., educational level, social class, or physical attractiveness) can result from comparing and evaluating the various alternatives we have and their costs and benefits. This is because, generally, the most valued people are the hardest to get. According to expectation-value theories, in real life, we will feel attracted to the most valued people within the field of those who can reciprocate us. In this sense, the pairing hypothesis refers to the fact that married couples and couples in love tend to become partners based on their similar physical attractiveness.
Finally, when questioned directly, university students do not consider social, ideological, and religious similarity as a relevant attribute in a partner's choice. Two explanations would account for this result: a) people are not aware of the importance of situational determinants of behavior; and b) this attribute may be important at the beginning of the relationship, but not for the choice of an intimate partner. However, it is relevant to note that according to French data, for people of high socioeconomic level, the meeting spaces for couples would be closed or reserved places. People of the low socioeconomic level would be public, open places all the world. This suggests that, even though certain similarities are not relevant when choosing a partner, it is more likely that couples have certain similarities (social, ideological, religious) to the extent that the meeting spaces for couples differ according to economic stratum.
Once two individuals discover enough similarities to move toward friendship, an additional step is imperative. One of the factors influencing the development of effective relationships is the existence or not of reciprocity in the relationship, that is, that we too are attracted to these people. Almost everyone is happy to receive such positive feedback, and it is quite unpleasant to be evaluated negatively. An exception is that individuals with negative self-concepts sometimes respond well to accurate negative evaluations, possibly because these evaluations are consistent with their self-schema.
Although mutual liking is often expressed in words, the first signs of attraction can be non-verbal indicators. Gold, Ryckman, and Mosley found that when a woman responded positively to a man by looking at him, talking to him, and moving closer, he tended to be attracted to her, even when he knew that her attitudes were different.
Someone who has a bad image of us is not rewarding. According to cognitive consistency theories, someone likes me, and that someone I like is an unstable situation. Aronson and Coe found that when two people shared the dislike of a third, the attraction between them was greater than when they did not share that feeling.
As Hatfield and Sprecher indicate, given the same characteristics, a person with a pleasant physical appearance is more attractive than another with less physical attractiveness. Physical attractiveness is especially decisive in the first encounters or when the contact is superficial. According to the process of cognitive ignorance, the person that we initially decide has no interest, is not paid attention to, and is forgotten. Research has shown that men often ignore unattractive women.
In various studies, both men and women and people of different races have agreed that an attractive female face is one with both a childlike appearance (large, wide-set eyes, a small nose, a broad smile, and a small chin) and mature features (prominent cheekbones, cheeks narrow, high eyebrows and large pupils). Height has been valued positively in men's physical attractiveness but negatively in women. Another physical characteristic that seems to influence physical attractiveness is body build, the waist-hip ratio in women's cases. Alicke found that attractiveness decreased markedly when a very attractive face was matched with an unattractive body. Also, overweight people are generally perceived as less attractive.
The following explanations show why a pleasant physique is attractive to us :
● According to the implicit theories of personality, there are numerous beliefs about what people's characteristics are associated with each other in our society. In this sense, the halo effect considers that whoever has a good quality will also have other good qualities. Some research has shown that people tend to believe that attractive men and women are more stable, interesting, sociable, independent, dominant, exciting, sexy, balanced, socially skilled, and more successful than those who are not attractive. However, physical attractiveness can be associated with negative characteristics. For example, very attractive women may be judged as more materialistic and vain than less attractive. They may be considered more guilty than the latter when they are tried for a crime involving deception.
● Attractive people also attract us because our public image is favored when associating with a person of these characteristics. Thus, various studies have confirmed that when a man appears accompanied by a very attractive woman, he improves the impression he makes.
● Attractive people can behave in a way that increases their evaluation and makes them more attractive. Reis showed that attractive men had more relationships with women and developed a greater social competence in this field than less attractive men. However, the most attractive women did not establish more interactions with men, were less assertive and more fearful in their relationships with men than the less attractive women.
● According to the affect-centered model, good-looking individuals activate positive effects, and affect, as already mentioned, is an important determinant of attraction.
People are not correct in estimating how others judge their attractiveness. Men (but not women) overestimate their good looks. Because many biases favor attractiveness, it is not surprising that many people care about their appearance. This preoccupation with one's attractiveness and fear of negative judgments by others is known as appearance anxiety.
Judgments about whether a person is attractive are not solely a matter of the person's physical details in question. Situational factors influencing the observer are also important. Kenrick found that if a person had previously seen several highly attractive individuals, the person in question is rated as less attractive.
Behavioral indicators also affect perceptions. People react more positively to someone with a youthful gait than someone with an elderly-like gait, regardless of gender or age. Furthermore, adults who seem very young are also judged as weak, naive, and incompetent, but loving and honest. Those who appear to be very mature are perceived as more dominant and attractive but less affectionate and friendly.
Attraction And Culture
Attractiveness, perception, and social behavior, contrary to beliefs that beauty depends on who is looking and that there are radically different patterns of beauty, fifteen studies have confirmed that people of different nations and ethnic groups agree when they indicate which types of individuals are physically attractive and which are not. For example, people of different cultures (13 countries and four ethnic groups) judged a female face as more attractive if it showed the following characteristics: large eyes with dilated pupils, small nose, high cheekbones, narrow face with thin cheeks, wide smile, lips thick or full and small chin. However, other results show cultural variability: blacks in the United States evaluate heavier women as more attractive than whites in the United States. This suggests that although there is agreement on the body structure and attractive facial features, there are ethnic variations in the parameters of body weight and size that define an attractive person.
Studies allow us to conclude that people perceive and evaluate attractive people more favorably; It is the effect called 'what is beautiful is good.' The review by Langlois confirmed that more attractive children were evaluated as more friendly, more competent, with a better fit and affective balance, and with greater interpersonal competence than less attractive children. The same was true of attractive adults: they were judged as more competent at work, more pleasant, and better fit or mental health.
Consistently, attractive children and adults were also treated more positively. There were fewer negative interactions with the more attractive children, more positive interactions, and more care. While attractive adults received more attention, were given more rewards, more positive interactions were established with them, fewer negative interactions, and more help and cooperation.
It has also been confirmed that attractive people act more positively (e.g., they are more popular, slightly more intelligent, have more adapted social skills and behaviors, have better physical health) and possess more positive characteristics (e.g., higher self-esteem, better mental health, more extraversion).
Finally, attractive people self-perceive or judge themselves slightly better than less attractive people (they perceive themselves as more competent and better mental health).
Socio-cultural And Attractive Factors
The previous results confirm the socio-cultural explanation about attractiveness:
● Cultural norms and values determine the behavior and judgments of the judges and 'evaluated' through their learning;
● Expectations and stereotypes are learned ('there is no lame or one-eyed person good') and are confirmed through behaviors and self-fulfilling prophecy (e.g., when faced with someone unattractive, I treat him worse, to which he responds more negatively).
Although the tendency to perceive that "what is beautiful is good" is common in all the cultures studied, what differs are inferred positive traits. For example, in Korea, an attractive person is inferred that he cares more about others and is more integrated, consistent with that culture's collectivist values. In the United States, it is inferred that greater attractiveness, greater assertiveness, dominance, and strength are consistent with the dominant individualistic and competitive cultural values in those societies. Another study with
Asians (Taiwanese Chinese) confirmed that attractive people were evaluated positively on both socially desirable and undesirable traits. Still, there was no relationship between attractiveness and judgment on non-normative traits (of medium desirability). That is, physical attractiveness is associated with traits that are normative in a given culture.
Now, three facts question the socio-cultural explanation about 'what is beautiful is good':
● The relationship between a person's attractiveness and the judgments and behaviors attributed to him is not greater in adults than in children. However, according to socio-cultural arguments, people learn beauty patterns and their correlations as they socialize in a given culture, so adults should show this effect more intensity.
● Likewise, the relationship between attractiveness and the judgments and behaviors attributed to a person is similar for men and women. This fact questions the socio-cultural idea that this effect is based on different gender roles that emphasize more female physical beauty than male.
● Finally, the self-perceptions of attractive people are only slightly more positive. This fact questions the socio-cultural perspective that indicates that perceptions and interactions are internalized in the self-concept.
Appeal and Evolutionary Explanations
The high cross-cultural agreement in judgments about attractive features (infantile face, amphora body for women, regular face, and muscular triangular body for men) is consistent with an evolutionary explanation.
However, a series of facts also question the evolutionary hypotheses:
● Given that attractive traits similarly influence men and women when it comes to inferring judgments and behaviors about people, the evolutionary hypothesis that states that when choosing a partner, attractiveness is more important for men is questioned. since it indicates the greater reproductive capacity of women while resources are for women since it indicates the ability of men to ensure the survival of their descendants.
● Given that the relationship between the person's attractiveness and the judgment and behavior attributed to him is similar for children and adults, the evolutionary hypothesis affirms that attractiveness must be important because it is related to reproduction. Say, with adulthood.
The results are congruent with the evolutionary hypothesis that attractiveness is a general indicator of good health - the so-called good gene theory. The fact that it associates the attractiveness of a person with their better evaluation and quality of interaction in childhood is also consistent with the evolutionary theory of parental investment, which suggests that parents invest more in children with greater survivability and reproduction - healthier because they are more beautiful, regardless of whether they are boys or girls.
Love is such a complex phenomenon that it has given rise to many broad and vague definitions applied to other intense emotional events such as bereavement or rape. Besides, love is a dynamic process that is constantly changing during the relationship, so its definition will vary depending on its state. The data provided by various investigations carried out from different disciplines clearly show that there is a progressive decrease in initial passion and that this, together with the gradual growth of commitment, gives rise to a cycle with an initial phase of passionate love strongly associated with sexual desire followed. of a phase of partner love that lasts for about two years in most cases.
Types Of Love
One of the basic types is sexual or passionate love that would be characterized by:
1. Strong uncontrollable feelings of attraction towards the desired person and anxiety and discomfort in his absence.
2. Strong physiological activation and sexual desire.
3. Obsessive thoughts or rumination about the loved object;
4. A certain pattern of behaviors, such as expressing affection for the desired person, supporting them physically and emotionally, and unconditional acceptance.
On the other hand, non-passionate romantic love would be composed of:
● Thoughts of need, of "caring for" and of trust in the partner;
● Feeling of well-being, difficulty concentrating and 'floating in the clouds' and, to a lesser extent, intense physical reactions; and,
● Behaviors of intimacy, support, and tolerance of the other.
Of all the love typologies, it will be Lee the first to try to validate his proposal empirically. Lee distinguished three basic love styles: Eros, Ludus, and Storge. The combination, in different degrees, of these primary styles, would give us three other secondary styles independent of the first: Mania, Pragma, and Agape:
● Eros or passionate love is characterized by an irresistible passion, intense feelings, strong physical attraction, and sexual activity. Lover Eros values love highly but are not obsessed with it or pressure his partner to intensity, but rather allows things to develop mutually. The characteristic of this type is self-confidence and high self-esteem.
● Ludus or playful love, with little emotional involvement and no future expectations. This loving style does not have a preferred physical style but rather likes all kinds of partners. Even though many people see this love as morally negative, Ludus does not try to hurt other people. He usually makes the rules of the game very clear before starting the relationship.
● Storge, or friendly love, is characterized by a long-lasting commitment that develops slowly and prudently and is based on intimacy, friendship and affection. The similarity in terms of values and attitudes is much more important to Storge than physical appearance or sexual satisfaction. The orientation of this love is more to seek a long-term commitment than a short-term passion.
● Mania is obsessive love, with a strong dependence on the partner, intense jealousy, possessiveness, mistrust, and ambivalence. This lover tries to force the couple into commitment without waiting for it to evolve naturally.
● Pragma refers to pragmatic love, love based on the rational search for the ideal partner. The pragmatic lover considers age, education, social status, religion, or the ability to be a good father or mother. Unlike Storage, in which love can grow without being particularly concerned about the partner's future projections or the partner's family background, the pragmatic lover is likely to establish conditions before developing a relationship.
● Agape or altruistic love, of absolute renunciation and selfless surrender. It is a rather romantic love in which sexuality and sensuality are not relevant.
The Hendrick and Hendrick scale of attitudes towards love is the one that evaluates this typology from an individual approach to love relationships. With this scale, Hendrick and Hendrick classified the romantic stories described by university students in these six different styles: eros or love at first sight (34%), Storage (66%), Ludus (2%), mania (2 %), pragma (17%) and agape (2%). More than three-quarters of the stories described corresponded to partner love, followed by a third of them framed in passionate love.
From the point of view of gender differences, Hendrick and Hendrick found that men, compared with women, attach more importance to passionate love (eros) and playful or entertaining (Ludus). Women, compared with men, are more inclined towards friendly love (Storge), logical (pragma), and possessive (mania). These results have been described from the perspective of the functions that these forms of love have had for each sex in the species' evolution.
Functions Of Love And Evolution
The evolutionary conception provides us with arguments about the biological functionality of loving behavior for the individual as a member of a species.
This approach sees love as a natural part of the human condition and, perhaps, natural to other species. Love is biologically relevant if it helps promote species' survival, a central theme of evolution theory. Five million years ago, the survival of species depended on reproductive success. Sexual desire and commitment, respectively related to previous aspects of reproductive success, were reinforced in higher primates whose biochemistry led them to seek and obtain pleasure not only from sexual activity but also from female-male bonding and parent-descendants. Ancestors who acted this way were more likely to pass on their genes than those who were not motivated to sexual activity and establish stable emotional bonds. As a result of this evolutionary process, humans are genetically pre-programmed to have sexual activity (sexual desire or sexual love in terms of Oatley and Johnson Laird, 1995), to fall in love (stable emotional relationships with a partner), and to care for descendants (parental love). The evolutionary perspective admits that current environmental factors influence.
Social and non-genetic aspects of the body determine sexual activity. The historical influence or the ten thousand years of civilization established as in which we currently live has acted only during 5% of the species' existence or over 400 of the 100,000 generations of humanity.
This socio-biological theory allows us to explain the sex differences in sexual behavior and love based on two central processes that have to do with differential parental investment and sexual selection:
● The sexual selection consists of two different processes: a) Intra-sexual selection refers to the pressure that members of one sex exert on the other through competition. In a species in which males compete for females through their hunting ability and strength, the strongest and best hunting individuals are more likely to dominate the competition and survive; and, b) Epigamic selection is the other part of sexual selection. If one sex selects its other-sex partners based on certain attributes such as physical strength and aggressiveness, these attributes must be more characteristic of one sex than the other.
● Parental investment is defined as the expenditure of time, energy, and risk of the parent in the offspring that increases the probabilities of survival of the latter (and therefore reproductive success) at the cost of the father's ability to invest in another offspring. While the typical parental investment may have been highly variable throughout our evolutionary history, the minimum possible parental investment of females, due to nine months of gestation and subsequent months of lactation, has been much greater than that of males in our species. A woman can have a maximum of 25 children, and the average number of children in simple hunter-gatherer societies is five. Ancestral males might have benefited reproductively from copulating with any fertile female if the risk was low. Therefore, it is fair to hypothesize that natural selection favored males who had low thresholds for sexual arousal and reactive to new sexually attractive females. On the other hand, our female ancestors had little to gain reproductively and much to lose if they copulated randomly with new males. Selection is unlikely to have favored females who were sexually attracted to a wide variety of males or solely because of their presence .
According to the socio-biological theory predictions, in the case of the human species, since women must be fertile, they will be better sexual objects when they have a youthful and maternal appearance. For example, the narrower the waist is relative to the hips, the more men will prefer them and value them as more attractive, healthy, and reproductively valuable. It can also be assumed that women would be more selective in selecting their mates since they have a higher parental investment in their offspring than men and can father a few boys in a limited period. Therefore, women go looking for men who stick with resources to protect them and their children. In particular, when choosing potential sexual partners, they will pay more attention to the attributes of status, dominance, and aggressiveness. They will select those with a greater ability to obtain resources.
Predictions from socio-biological theory regarding gender differences in behaviors are common with role theories that emphasize that women are assigned and socialized in passive, lower status, and communal roles while men do so. They are inactive roles, of higher status, and agentic; therefore, women should be less approving of casual relationships, and they should have fewer different partners. Sociobiologists argue that, although men may be somewhat more permissive than women in extramarital affairs, men especially disapprove of women having such relationships since they must guarantee paternity with the utmost certainty.
From this perspective, it is predicted that men will value playful love more, consistent with their lower parental investment and their positive orientation towards casual sex and obtaining the maximum number of possible partners. Women, given the greater parental investment and the effort necessary to raise a few descendants, will tend to value more pragmatic and friendly love, as well as the criteria of social power and status to choose their partner. Therefore, men's playful love and the pragmatic love of women would favor the species' reproduction.
According to these predictions, cross-cultural research has consistently confirmed socio-biological hypotheses that women prefer older sexual partners and evaluate them based on their resources. Men prefer younger and physically attractive partners. In this sense, the cross-cultural research of Buss confirmed in 37 different countries that women tend to evaluate their male partners based on their economic capacity, ambition, and perseverance, while the attributes positively evaluated by men to choose a female partner are health, beauty, and youth. They will choose those who have the greatest signs of reproductive capacity. Likewise, in the meta-analysis by Oliver and Hyde, men presented more permissive attitudes towards sexual relations, earlier initiation of coital sexual relations, a higher frequency of intercourse, and a greater number of sexual partners than women. This greater male centrality in sexuality is supported by anthropological research. Of the 849 societies examined in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas, 708 are polygamic (one husband for several wives), and only 4 are polyandrous (a woman can have two or more husbands). In addition to the four polyandrous, they are all polygamic, the reverse being not true.
According to the socio-biological augmentation, the differences between genders will be reinforced, especially in cultures that impose fewer social constraints. These allow exploring the entire behavioral repertoire and allow innate differences to manifest more strongly.
The universal character of love and cultural influence from a cultural perspective, some authors have postulated the transcultural existence of romantic or passionate love. Thus, Jankowiak and Fischer, in a review of 186 cultures, have found that 88.5% of them have indicators of passionate love. In particular social constructionists and relativists like Averill, other authors postulate that passionate love is a phenomenon constructed by social discourse at a given historical and cultural moment. Thus, Hendrick and Hendrick, among others, argue that it is exclusive to Western culture and emerged around the 12th century. However, some authors such as Berscheid emphasize that there are descriptions of desire and passionate love in much earlier documents such as the Bible, Hindu, and classical Chinese texts.
More and more psychologists, anthropologists, and other scholars believe that love is a universal phenomenon. However, its concrete meaning can vary markedly from one culture to another at different times. Before the modern age, it was not a prerequisite for marriage, so in many societies, it was arranged by parents or relatives, perhaps hoping that love would arise in the couple in the future. Still, there were no great expectations of romantic love. Studies conducted in Western cultures have found that the relationship between marriage and love has changed over the past thirty years. A generation ago, especially women wanted to marry even in the absence of romantic love. Still, since then, men and women have agreed on the idea of romantic love as the basis of marriage. It seems that in the twentieth century, in Western societies, romantic love has become the fundamental reason for maintaining long-term marital relationships.
The belief that one should marry only for love becomes an ideology when a society widely shares it. Since people today share this belief, it is difficult to understand how marriages in previous centuries could have been happy. Perhaps the people of other times shared another ideology. Perhaps there was often early anticipation of sharing life with a partner, sexual fulfillment or coming to love the partner more deeply over the years. However, some of these anticipations sound a lot like today's anticipations except for 'falling in love.' It is possible that the bond between love and marriage has not changed that much; what may have changed is the ideology of love from 'marriages must be arranged to 'marriages must be based on love.' To some extent, this depends on how love is defined.
Socio-Structural Factors And Intimate Relationships
Some authors have insisted on social structure factors in the sphere of beliefs and loving behaviors.
Guttentag and Secord stated that the demographic ratio between men and women is an important variable to explain the dominant type of love. When there are more numerous men than women in the population, the few women are valued. An idealized vision of women, of the family, and a non-passionate romantic vision of love prevails. In this context, a more partner style of love would probably dominate. When there is an excess of women, the family and marriage will be devalued. Extra and pre-marital sex, singleness, and separations would be frequent, committed love would not be dominant, and a playful and erotic love style would predominate. These authors reviewed demographic data from different countries and historical periods, such as ancient Greece, medieval Europe, and the United States, that confirmed these hypotheses during different centuries.
On the other hand, Eagly and Wood argued that sex differences in the criteria for choosing an intimate partner should be smoothed out in societies characterized by greater gender equality, since men's preferences for younger women, capable of being good attractive housewives, as well as the importance given by women to men's social resources reflect the differences in status and roles between men and women. Reanalyzing the partner selection criteria, it was confirmed that, the greater equality between the genders, evaluated by a UN indicator on the degree of labor and institutional insertion of women, as well as salary parity with men, there were fewer differences between the sexes in the importance that was assigned to financial resources and being a good householder as criteria for choosing a partner.
From this socio-structural perspective, the differences in beliefs about the love between nations and between genders depend on social resources, demographics, and distribution of power and status among gender roles. Socio Economic development will directly reinforce the importance of passionate love, love as a criterion and prerequisite for choosing an intimate partner and marrying. It allows the person to value subjective rather than practical aspects. Social and economic development, which is associated with a lower difference in status and power concerning gender roles, will cause more similarities in men's and women's responses about love. Levine concluded that economic development would reinforce individualism, the relative equality of opportunities between men and women (higher education, greater female labor participation, and legal equality), would increase the importance of subjective feelings and personal decisions in the formation of couples, which would be associated with an increase in divorces and a decrease in birth rates (greater control by the woman of contraception and greater planning of the offspring, not experienced as an obligation). Therefore, the differential distribution of resources and roles would explain the differences between men and women and between nations.
Cultural Factors And Intimate Relationships
Other studies have shown the influence of cultural values on beliefs about love. Dion and Dion suggest that different cultural orientations strongly influence how people conceptualize love and intimacy. The more individualistic cultures, in which intimate relationships are established face to face and more or less symmetrically, value the passionate romantic component of love more. In contrast, in collectivist societies, intimate relationships are organized through the extended family's intervention, and the pragmatic and friendly aspects of love are valued more. Thus, romantic love is a more important basis for marriage in individualism than in collectivist cultures. In the former, two people's love and individual decisions seem natural to form a stable couple. In the latter, in general, the formation of the couple is a decision of the elderly. It is based on arrangements that respond to the families' wishes, and it is a duty for the individuals. Most of humanity lives in collectivist cultures, and in general, the family has a great influence on marriages. Most of the brides are adolescents; in two-thirds of the societies, a dowry is paid for them, and the marriage is conceived as a socioeconomic contract between the families. In 1980, in China, only a third of marriages were free from family influence. In 1989, in Korea, 40% of marriages were arranged, as 72% of Turkish women interviewed in the '70s. Parental arranged marriage was very common among Indian and Pakistani immigrants.
From this socio-cultural and normative perspective, more than the differences in resources and roles.
They would explain the differences between genders and between nations. Even controlling the level of economic development, cultures whose values emphasize autonomy and individual decisions and value internal attributes and feelings (individualistic) will reinforce the importance of passionate love, love as a criterion and prerequisite for a partner's choice. And marriage. Collectivist cultures, which are characterized by greater differences in status and emphasize family decisions and normative duties, will give less importance to love as a criterion and prerequisite for forming a stable couple and will value more the practical and friendly aspects of the relationship. Love. It can also be assumed that normative cultures, which emphasize the need to obey rules, will reject more playful and pragmatic love and emphasize criteria such as innocence and social status. These cultures that do not tolerate uncertainty and emotions should also emphasize the style of love mania - strong emotional and possessive activation. Hierarchical cultures, which emphasize the legitimacy of status asymmetries and obedience (from children to fathers and from wives to husbands, among others), and masculine, competitive cultures that emphasize gender differences, will also reinforce differences in response between men and women, in particular by reinforcing people's support for traditional gender criteria (e.g., women will value social status more and men will value chastity and feminine characteristics such as being a good housewife). Let us remember that according to a socio-cultural argument, the cultures that impose more constraints will reduce gender differences in normative responses (e.g., there will be fewer differences between men and women in the valuation of pragmatic love if it is normative in collectivist cultures).
In summary, the phenomenon of love presents an inter and intra-individual variability and a cultural and historical one.
Types Of Love And Socio-cultural Factors
A study on the importance of people from 15 countries and regions of the world to the different styles of the love of Hendrick and Hendrick has confirmed the influence that economic, social, and cultural factors exert in the valuation of these types of love.
Considering that the more under the score, the better the type of love, and that scores above three indicate disapproval. Using the national averages, it is confirmed that the erotic style is the most valued, followed by the storge mania style. Ludus and pragma are the least valued styles.
Besides, cultures that emphasize the friendly and partner style (Storge) also value practicalities (pragma) and place less importance on possession, jealousy, and strong emotional arousal (mania). In this sense, cultures that emphasize passionate love also value manic loveless.
Erotic love is more valued in female cultures, in uncompetitive societies, which value the quality of life and in countries with high social development and in cultures with low avoidance of uncertainty that are characterized for being less normative and anxious.
The storge and pragma love styles, which do not have such passionate overtones, are more valued in collectivist cultures where intimate relationships are based more on family obligations and duties and cultures with low avoidance of love. Uncertainty, intolerant, intolerant societies, which are less emotional and value gradual and calm love. Countries with less socioeconomic development and greater hierarchical distance give more importance to love's social and practical aspects. Therefore, these results corroborate what has been found in previous studies, that is, the higher prevalence of the pragmatic and partner love style (Storge) among African and African countries. Collectivist eastern and less developed nations.
In individualistic cultures that value the individual more and with high avoidance of uncertainty that is more normative and emotional, the manic style related to possession and high affective activation occurs more intensely.
Finally, the playful love style is more valued in collectivist cultures, with low socioeconomic development and low uncertainty avoidance. For example, in these cultures, in African countries, both due to the absence of resourceful male partners and a certain greater tolerance and acceptance of casual sex, extramarital sexuality is more frequent.
Types Of Love And Gender Differences
Concerning gender differences, the results show that women, compared with men, agree significantly more with pragmatic love and storge love. At the same time, they value Ludus love and agape love more negatively. It is in feminine (vs. masculine) cultures where there are more differences between women and men in the valuation they make of the playful love style. Therefore, men value playful love more, and in particular, it is men from feminine cultures who value play love more than women.
It has also been found that collectivist countries and less social development show a greater difference between women and men in their storage love valuation. Although women show more agreement with the style of friendly love in all cultures than men, this type of love was more emphasized by women from collectivist and less developed societies, probably to compensate for the lower resources and autonomy.
The results also indicate that men and women in individualistic countries show a greater difference in their pragma style valuation. Women show more agreement with the practical aspect of love than men in individualistic cultures, although, in collectivist countries, both men and women value it more importantly. Likewise, the differences between men and women in their valuation of the pragma style were greater in masculine than in feminine cultures. Therefore, pragmatic love was emphasized more by women than by men in individualistic and competitive cultures, probably as a way of adapting to their environment.
Love and physical attractiveness are more valued as criteria for choosing a partner in individualistic cultures, emphasizing personal feelings and decisions when establishing intimate relationships and in cultures characterized by establishing more egalitarian or less social relationships, hierarchical and greater social development. On the contrary, the valuation of innocence, social status, and good health is more important in societies with fewer resources, less social development, and strongly hierarchical. The higher valuation of the more material and realistic aspects of love seems consistent with the socio-cultural context since the components of survival and social adaptation of intimate relationships are more relevant in these contexts.
50% of people from collectivist cultures say that they would be willing to marry a person, even if they were not in love. Studies have confirmed that the majority of people (66%) refuse to marry someone who has all the requirements without being in love with him/her, and only a minority (13%) accept it (see table 3). But, especially, the individuals from individualistic and masculine countries state that they are less in agreement with marrying a person who has all the qualities but with whom they are not in love. Besides, the countries with greater social development and less hierarchy give more importance to love as a prerequisite for establishing intimate and couple relationships. Therefore, these results confirm the studies that indicate that love tended to be more important in westernized, more developed, and individualistic countries, such as the USA, followed by Brazil, England, and Australia, and less important in less developed nations. More hierarchical and collectivist from the East like India, Pakistan, Thailand, and the Philippines. The two least collectivist and economically most developed countries of the Asian countries, Japan and Hong Kong, attached greater importance to love. These studies suggest that basic needs' satisfaction allows developing more self-fulfillment and self-expression, such as romantic love. Individualism and egalitarian cultural relationships increase the importance of internal attributes and personal decisions regarding and marriage.
The Truth About Women's Love and Sex ... It May Surprise You
"Women are too complicated."
"Women have many needs."
"I don't understand women."
You hear this all the time. And honestly, it makes sense. Other men say that because it is easier to raise your hands and simply relate to women as black boxes that cannot be understood than to try and wrap their minds around women who can understand. Here's what you require to learn about women, and the good news is: they are creatures at first and, on a biological level, very sexual. In fact, they presumably appreciate sex yet more than we do. Have you noticed how women moan during sex a lot more than men?
What All Women Fear To Live
(and the trick to alleviate this anxiety and get them to do anything you ask)
Regrettably, society states women to believe, in the relevant portion of their minds, (not the emotional portion), that it is "wrong" to enjoy sex.
Because women manage to be social creatures (more so than men, for reasons of evolutionary science), labels like "slut” or "prostitute" have a strong negative effect on them.
Neither of these fines applies to men who have a lot of sex. Thus, the supreme tragedy of the misogynistic system put in place by religion and society to repress women's sexuality is that men have more of a challenge in getting sex than they would if they went back to pre-civilization ages when ladies were wild and uninhibited.
Your job as a guy in contemporary society is to go around the woman's social conditioning and bring out the natural woman within her.
Sounds difficult? Believe me, it is not! In a way, women are like padlocks. They seem impossible if you are using the wrong keys, but once you find the correct key, they open easily. And yes, you can do this. I'm going to show you how.
To bring out the natural woman that lies deep within each woman, you must always keep in mind that, on a subliminal level, ladies love sex, and they want it as much (and perhaps more) as we want it.
And as if the social conditioning that women are subjected to isn't bad enough, a more powerful force lies within them: their biology. A perfectly natural consequence of sex is children, and every gal knows it. And she knows that if she goes pregnant when she's not supposed to get pregnant, people will talk. This is the supreme tragedy of women; Despite loving sex, they cannot be free with their sexuality without being labeled a slut.
So while you — as a sexual man — direct your encounters with women toward sex, you need to keep her from feeling like a slut.
(By the way, it's to your own preference to be discreet with women. The last point in life is to be like the approval-seeking beta males who brag to their mates about the women they've brought to bed. You don't need the approval of your peers, so skip the locker room talk! Real men don't need to do that.)
Have you talked to guys who say to you, "We men will never understand gentlewomen?" Well, ladies really aren't as strange or hard to follow as those guys think. Nor are they different from us, as some of us might think.
Since we know that women want sex, it is okay for you to write down having sex on your agenda when you interact with them. In fact, it really is a great idea.
What you should bypass doing at all costs, however, is verbalizing their intentions. You DO NOT want to say something about sex, or his attempt to have it, to the woman.
Whenever you share your sexual purposes to a woman by saying something about him, you engage the logical portion of her mind, causing her social conditioning to skyrocket. "Oh-oh," she thinks. "This guy is vulgar, gross, and it gives me the creeps. And I couldn't end up being a slut here. "
So avoid being explicit about sex, and hold back the back of your mind how much women adore sex, and work on extending sexuality without saying anything at all about it. Use the language of your body, not your mouth.
What Women Like
Don't listen to what women say when they talk about the type of men they like; instead, look at their demeanor and look at the kinds of men they really throw themselves at.
If a woman were honest, she would say that the type of man she likes is "a sexual man who will create an opportunity for sex and will persist despite my barriers." However, she doesn't dare say this because she is terrified that someone will call her a "slut."
Women like relationships, but they don't need a man for that. After all, women have very intimate relationships with their female friends. I can't repeat it enough- Women want a man who gives them great sex. And here is another biological tidbit: women normally take on the passive role in sex. This means that you, the man, need to take responsibility for the sex by pushing the encounter firmly into readiness.
Don't make her take over. I mean, think about it: she lives in fear of being labeled a slut, and are you waiting for her to start sex? It's no wonder so many guys have trouble getting to bed. It's too much to wait for something like that - the woman just isn't going to act on that plane. To take her to bed, you will have to create a situation where the woman feels as if she could have sex with you without consequences for her.
For example, last month, I hooked up with a woman at "happy hour." We talked for a couple of hours, the topics I will reveal later to be a great conversationalist with women.
We get along really well, and then (two hours into our conversation!) She tells me that she had a boyfriend.
At this point, there were several ways he could have reacted. Most types would:
a) Upset and leave her, feeling bitter about how the woman had led to this.
b) Trying to talk and convince the girl to ditch that other guy.
Most guys would either have chosen a) or b). Trust me, I did that too. Instead, I've learned that the best thing to do is what I call "Option C": react nonchalantly, maintain my alpha male composure, and show that what she said didn't get me out of control.
"Good," I later said cheerfully. "He will keep you busy when you are away from me."
She laughed that it was a breakthrough between us that night. I don't normally go for girls with boyfriends, but she had been flirting with some guy in a bar for two hours; how good could that relationship be? (And by the way, if a woman comes up to you and is in a relationship, mark my words ... if she doesn't have sex with you, then she'll find some other guy to flirt with her and satisfy her carnal desires. Her current boyfriend won't, or she wouldn't be flirting with other guys.)
As the night progressed, the perfect excuse was given to go to my house. She was a huge fan of the British Royal Family, and I told her about my collection of magazines from the time I spent my summer in England. "Come see them," I told her.
Once in my apartment, of course, it was simply a matter of me to maintain control of the interaction and allow her to slowly warm up sexually.
Around 2 AM, she decided to leave, not wanting to spend the night. All she had ever wanted from me was sex, no strings attached. (She knew that no one would ever know what we did that night.) In other words: sex without consequences. That is what women ask for. You've probably heard of women on vacation looking for adventure outside of town. Have you ever questioned why they do that? It is because there is no responsibility for them; they are not going to be called sluts. Sex happens spontaneously because the conditions are right. A woman thousands of miles away from home can satisfy her carnal desires, and no one in her city will ever know.
Do Not Talk Explicitly About What You Are Going To Do
There is a certain mating ritual that humans do. This is like a dance that goes on for several hours. The mating ritual must follow the appropriate steps for sex to take place. We men have an unfortunate tendency to always want to clarify the environment and find out from the woman what is happening directly, where everything is located between them, and how she feels about having sex. This is a huge mistake.
Never verbalize anything about wherever you are in the mating ceremony with a woman. Do not explicitly tell him what your intentions are. That is a logical thing that men do. Logical things kill sensations, and passions are crucial for a woman to be sexually receptive to you. Don't talk about your intentions about having sex; you should make it appear that the two of you had spontaneous sex. It will keep the emotional part of her activated while the logical portion of her mind remains deactivated. And that's good — it's the logical part of your mind that says, "No!"
If you come for her as a true gentleman who she really hooked up with, then she will rationalize in her mind that even though she doesn't normally have sex on a first date, you were an exception.
Just remember: a good time for a woman is good sex with a man ... and she wants you to take over.
The Number One Mistake Men Make In Dating, And How To Avoid It
At the ripe age of 23, a colleague of mine got his first girlfriend. Even though he was just a law scholar, while he barely was with her, he spent more than $ 3,000 on the girl in just the short time of a month, investing inexpensive wines, restaurants, and other unnecessary gifts.
Although he slept with her several times in that short period, she left him for another guy. My friend was distraught for months afterward, not to mention that he had to get a part-time job to refill his bank account.
I've been there, and I've done that. I spent time on dinners, movies… I even bought a $ 500 ring, saved in high school for support. I often bought the girl a $ 30 bouquet of flowers on our first date.
All that money spent, and not much received in return. All I had wanted to get out of the deal was sleep with her. It seemed like a very simple bargain ... the girl would get the gifts I bought her, and in return, all she would need to do was spread her legs.
Sound familiar? Get frustrated when you can't get to bed after spending so much money?
Well, here's the thing: You are operating on a false assumption. The money spent does not necessarily equal the opening of the legs. The problem with wasting cash on a woman who hasn't earned it is what it communicates. And what it says to her, loud and clear, is her value is higher than hers, so you need to obtain her approval by buying it.
It's like saying, "Okay, I know my worth is less than yours; how about I attach a dozen roses, an upscale dinner, and some very nice diamond earrings?" Do you get the point? However, the reality is that if you know that her value is high, you don't need to buy her favor.
I know that saying "don't buy anything for girls" goes against what we men logically think, and indeed it goes against what all of us have not been taught. After all, we have been led to believe that if there is something of importance that we want, we want to be willing to do whatever it takes to buy it, correct?
Well, in the state of inanimate things that don't think for themselves, that's true. But in the case of women, it is not. Consider the common super-hot woman. Most men see her as highly valuable, and thus they lower themselves before her and worship the ground on which she walks.
She walks into a place, and her money is not good. But what kind of guy does a woman like that throw herself for? Usually, one with high social status sees no need to buy you things to win your concerns. Oh certainly, he does it later, after he has her, so she has nice stuff to show off… but not while he's taking her.
The bottom line means that there are three definite rules of spending money on women (screw them up, and you'll not only go home broke but with blue balls as well). Always ask yourself before paying the following questions:
1) What is my value and hers? If you make a personal effort to pay, you communicate to her that you think she has a higher value than yours.
2) Has she earned what I am going to give her? As an alpha male, you reward good performance. So make positive the woman has done something to win your approval! (I squandered a $ 100 meal recently on a lady I'm dating. I did it because she has provided me the greatest fellatio (oral sex) in the world. Make no mistake about: the only time you should get a woman out on an expensive date is when she has done something significant to earn it, like pleasing you sexually.)
3) Am I funding for this in an Alpha way? Make sure you don't frame it like you're shopping for a woman in your bed because that's Beta, and it shows need.
I want you to start preparing a mental representation of yourself as a man of great importance. Now, as a gentleman of high value, you need to play the mind game that yes, you are interested in the woman, but your interest is conditioned on her good behavior.
By the way, never say things to a woman like this: "I'm buying this for you as a prize." Just reward healthy behavior and bypass encouraging bad behavior, and you will find that things will work out for you.
When buying things for a woman, never overdo this. State something like, "I'll pay for the coffee. It is not a big thing." what that tells her is that you're more interested in the social interaction the two of you are having and that you're not thinking about the drink you bought her.
This also means that there is nothing in mind. By saying, "it's not a big deal," you make her understand that you are not pressuring her for what you have done for her.
"Buying me things because he wants something later" is behavior that many women consider manipulative, and as a result, the man was denied sex. And to be honest enough, many men fall into that trap by spending a lot of money buying women nice things. Don't be that kind of man.
Unfortunately, the average woman has dated so many men who have bought her things to try to get into her pants. When you start buying her something nice, it triggers an automatic negative reaction within her. "Hey, he's trying to buy sex," she thinks, and when she rejects him. The normal woman is not a prostitute and does not want to be treated like one.
Okay, but then what to do when the bill comes? Well, first, you shouldn't take a woman out on a fancy date until after the two of you have sex. So take her to an expensive restaurant as a reward for her good behavior. Your first date should be something cheap and informal, like coffee. So when the check comes in, it's really no big deal.
A fundamental precept of thumb is to ask yourself if you would pay if you invited a casual friend instead of that girl who sits across from you. If the answer is yes, then by all means, go ahead. And don't feel like you just got accepted because I pay the coffee bill. You don't want to miss an opportunity because you were too cheap to buy a $ 3 cappuccino.
The main stuff you need to know is to understand why you are doing the things you do. Never buy things or do favors for a woman because she thinks you need to win her approval. Instead, take the Alpha male stance: anything you do for her is conditional on her earning it.
The Secret Of Knowing How To Listen
Here's a dirty little secret: almost everyone is a bit shy and introverted to some extent. People talk to you because they think you are a high-value person (as a woman will think if she is attracted to you and talks to you), they will feel good if they think they have gained attention from her.
To instill in others the feeling that they have earned their attention, seek the deeper meaning of what that person is saying to you. Once you have deduced this, locate what they really communicate to you.
Let's say someone says to you, "What percentage of our genes do you think we share with chimpanzees?"
What is the deepest meaning? On the surface, they are testing their knowledge. But the real meaning here is that they are trying to show off their knowledge and amaze you with an interesting tidbit.
Assume you are a person who likes to read and be informed. You remember seeing something in National Geographic about how humans and chimpanzees have approximately 98.5% of the same genes. Should you answer, "98.5%?"
No. Alpha males don't play other people's games.
A much better answer would be, "I don't know; we can't be quite similar. Will it be 50%? "The person will then feel like they have gained their attention when you tell them how interesting it is that it is 98.5%. (If you feel like you need to demonstrate your intelligence, you seek approval from other people, and that is a sign of low status.)
Suppose someone tells you that they just went to the beach in Panama City. They tell you this because they are excited about the trip they recently took, and they want you to share in that excitement. So the most dangerous thing you could do is say, "Man, that's nothing. You should see the beaches and waves in Hawaii !! "This statement shows that you are indifferent to the other person and makes them feel like they are not special.
Instead, have them tell you about the things they enjoyed on the beach in Panama City. Say, "How cute! I've always wanted to go there. What was the best part of the trip? "
And although alpha males interrupt when they need to, don't try to interrupt people when talking about something interesting to you. And don't worry too much if people interrupt you. People tend to interrupt because they are very involved in the conversation, exactly what you want.
When speaking, focus on them instead of yourself. Observe the reasons that people say and then validate those reasons. This leads to strengthening your state of internal joy and makes you more attractive and pleasant in others' eyes.
Genuinely think about what a woman tells you and show interest. Every woman is a new exploration, and you have a lot to discover from her. So take your time in your conversations and be a good listener.
The Magic Word That Reinforces A Woman's Good Behavior
Observe successful people, and you will find that they are more generous than the average person when it comes to saying, "Thank you." When someone does you a favor, they do it because they have a good image of you. By expressing their appreciation for you, you maintain their optimistic projection of you.
Don't say things like "You shouldn't have bothered," as that indicates that you didn't deserve what they did for or for you. If a person gives him things, it is because he sees you as worthy of the best. If you kill their attitude towards you, it leads to being unworthy.
Yes, whenever a woman compliments you or does something nice for you, never belittle or ignore it. Instead, thank her with the mindset that you have that well-deserved good treatment.
¡Remember — reward the woman's good behavior!
By the way, whenever a woman compliments you, see it as if she's really saying, "I like you. And I want you to keep bringing all of this to sex."
Tell her "Thank you" and almost hypnotically guide her to her bedroom!
Non-Verbal Signs That Say, "I'm Adorable"
I have already listed the non-verbal signals that lead to dominance. Many of those cues, like staring while talking, and showing dominance, make you more adorable. However, sometimes dominance signals (like leaning back) can make you more distant.
So as appropriate, you need to balance his dominance with his Adorableness. (Too much dominance doesn't make you desirable.) Be aware of the following silent techniques that will magnetically attract a girl to you:
1) Lean forward when you sit in front of someone who is saying something to you. This communicates interest in what they are telling you. However, it is crucial to make sure the woman is very interested in you before doing this, as leaning back is a non-verbal way of playing "playing tough." Once she's interested in you, lean forward to give the impression that conversation is easy with you.
2) Directly orient your body and face towards her . Note that you must have established dominance before doing this, as you lose some of it by being more direct with your body language.
3) Smile, but not too much.
4) Maintain a relaxed and open posture.
5) View your group similarly , but only slightly more striking than the others. If you meet the dress expectations of the people you interact with, they will quite like you.
6) Wear casual and brightly colored clothing . (However, such clothing also diminishes the perception of his dominance.)
7) Maintain mutual eye contact — encourage yourself to look her straight in the eye, and she will like this, and she will like you. Don't do it more than 70% of the time, however, as previously stated.
8) Make sure your voice is pleasant, expressive, relaxed and that you appear lively and interested in what is being discussed.
9) Avoid unpleasant facial expressions and the absence of gestures, showing indifference, closed body language and appearing in an uncomfortable posture.
Again, be sure to strike a balance between dominance and attractiveness. If you never smile, the woman will not like you. But if she smiles excessively, it makes her seem like she has a low status — that she tries too hard to please.
Like a relaxed posture, some things go a long way with simultaneous dominance and attractiveness, so you need to stay relaxed at all times.
Many guys make the mistake of trying to make a woman feel sorry for them. They will obsessively call out to you, saying things like, "… I'm so lonely, and I really want/need to see you tonight."
On a psychological level, much of this points to the mother-child relationship. As children, we could often get what we wanted by evoking our moms' maternal nurturing instinct.
Don't do this with the women you date. Whenever you evoke pity in a person, that person will despise you. They will frame you as a loser in their minds, and then they will treat you accordingly. Have you met those unsuccessful salespeople who evoke your pity? ("Please buy this car so I can eat this month!")
Psychologically, people can't help but make fun of those pathetic people. Successful salespeople are those who safely make customers (and not salespeople) feel like they are making a profit by buying their cars and not just feel sorry for someone.