I just got done watching the film Bedazzled (hilarious) where Elizabeth Hurley is the devil and she grants Brendan Fraser 7 wishes in exchange for his soul. Predictably, you can't get the better of the devil, and something goes wrong with each of the wishes. Brendan Fraser is in love with this coworker and believes that she wants a "sensitive" man -- so he wishes that he is the most "sensitive" man in the world. Needless to say, it doesn't work out as planned and the coworker winds up dumping him (end of that wish ).

Anyway, it got me thinking about this issue of whether women are really attracted to "sensitive" men. I know that is the conventional wisdom-- all women are supposed to want sensitive men, right? But is that really true?

Personally, I am not attracted to "sensitive" men-- at least how I picture sensitive men. If a guy read me poetry on a date-- well --- that would be the end of the date. I think women want men who they perceive to be strong. They don't cry, except maybe when watching Old Yeller (I heard this from a caller on the Laura Ingraham show ), or when someone very close to them dies.

So I'll pose the questions for debate:

(1) Are you women out there attracted to sensitive men?

(2) And men-- do you think, from your own experience, that women are attracted to sensitive men?

No.

I mean, you can't be an oblivious jerk, so you have have a minimum level of sensitivityand thoughtfulness just to appeal to normal, pschologically healthy women. But if a guy's salient characteristic is "sensitivity", then he's not going to appeal to most women who consider themselves attractive.

Guys can attract womens' attention by being handsome, strong, tall, charming, funny, smart, successful, confident or (like me) all of these . But "sensitivity" is pretty low on the list, as far as I can tell. I'm interested to know what women have to say about this, though.

I think that most (straight) women are not attracted to feminine characteristics in men such as being "overly sensitive". I think that the term usually given to such men is "wimp".

The same is true for most (straight) men. They find feminine characteristics attractive and are turned off by women who look and act too much like men.

These characteristics are inherent in our species and are biological.

My personal experience? Well, I have been married for a long time (coming up on 18 years) and never considered myself a "chick magnet" but I think that I initially attracted my wife through a combination of outstanding looks and personality. Just kidding.... Actually, I'm not sure what she would say for sure, but I know that she has told me many times over the years that she considers me "stronger" than herself and that if I wasn't that she could not possibly find that attractive. But, with respect to sensitivity, I think that she finds me attractive when I'm sensitive to her needs, her feelings, and respectful of her in general.

Reading poetry on a date? lol. That would be chapter one in the "How Not to Score Bible".....

Call me crazy, but I really do want a sensitive man!

I don't care how 'strong' a guy is or thinks he is or wants to be or is perceived to be. I want to be with someone who isn't afraid to show/share his emotions and I really and truly don't care whether he appears 'manly' or not to others. The kind of man I'm attracted to is one who'd probably be considered a 'nerd' or mama's boy to others. My husband is a mama's boy and that's one of the things that attracted me to him ...and I love a man who ain't afraid to cry.

I don't know that I'd want his sensitivity to be the most dominant trait (rather, it wouldn't be the underlying thing I'd be looking for in a man...that would be his overall personality and passion for life), but it would certainly be one of the top five things I'd look for in a guy.

I do think I'm probably a little outside the 'norm' on this, though. Most of the women I know probably do prefer a 'strong' man to a 'sensitive' man. Or so they think...then they are involved in the relationship and they complain about how insensitive he is. Heh.

If a guy read me poetry on a date, first I'd wonder what I was doing on a date since I'm married , and second I'd figure out what his true intentions were (whether he thought it would help him 'score' or whether he was truly a man interested in poetry and the like). I'm all about poets/writers.

Um, for one thing, good poetry is insightful, powerful, illuminating, and true. It doesn't have anything to do with sensitivity, but clear awareness and honesty, sometimes brutal honesty. Humor can be part of it too -- that's my favorite kind of good poetry.

As a representative from the English Majors of the World, I protest this misuse of the poetry metaphor/symbol.

The women who have been attracted to me have all given feedback that what I have over other men is the ability to listen as if the they were the only women in the world -- absolute attention. That's not sensitivity -- it's curiosity and interest.

Of course, the women had to be worthy of curiosity and interest. Many are not, and that goes for men too. Let's just say people.

Another feedback thing has had to do with patience. People mess up, so what? We move on. Lydia likes that. Her former husband was flying off the handle all the time, and that gets old after 20 years. Well, after maybe 20 minutes. She was young when she got married. So what's that? Maturity? I call it surviving in a fumbled up world. In younger years, the head was hotter, so I can relate to where he probably was. The problem was though, he stayed there.

Personally, I think Lydia likes me around because - 1 - I can take care of myself (no extra child) - 2 - my ever-seeking nature, always working on projects - 3 - music - 4 - writing - 5 - on her and her family's side - 6 - I cook.

Oh yeah, she trusts me because I write good poetry Honesty matters.

You actually bring up excellent points (long time no see! hi!). I think perhpaps our individual ideas of what encompasses sensitivity would play a role in how we'd answer the above question. When I think of a 'sensitive' man, I think of someone who is sensitive to others' needs/wants/feelings and who is a good listener and truly cares about others' feelings and thoughts. Being a wordsmith does not a sensitive man make...past experience has shown me that they might be more likely to be 'sensitive', however. Guess that'd also depend on what you're writing about, too

I think you have to break it down to a more primal level, which alot of people over look these days. Deep down I believe most women want a man who is a provider and can keep them protected(this is especially true if the woman wants children). Regardless of what people say, we are animals and our basic drive in life is to reproduce.

As far as myself I consider myself aggressive.. but I don't lack the capacity to be touched by something emotional.

I agree. I remember that a tear came out of my eye when the Detroit Red Wings won the Stanley Cup in 1998 when Stevie Y raised the cup......

But during "Terms of Endearment"? No way..........

Hey-- I am not trying to give poetry a bad rap, authormusician. I was a french lit major and studied my fair share of french poetry. Poetry has its place.

I think KMSouthern makes a good point, that we have to define what we mean by "sensitive". Kind of hard to do. Sensitive implies "needy" to me. A person that is overly sensitive and whose feelings might be heart easily. A person who cannot control his emotions. A person who cries easily. A person who wears his heart on his sleeve. There was schtick on the Laura Ingraham show about one of the Senators who broke down crying when he made his speech about how Bolton shouldn't be nominated. Total turn off. Someone can be in touch with their inner feelings and still have control over them. I very rarely would ever cry in public. So maybe I just don't like people who do. But it seems particularly wrong when men do. Is that because of our socialization? or something deeper, as the post below implies:




I agree. I think some of our inclinations wind up being explained by very fundamental characteristics and drives particular to men and women.

I guess I would be considered "sensitive" since my interests include such "sensitive" things like Classical music, figure skating, opera, and fine arts (my command of English is not good enough to enjoy English poetry but I do enjoy Russian poetry), and I have strong distaste for some "guy" things such as Quentin Tarantino movies, beer pong, and car racing. There are certainly a segment of the female population who are attracted to "sensitive types" (I've been married for 9 years after all) - maybe in United States this segment is smaller than in Europe provided that women percieve themselves to be more independent, but it's there nevertheless.
Reading poetry on the first day? Depends on poetry... From the distant memories of my dating years, could be the quickest thing to the first kiss...

I don't know how much "Sex and the City" is the representation of American urban dating scene (I watched the last season because of Mikhail Baryshnikov's appearance), but Carrie was totally swept off her feet by old-fashioned courting of Baryshnikov's character...

I bet your English is good enough to appreciate american literature/poetry! It sure seems good when you debate on the board. I have noticed that you omit the definite articles sometimes ("the") but that is cute and also typical of native russian speakers (russian doesn't have "the's" right?)




I don't even know what "beer pong" is . . .




I have nothing to base this on-- but I have the impression that Europeans are more "cultured" than americans. That it is more common and mainstream for people to know a lot more about literature.

Yeah, but think about it: Baryshnikov is a stud, AND he's an exotic foreigner. His Old World artistic sensibilities were just icing on the cake. And how often did he cry or talk about his "emotional needs"?

"The" vs. "a" articles is a bane of my existence . Thanks for complementing my English. I certainly know English enough to understand poetry, but to truly appreciate poetry, which is a supreme creation of any language, one probably must be a native speaker.




I actually didn't want to imply that - I meant to say that the certain aspects of traditional courting imply that women are "the weaker sex" - a notion that many women in United States don't look kindly upon. It's like in traditional or latin dancing - men always lead, that's just the way it is. Our dance instructor friend says that it drives some of her female students crazy...
That actually applies not only to courting but to the day-to-day relations as well. A good example would be a scene I witnessed at the office last week: a woman comes to the small meeting room (10 people) where all chairs are already occupied. All chairs are occupied by men. None of the men stood up to offer his chair and go to another room to bring an extra one; she had to do it by herself.

How awful. Every woman I know would lose a lot of respect for a guy (even in an office) who didn't go get a chair or something. It's just good manners. I think the media overplays the idea of women getting offended by "gentleman" like behavior.



You got it right Robert B

EH and Halyeyanne have hit on something as far as the definition of sensitive- EH, being from Russia, can't quite get a handle on what H is saying LOL- Russian men are very emotional- yet a "macho" society.

This may be some of the non-looks park of Baryshnikov's charm LOL

There is one major difference in the US and pretty much the rest of the world when it comes to dating- there are accepted roles, and niether sex minds the fact that there are these roles and rules LOL

The US is a very wierd place as far as relationships, dating and sexuality, perhaps it is what truly sets us apart from any other society, outside home ownership.

BTW- I am married to a Russian woman, and sometimes, she will say "That is a man's job" or "that is a womans job" and then say "Quit acting like a silly american" LOL

And men-- do you think, from your own experience, that women are attracted to sensitive men?

I don't think there is any one thing that all women are attracted to because women are not all the same.

There is also a problem in defining 'sensitive' for this is judgement made by individuals and what one women preceives as 'sensitivity', so another women perceives as 'strength'.

From my own experience I know that just as many women have found me attractive, solely because I was 'sensitive' as were repulsed by it and other women found me bossy, narcisstic and self absorbed where these same characteristics were pervceived by other women as signs of a strong character.

What I know is that I am none of these things. That I might cry when listening to the fourth movement of Beethoven's nineth symphany or contemplating the lost innocence of my childhood does not make me sensitive. It is merely an honest indication of my humanity.

'Strength' is also just an illusion, and although it may prove a usefull illusion that attracts potential female partners, it is really just another way of covering the same insecurities that are so often betrayed by tears.

So sure, there are some women attracted to the strong silent types, but frankly, these women are themselves a liability in my opinion and the strong silent types can keep them.

Hey, KP



Heh, yeah, I don't imagine some authors have feelings for anyone else but themselves. Empathy is a better word, don't you think? I guess that's a subset of sensitivity, if a broad meaning of sensitivity is used.

By "sensitive," I get the feeling here that the meaning is really about having no control over emotions, like being Data from STNG dealing with his emotion chip. I'm no big fan of anyone wearing the heart on the sleeve, but sometimes you have to let it on out.

Just thought of one other very important part of lasting relationships. You know, the romance only lasts so long. I think having common interests is extremely important, even if it's something like golf. Both Lydia and I majored in English for the undergrad degrees. Both of us have worked computers for over twenty years. We both appreciate most kinds of real music (as opposed to pop). We both like trying new things, investigating different ideas, working with people (to an extent). We both like living at altitude and being mountain people -- we like "weeds" and think putting sod on a mountain is a sure sign of insanity.

Yet another -- recognizing our differences and accepting them. I'm a morning person; she's late night. I'm good at chess; she beats the pants off me at Scrabble.

Here's a typical one: I'm more logical; she's more intuitive. After spending so much time together, the differences aren't as pronounced. For example, intuitively I know some things are just so, even though I can't explain why. And now Lydia can explain why she knows things are so, using tight logic.

That was sure a startling experience the first time it happened. Hey, no fair!

And finally, along the above lines, the ability to communicate accurately with one another. This has been a tough one and still becomes a challenge, depending on the issue. You see, we started out fundamentally hating each other's gender due to past relationship failures. We broke off communication completely for times. It was a rocky beginning to what has become relatively calmness in later life.

In all, love ain't easy. Love stinks (nod to J. Geils Band). Can't live with it, can't live without it -- can't kill it. Believe me, we have both tried hard to kill it.

So, maybe some women want no love in their men? It's just too risky. That might explain the attraction to married men? Eh, trite explanation. There's more to it.

Men lead in dancing. That's the way it is. If I dance with a woman who tries to lead, I will surely end up stepping on her feet and never ask her to dance again. But, anyone who understands dancing understands that the men's role to "lead" is just as the drone displaying the woman who most people are looking at anyway. The woman is the show in the dance. The man is just the platform for her expression and at least he has "some" role; that of the lead.

With respect to the chairs in the meeting? None of those guys are gentlemen and there is nothing about being a "gentleman" that implies wimpishness or being "too sensitive".

In fact, that's the sort of boorish behavior that one can lay squarely at the feet of radical feminists who have brainwashed many men and women to their unnatural belief systems.

I lead when I dance. I hold the door open for women, give up my seat, and allow them to go first. I try not to cuss in front of them. I try to treat them with respect.

Dropping the standards of a gentleman in order to accommodate a feminist PC attitude is stupid. Most of those loudmouths hate men anyway and aren't attracted to them in the first place.

I was going to stay entirely out of this thread, because it's an old, old discussion, and my opinions seem to be in a tiny minority. However, I have had my buttons pushed.

It isn't very gentlemanly to characterize feminists as man-haters. (Whether or not they are lesbians is entirely irrelevant, in my opinion. No doubt there is a higher percentage of lesbians who call themselves feminists rather than non-feminists; that's because feminism has been a leader in the fight for gay rights. But I digress.)

I'm sure there are some women who hate men. They are not feminists, no matter what them may call themselves; they are sexists. The goal of feminism is to free men and women from the chains of sexism.

To return to the question at hand. I like sensitive people. I find the idea of reading poetry utterly charming. Perhaps I am abnormal. Because of my extreme social akwardness, I have never been on a date in my life. The one romance of my life, which led to my marriage, was conducted entirely by mail. Perhaps this gave me more interest in sensitivity and intelligence in a life partner than anything else.

Why can't we be ladylike and gentlemanly to everyone? I open doors for people; people open doors for me. I do not dance at all, so I can express no opinion on the rather odd concept of leading.

In life, as opposed to dancing, nobody should lead. We should be partners, hand in hand.

Victoria you choose your words carefully and speak only when you have something to say, but in your own way you rock. I think Roberta Flack named an album after you. It was called, "Quiet Fire."

To the questions at hand:

1. Oh my, yes. Being sensitive is only another kind of strength. It takes more confidence to let your emotions and feelings show than to keep them all bottled up inside in some John Wayne show of machismo. That doesn't mean you have to be a puddle of goo and cry at every three-hankie movie you see, but I still get choked up every time I watch Terms of Endearment. You got a problem with that?

2. Unless you look like Brad Pitt or Boris Kojoe (the sistas know who I'm talking about) just being a good looking slab of beefcake isn't going to be enough to endear yourself to the opposite sex. I wasn't blessed with the most handsome face or six-pack abs so I get by with a great sense of humor, sparkling wit and the endearing trait of being an excellent listener. Most women I find want to be able to speak in complete sentences without a man interrupting them or hurrying them along to "get to the point."

Once you start listening to women with your mind and ears open and your mouth shut you will tend to find that they will regard you as someone they feel comfortable talking to. From that point on all things are possible. For me my most firmly established and ongoing relationships are in the company of women as they regard me as a non-threatening heterosexual male that isn't just trying out which pickup line works best to get her horizontial under lightly starched sheets.

Women are attracted to sensitive men. Men who are sensitive to their thoughts and feelings and can articulate their own as well.

Not that looking like Brad and Boris hurts your chances any.

I do believe that there is a biological factor involved in what characteristics
are attractive to the opposite sexes. The term "sensitive" can be defined
in many ways. A wimpy type of "sensitivity" implies a weakness, and that
is not what most women are looking for in a man.


Oh, hon, you couldn't be more wrong. A (heterosexual) man who writes and
reads poetry has got it made (with me, anyway).


You're crazy!


I defintely agree. It is a mother's natural instinct to want protection for herself
and her children. A man with phyiscal and mental strength and sensitivity will
be the best candidate to ensure survival for the family unit.


I guess some women have been brainwashed into believing they must be like
men to be as good as men. I mean, what is equality of the sexes? That men
and women should both be able to bench press 200 pounds? Both be able
to give birth?


You make a good point, but it is so tiresome to hear Brad Pitt referred to as
the "go-to-hot-guy." He's not! As for Boris Kojoe, I'll google him
and get back to you.

If nobody leads, then everyone follows?

It doesn't work that way in life or on the dance floor. That sort of radical egalitarian mindset just leads to confusion, and stepped-on toes.

Leading isn't an odd concept. It's the way of the world and it has been that way throughout history.

I do like sensitive men or to put it better, I like men who have more things in common with me, can listen and perhaps understand where Im coming from (and not look at me like Im from another galaxy), digest their own feelings and can at least try to express them rather than ignore them, and mine.

I like a man who treats me as an equal but is not afraid to reach out when Im in a dark or chaotic place and try to make it better. This does not require muscle, it requires empathy which is a harder trait to come by in most males in my experience.

I find macho men utterly boring because I have absolutely nothing in common with them. They rely on stupid pickup lines and think women are some different species that they will never understand but are necessary. I believe these men live alone, with a partner. Its not my style.
I want a real partner in life with alot of sharing of time and thoughts, plenty of intimacy not just sex. I find men who either watch too much sport or too much porn an impossibility. Give me someone who likes plants and animals, long walks ( on the beach ha! so cliche), foreign films, has a quik mind a soft touch and a hard .....

The problem with sensitive men is that on the wrong side of this they can be self absorbed and moody and give into their emotions too much, which makes them emotionally high maintenance. This can be tiring.

I know I need someone 'can do' who tows the line, both of us have to tow the line and be responsible for ourselves and somewhat for each other.

Sensitivity is strength when not taken too far, then its weakness and emotional hardship (passive agressive behavior for example, yuk). Strength when taken too far becomes machismo, sometimes possessive or controlling.
I think both extremes are ugly and not often desired by modern women.

Ive pondered a philosophy that males and females are attracted to each other somewhat on a line that goes like this:

{__l___l___l___l___l___l____l_____+____l____l____l_____l___l____l____}
[Ultra fem.women]................. ....androgynous........................[Ultra macho men]

( I can do the graph that well within the confines of the layout, its changing things as I post it .)
The ultra fems are attracted to ultra macho, because they compliment each other so well, the female considers her femininity and corresponding looks (skirts, high heels, make-up) important, and so does he. He considers his maleness to be of maximum importance and does not like women who exhibit 'maleish' behaviors or dress. On every coinciding place on the line where one falls, a person will be attracted to their corresponding opposite, and the closer you get to androgyny, you will find women with more masculine behaviors and possibly looks and males with more feminine and they will be partnered as well. Sometimes even crossing the lines toward the middle, where the male looks and/or behaves more feminine than the female and vice-versa.

Its just speculation of course and many people do not fit. It also changes a bit with age. For example, Gov. Arnold in his youth was quoted as saying something like 'women should never be seen in pants but only skirts'. Later he married Maria Schriver, a strong woman who definately wears pants in more ways than one, but is still a very feminine female who is highly educated in the 'stand by your man' philosophy. He grew into maturity to respect women for more than just showing their legs. He did NOT grow enough not to disrespect women ( and men) by calling men 'girlie men'.

I started out as a feminist in a time when most men thought you were 'uppity' if you even had an opinion, god forbid the where-with-all to express it in public, so macho males did not and still do not fit for me. More sensitive, open and tolerant males work better and give me more freedom to be who I am. I like that. Besides I like art, music, nature, beautiful things, good writings and politics, camping, fishing and sometimes not being at all feminine. I want someone I can share that with openly and that means a sensitive, open minded guy.

I'm not sure that strength taken too far is "machismo". That sort of boisterous, boorish, and quick-to-violent-reaction behavior is an overcompensation for weakness in my view. It's not strength taken to great lengths. It's weakness behind a mask.

The character that John Wayne played in many movies gets a bad rap in my view. He wasn't "macho" by today's definition. He was strong and masculine. Those are different concepts. His character was also (in most movies) a gentleman that respected woman; again a sign of strength, not weakness.

I couldn't agree more doomed planet!

I am not sure I know any woman who thinks Brad is all that hot. Off the top of my head, my personal faves would have to be Dennis Quaid, Ralph Fiennes (think English Patient) and Russell Crowe. None of them are the standard (and boring) good looking types, but they are far, far more attractive than Brad IMO.

I'm gonna stick my neck out here. Most women I talk to wouldn't get offended if a guy got up and got them a chair, but they wouldn't get offended if nobody got up either and she had to get her own chair. Maybe this is a regional or industry thing (I work in a high tech company with a lot of female engineers and hard-charging manufacturing supervisors). But then again I work in Texas which is known for its casual gentility.

I think folks in general are pretty flexible and understanding with this. In some situations (especially work), "courtly" behavior might come across as unprofessional or condescending. In other situations (especially social or dating situations), it's just expected. So to lose a lot of respect for someone, or to peg them as a radical feminist or whatever on the basis of whether they open up a door for a woman (or whatever) seems like a making a big deal out of it. At a time when expectations are changing, judging someone too quickly can create unnecessary friction.

Or maybe I'm being too sensitive?

Hey, sensitive is ok sometimes RobertB. What you say is more sensible than sensitive. To be perfectly honest, I really don't spend much time thinking about all this stuff. But by the same token, it does pass through my mind that a man lacks manners when he fails to hold the door or get a chair etc. I understand that different situations set up different expectations. I remember when I was like 8 months pregnant and riding the metro every day to work. And there were times when no one gave up a seat. Whenever I rode the metro-- I would always give up my seat to an old person or a pregnant woman. That is just common courtesy.

What I think we are talking about here is old fashioned gentlemen like behavior. And to the extent we lose this as a society, we are losing something important.

lordhelmet

The trouble with the 'John Wayne masculinity model' is that it is a entity that has no basis in reality. Its a figment of the imagination just as unrealistic as the medieval chivalry of Victorian literature. It simply doesn't exist except as a concept of the ideal.

The truth is that men, whether they are masculine or otherwise are just as fragile and vulnerable as women and we all know this. Illness, bad luck, alcohol, stupidity, pride or any number of other factors can bring a man down and reduce the quiet masculine strength of the ideal to the brooding dark machismo that we have all seen over take so many men.

Perhaps, what all human beings really want, is comfort, to be told that everything is going to be alright and whether or not that comfort is an illusion makes no difference to the one who requires it. Whether through love or strength or some other method, the need for comfort against the hard reality of life is the basic principle behind most, if not all relationships.

Is it not really the comfort of his convictions and the 'strength' these lend him that makes GW Bush so popular amongst Americans as opposed to the rest of the world with whom he has direct relationship?

So it must be with all leaders, be they female or male. They must create the illusion of knowledge and understanding if they are to be perceived as worthy of the trust placed in them. So it is with parents and their children. Children have no choice though. They must hope to their good fortune they get parents who are capable.

Adults can choose whom they trust, and in this world of ever growing female influence I perceive that the relationship between men and women will shift away from the illusion of masculine strength towards a shared perception of what 'strength' really is.

I doubt that the 'John Wayne masculinity model' will survive.


hayleyanne

Again, have we lost anything?

Gentlemen were like the Knights and the John Wayne's, they are as much a creation of wishful thinking as any thing else.

I personally always hold open doors for people coming the opposite way. I stand up to let those weaker than myself have a seat and I am always polite. I don't consider myself a gentleman though. I merely treat others as I would wish to be treated myself.

I would hope that were I to pass through a door way whilst carrying heavy shopping bags, another person, regardless of sex, might hold open the door for me also.

Usually this doesn't happen.

(1)Are you women out there attracted to sensitive men?

Strong and sensitive aren’t mutually exclusive. A sensitive man isn’t always a wimp. A strong man without sensitivity is just …well, a jerk.

I’ve (mis)spent much of my life with so-called “strong” men; those tough guys who never show emotion because it’s “weak”, and thump on their chests and swing on vines through the jungle to show what manly men they are (well, maybe not that ). Unfortunately, I’ve noticed that this type of man is usually deep-down insecure and is truly a “wimp”. Then there are those who just aren’t capable of having feelings for anybody other than themselves – scareeeee – and, no thanks.

As a strong and independent sort of woman, I need a man who was secure enough in his own self that he doesn’t need an adoring doormat, who isn’t afraid to show his emotions, who isn't embarrassed to get all goofy and mooshy over his dog (or cat), and doesn’t feel that he has to prove he’s the biggest, baddest man in the jungle.

So, yeah, I guess you could say I'm attracted to sensitive men.

I dunno. I don't think that the gentlemanly ideal is quite so unattainable. I just think we have to be more aware of how we come across in an increasingly ambiguous social world. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I think what we need is a more sophisticated model of gentlemanly behavior.




OK now that is just inexcusable. A pregnant woman is different. She is embarking on an endeavor and making a contribution that is unique and vital to the human experience. She should have any door opened or chair cleared for her. I'm ashamed on the behalf of those guys that left you standing, hayleyanne. [/soapbox].

That's just inexcusable, regardless of gender. I don't think our problem today is so much due to feminism and equal rights or the loss of gentlemanly behavior, but the loss of manners in general. People of both sexes are a lot ruder now than they were when I was growing up. I've met people (especially young people) whose manners are apalling. I guess I'm getting old and cranky, but a simple "please", "thank you", or "excuse me" shouldn't be so freakin' hard to learn.

I work in a manufacturing environment (i.e., mostly male). I hold doors open for people, regardless of gender. I have noticed there are some men who will not even say "thank you" when I do this, which is mildly annoying. (An interesting observation: it's more likely to be the "suits" than the guys on the manufacturing floor.) My other pet peeve when it comes to door-holding, are the guys who will literally let the door swing shut in your face like you don't even exist.

I love Russell Crowe! He's got some substance, for Pete's sake!
And, Ralph Fiennes, well, how can you go wrong with that.

I think most women will agree with me when I say that it is the personality
and depth of a man that makes him attractive. Not vice versa.

I married a sensitive man who worked in a factory for 30 years. There's nothing wimpy about surviving as a "factory rat" that long, especially when he did not have the standard "why buy the cow when you can get the milk free" attitude that he heard from co-workers there every day.

To paraphrase (somewhat) from Forrest Gump, manliness is as manliness does, and it is about time that manliness included empathy and courtesy as standard fare. You don't have to sport huge biceps or be a NASCAR fan in order to be considered masculine. Indeed, those male poets of the ROMANTIC era had many boudoir doors opened to them in their time! Poetry is wonderful on a date.

As far as the opening doors and giving up seats on buses or subways, courtesy from both genders should be more common. I feel no less feminine opening a door for a man, and it doesn't cost me anything to say thank you when courtesy is extended to me. So many people are confused about feminism because there were some who dispensed with these mannerisms in order to make a point. All of a sudden all feminists were characterized as brash, man-hating bra burners, not women who simply wanted for their gender the same opportunities men have.

But choosing someone of the opposite sex is so individualized. Sure, I think Russell Crowe is very attractive, but I don't like the fact that he hit a hotel employee with a telephone and was arrested for it. It is his sensitivity, intelligence, and the bravery he portrays in his characters that make him desirable, not brutishness or throwbacks to animals marking and defending their territory.

A side thought...

I find it interesting that you like Russel Crowe for the characters he portrays, characters that may be completely divorced from his actual personality, not his appearance or his actual personality.

If I find an actress attractive it's because she's physically attractive. It has nothing to do with characters she has played, and, frankly, I don't care enough about actors or actresses to know theire real personalities.

I'm not trying to demean your attraction, or imply any larger meaning. Just thought it was interesting.

As for the topic at hand, my roommate seems to have the secret. He's no beafcake, but he's a nice guy, good listener, genuinely likes women, flirts and compliments them all the time, and is almost literally beating them off with a stick. Fascinating to watch him at work. I guess he's figured out the perfect mix of being "sensitive" and "masculine." And no, he's not playing them... just who he is.

Yes, I like his characters. Reality doesn't seem to measure up, though. As far as he goes, it sounds like Crowe is a real bad boy who hasn't grown up. He reminds me somewhat of Richard Burton, who was quite the ladies' man, but was a jerk when he was, so to speak, "deep into his cups."

Your roommate sounds like he has struck a desirable balance. A well-balanced person is attractive and can be hard to find.

I think that your practical experience is much different than mine then.

I know plenty of men who aren't quivering blobs of insecure jello waiting to collapse in a heap when faced with any physical or mental challenge.



Yes, we can end the war on terrorism with a great big group hug?

We live in a harsh world. Someone has to face the reality of it don't they?



Well, Bush is popular with about 1/2 of the American people so your statement is a little off from the reality. Why is he popular with them? I think the primary reason is that Bush has strong convictions that he sticks with in spite of strong opposition and changing opinions. He doesn't always take the easy way out or adopt the popular view out of convenience. Such traits used to be known as "character". I know that the previous president of the US was more "popular" for exactly that reason. He was poll driven and took the popular view over views based on personal convictions. His lack of character was notable.




I sure hope not. Men and women equal? That's not biologically possible. I'm sure that some will try to manipulate society into such an arrangement but that would be horrible in my view.

Men and woman are different. Viva la difference.....

I don't necessarily prefer men over women, and in fact my track record is about 2/3 the other way. But still, I like men, and most of my friends are men, some of them gay, simply because most of my interests are 'guy stuff', leaving me not very much to talk about with most women unless they're weird like me.

I'm not too locked into gender roles, and I prefer to be around people who also are not. Ultra-masculine men are a turn-off for me, as are ultra-feminine women, and also the reverse: effeminate men and bull dykes don't do it for me either. I think we're all a mix of masculine and feminine traits, and I like people who are balanced, though the right balance is different for men and women.

As for 'sensitive', that can mean so many different things, and some of them I find attractive, some not. I like men who are strong and capable, but not emotionally crippled like the macho stereotype. If they're cultured, and like classical music and poetry, that's a good thing. But if they're culture snobs like Frasier and Niles Crane, that's not. And if they're totally self-absorbed hyper-emotional prima donnas, also like Frasier and Niles, that's not good either.

Who said anything about jello collapsing into a heap?

I'm talking about what happens to those men whose masculinity doesn't allow them the flexibility of expressing their emotions. In point of fact, these men don't turn into jello, or anything remotely resembling it. Rather they stagnate and retreat into themselves and withdraw from contact with other human beings. If they turn into anything its more like a statue.

I know plenty of men who are like this and they all conform to the tired old stereotype of 'strong masculinity'.


Of course they do, but facing the harsh facts of life is not a masculine trait. All human beings must face life's reality and we all choose to do so in our own particular ways. Choosing to meet force with force is but one course of action and seldom the one that solves the problem lest one party kills the other without fear of reprisal.

Choosing to use the strength of one's arm instead of the strength of one's mind, or heart is only just that: a choice. It is not the only solution. There are many ways to solve a problem and the only guarantee offered by the use of force is that it will provoke a counter reaction.


In the context of this debate I believe there is no real difference really between either Bush or Clinton.

People vote for personal security first and foremost, but they vote according to very narrow options. Had there been a hundred candidates to choose between then I doubt either Bush or Clinton would ever have been elected and the idea that one or the other has more 'character' than the other ignores the fact that people have very different idea's on what constitutes 'character'.

For example, I may regard Clinton as a liar with regards to his sexual antics, but I still regard him as the better president, because I regard Bush as a liar with regards to dead Iraqi children.

If, God forbid, I would have to choose one other the other as a candidate for a good husband, I would choose Bush since he has not been caught cheating. As a president however, I would choose Clinton.

I don't believe that 'character' is anything other than a justification offered after the fact once a choice has been made. Instinctively we always choose the one which makes us feel safer.


I didn't use the word 'equal'.

I don't see how you can claim we are so different though. Beyond the biological, where is the difference?

Men and women are largely motivated by the same emotions and ambitions and beyond the shape of our bodies, the differences between do not define who we are. That is left to what you referred to as 'character' and I've never seen anything to make me think that character is determined by gender.

In other words, the differences between you and I are just as great as the similarities between Vicky Silverwolf (for example) and I.

I dont understand this. What is not biologically possible about men and women being equal? I suppose you mean men and women are not 'the same'?

I would hasten to add this question to yours, Artemise: Is the persistent inequality of wages, that is, men making more than women for the same quantity and quality of work, due to a persistent conception that men are better than women?

The fact is, there is nothing that suggests that the male gender is superior to the female gender biologically speaking, and correct me if I'm wrong to infer that this is what you mean when you say the sexes are not equal. Whereas men have greater upper body strength, women have more strength in their legs. Whereas men are good at reading maps, women are good at asking directions and recognizing landmarks. The superiority issue is irrelevant considering that one gender needs the other for the propagation of the species.

But back to the question: lordhelmet, I think you have swallowed some gender stereotypes hook, line and sinker. The movies are simply not an undistorted mirror of reality. There are women with characteristics that are held to be more masculine who are perfectly happy co-habiting with men with characteristics held to be more feminine. We don't all fit into the same "Jello" mold, nor should we.

A sensitive man can have a spine of steel, and quite frankly I think the implication that a poetry-reading man is mushy and therefore unattractive to females is hogwash. Men who more closely resemble the Arnold Schwarzenegger or John Wayne stereotype might be seen as having more testosterone, but it does not mean that they would make better parents. Where instinct leaves off, intellect should take over. Sensitivity is a desirable trait for both prospective parents.

(I thought this was supposed to be casual conversation here???? Lighten up!)

I must be in the minority here - I think Brad Pitt is handsome and has substance, especially as he's gotten older (OK, I'll admit, I have a weakness for blond, blue-eyed men). Russell Crowe is just a shallow, selfish brute, as he has proved over and over again by his behavior (the hotel incident just being the latest). The celebrity I salivate over now (for his amazing looks and from seeing his interviews): Gary Dourdan. Yum.

Oh, and Johnny Depp ain't bad either....

Bedazzled is an awesome movie, though I prefer the original with Dudley Moore and Peter Cook (both are good though).

I think the question is too narrow. The example from the movie is a characature. He isn't just sensitive, he's a complete pansy. Do women want that? No. Does that mean sensitivity is a trait most women would reject? Of course not.

I would think most women would appreciate a man who "can be" sensitive, while maintaining other aspects that can vary in their attractiveness to women. In other words, I think its a secondary trait. I think its complimentary to other traits but not a singular focus.

As for what women want? People have been looking for that silver bullet for a long time. I don't think it exists. People are different and thus have different tastes. The only single trait (in my experience) that both genders seem to find attractive is confidence.

Doc

Well, I don't have a thing for blond, blue-eyed guys, but you have good taste! Gary Dourdan is dreamy and Johnny Depp is one of my favorite actors. I even liked Gary Dourdan way back in his A Different World (he played Shaza Zulu, Freddie's love interest, for a season or two) days. Yummy.

In LH defense, I don't think he meant that men are superior; he probably meant that men and women are different, and we ARE different, on so many different levels other than reproductive organs. "Different" means "not equal" but it doesn't indicate superiority to either side. Like you said yourself,

Exactly right English Horn. That's the problem that I have with radical feminists. Their goal is to make women "equal" to men. That's misguided and unnatural.

It's one thing to believe that a qualified woman should be able to do any job that she's capable of doing. I'm fully behind such a concept, especially for my wife and daughter.

But that's not what radical feminists advocate. They advocate artificial means (affirmative action) to force women into jobs that arguably they are NOT suited for.... and one can just look to a dead judge in Atlanta to see the madness behind such misguided ideas. When a professor from the University of Michigan (Catherine MacKinnon) can essentially say that all fathers are rapists and still be considered a "leading feminist", you know that these people are operating on less than an eighth of a tank of mental sanity Feminist quotes

Men and women are not equal. Personally, I think women are "better" than men in many respects. Women are the givers of life. Men are too often the takers. Yet, and due to that historical fact which has no chance of ever changing until Testosterone is removed from the male body, strong men will always be required to protect their families, their communities, and their nations.

I think what Hayleyanne was referring to with respect to a "sensitive" guy was a man who regularly exhibits feminine characteristics. Its been demonstrated in this thread that at least some (liberal) women can appreciate such a guy. But, the majority of women clearly do not and it's due to biology and what attracts the oppositive of the species.

That's why women subconsciously look for providers and protectors. And, as I stated, the ideal of a strong man is the gentleman. A gentleman is a person who is cultured, polite, shows respect and deference toward women, is "sensitive" to others and the situation, yet has the ability to act in a "martial" way if the situation requires. He isn't a boisterous "macho" man who, as I said, is usually a weak person overcompensating.

And men-- do you think, from your own experience, that women are attracted to sensitive men?

Subset questions that have arisen:
Do “sensitive men” read poetry? Would that frighten a woman?
What is proper etiquette in the work environment?
Can a strong, silent man be sensitive?
What does sensitivity imply to me?

Do “sensitive men” read poetry? Would that frighten a woman?


In my bedroom, when I was growing up, my brother Daniel kept that original Newsweek clipping pinned to the wall, along with several other quotations, bits of poetry, etc. He kept them there, he said, to inspire his thoughts on dates. And he never had a shortage of dates…

I recall a phone conversation that Dan had once. After a half hour of saying, “No, I don’t remember that.” “No, I don’t remember you.” and similar claims of amnesia, he hung up. The obvious question was, “Who were you talking to?” The unexpected response was classic for him, “It was a girl that claimed I had been on a date with her once. Someone proposed to her, but before she said yes, she wanted to know if we had any future together. I’m glad she didn’t call collect. She was calling from Japan.”

I met my first wife on one of Dan’s typical dates. He had asked two girls to the same play. He was driving a car borrowed from one of their fathers. They lived next door to each other. They had been best friends since the age of four. He had purchased two pairs of tickets on two separate days. An hour before the date, he had discovered that he had inadvertently purchased tickets for four consecutive seats. He planned to tell Judy that I was Laura’s date, and tell Laura that I was Judy’s date…

Yes, I am convinced that a man can recite poetry to a woman without frightening her off.

As a much younger man, I would occasionally find a blank spot on a bathroom wall, take out a pencil and write a single word, “sgraffito.” I haven’t carried a pencil on a regular basis in over half a century, and I never used a pen or a knife to leave my “signature” behind. I recall finding a book for sale in a truck stop once. The author’s claim was that graffiti was a perpetual part of man’s history, and that it should include the paintings found in cave walls in France, the hieroglyphics in the Egyptian Pyramids, and “The following words of wit:” I found it difficult to believe that the person who compiled the text from the world’s bathroom walls, and the person who wrote the very intellectual introduction were the same author. While I am certain, that somewhere a woman has been seduced by the humor found there, I would not recommend that particular book of poetry to find something appropriate to read on a date.

What is proper etiquette in the work environment?


This sounds like poor management, and perhaps even sexual harassment. Someone scheduled that meeting, sent out notices, knew how many people to expect, and told them when to arrive. That person should have seen that the conference room was prepared for the meeting, including having sufficient seating for everyone who was invited. Did that person tell all the men to be there at 10:00 and tell the woman to arrive at 10:15? Did the men have, as I would have had in preparation for a meeting, papers, documents, text books, etc. laid out in front of them? Has the corporate culture on sexual harassment extended to the point where extending a courtesy to the woman who “showed up late” for the meeting could be interpreted as an advance?

Can a strong, silent man be sensitive?

Shortly after I graduated from high school, I was walking to my girlfriend’s house. En route, I sat down on a park bench and fell asleep. An acquaintance from High School woke me up to ask me a question. He was about to be married, and he was afraid to tell his fiancée that he was a virgin.

“Why are you asking me for advice on women?” I asked. (He had bragged about his conquests with the girls in the locker room in 7th grade gym class.)

“One of the last things my father told me,” he said, “was that someday I would need advice on women. When that day comes, I was told to find the guy that never talks about his success with women, because he’s the one who’s actually getting some.”

We had a long, memorable talk…

What does sensitivity imply to me?

Being sensitive to a woman’s needs is exactly that. If you’re with her because you’re 50 years older, wealthy, and like showing her off; a mink coat as a birthday gift may be very appropriate. If you’re dating her because she’s the founding member of the local PETA group, you might want to find her an environmentally friendly bumper sticker as a gift.

It has been pointed out that women like to be listened to. Most also like to have things said to them that they want to listen to. (It’s called communication.) For some women, it’s poetry. For others, it might be “Talk dirty to me sailor.” If you’re having a successful relationship with a woman, you have likely found words or behaviors that she considers to be sensitive to her needs, even if that means using another word to describe it…or no words at all. If she feels that you’re an insensitive clod who isn’t listening to her needs, you probably won’t get that first date anyway.

(Edited for spacing, clarity, and punctuation. I had to leave just as I was ready to post.)