Tips on how to create a strong romantic male lead?

Again, why are you a better authority on what someone wants, than that person is?

 

It was a suggestion, not a presumption, hence the 'maybe'.

It is 'preventable' in the sense that if you're willing to work at it (compromise on BOTH sides) it MIGHT work out.

And I stand by my statement about changing your personality to please someone. If you feel you have lost yourself, change for your own sake, but never as a last ditch effort because you feel you've become 'boring'.

 

Oh, urgghh.... Can't think of anything LESS attractive than that.

Without real chemistry—which you can't actually manufacture—this is all a tissue of lies, isn't it? No wonder marriages fall apart. When they're not based on real people who truly care for one another, but on a manufactured product that's designed to snare a mate, when the product breaks down, so does the relationship.

I feel people need to temper their requirements to a more realistic ideal, if relationships are to survive and even thrive. Because people are human, they make mistakes. What they think they want at one stage of their lives may not be what they want later on. Or in other words, be careful what you wish for.

You snag yourself a mate who has spent his or her life perfecting one part of their persona to the exclusion of others in order to attract YOU, then don't be surprised if you get bored with them later on.

 

Ok, I'm glad we'll stop with the off topic, I just need to correct you on this point. Not too long ago, a man stated, here on this forum, that women would be able to shrug off rape if it wasn't for feminism 'teaching them' to feel messed up about it. This is how far this kind of logic can take a man.

FYI, feminism isn't 'teaching women' feminism represents what's common to all women - a need to have equal rights under the law and in practice. Feminism (as a movement not its every individual participant) is a voice for how all women feel about women's issues and equality, so what feminism tells you about is not some dogma created by some people with vested interest and then force fed down women's throats, no, feminism agenda IS what women need and already have in their hearts, following centuries of abuse and slavery. Clearly, men on their own had no problems turning a deaf ear to women's plight to be treated as a human being, without batting an eyelid for centuries of violent patriarchy. The ugly tails of that are still dragging, through rape culture, slut shaming, wage gap, misogynist practices within institutions, media, notions of both femininity and masculinity, I could go on.

So women needed a political movement then as well as now, to be the 'spokesperson' who can't be beaten or raped into submission, who can't be locked away, committed to the asylum because of her ideas that women are equal. So men should have some respect for the sheer bravery and determination of women to fight for their human rights in the face of violent patriarchy, something men, as a gender, never had to do. Thankfully, many men have joined the plight of women, and without them, I doubt we's be as successful as we have been. So if you think feminism is teaching women how to feel, you are not listening to what feminism is telling YOU about what women feel and want.

 

Actually, you nail it perfectly. You have to change for your own sake. What is preached in the sphere of 'save your marriage' stuff that I subscribe to is you do it for yourself...you improve yourself...and one of two things will happen. Either the spouse will 'come along' and also work to improve things, or the spouse won't--in which case you are still happier AND poised to 'next' him/her for someone who will appreciate the revised, happier You. It's self-improvement that, by it's actions, typically improves the relationship at the same time. It won't always work; some relationships are irreversibly harmed (infidelity, a severe change in what the individuals want out of life, etc). More often than not, however, things do improve remarkably. I've followed it through several 'case studies' on a forum I frequent and have shared in the happiness when marriages have been saved.

re: feminism. I silently groaned as I typed the word, as I knew it would be...misunderstood? Here's how I see it: the term 'feminism' has, much like the original Tea Party movement of two election cycles ago, been quietly hijacked to a large degree by extremists. I see today's feminist movement as vastly different from the original mission of gender equality. I'm all for that; it's amazing to me we still have wage inequality, for example. However, radical feminists who would like you to believe men are completely useless and unnecessary scream the loudest, which gets them press coverage, which starts to make them to appear to be representative of all, and a downward spiral begins. Saying you're for gender equality will get nods of support from most men. Saying you're a feminist out loud will cause most males to scurry away, fearful that should they use one wrong word they'll be labeled a chauvinistic pig and derided for having a penis. Extremists, coupled with the media and sensationalistic reporting, have created this hijacking of the original (and worthy) intent.

I saw this first hand with the Tea Party; when it first began it was a loose group of people who were fed up with moronic and excessive government spending. It was a collection of people from all parties, who put aside all other agendas to address this one colossal failing of the US government and it's elected buffoons who were not doing the will of the people. I know this as FACT, because I participated in it at the time. As it grew a modicum of power and attention, the religious right/GOP extremists infiltrated and took it over, turning it into something completely different than what it was (and effectively destroying it). I think the same thing happened with 'feminism', to it's detriment.

Apologies to all who are disinterested in such things, but I want to clarify where my viewpoint comes from lest some of you think I have derision for the female gender. I certainly do not.

 

And therein lies the problem. First of all, this statement is untrue in claiming 'most men' will behave so, which I will address later. But also, it reveals quite clearly that some men are afraid of feminism. Without which every woman on this planet would be a slave with no rights - a situation that was conceived, enforced, exploited and perpetuated by men. So it isn't really surprising that some men to this day choose, of their own volition, to ignore the fact you will find extremists in any organisation, and instead focus purely on the feminist extremists in every discussion about women's issues and rights. Even if they graciously accept that extremists are rare and consistently picked up by media in a covert attempt to sabotage feminism. And even if they are able to acknowledge some aspects of continuing oppression (such as rape culture, wage gap, depending which issue they selectively 'believe in') they make sure they separate the 'original feminism' (a struggle for equality of women and men under the law) with 'new feminism' (a movement that continues to struggle for equality of men and women under the law) Interesting argument, if not a little old.

To come back to the quoted statement above, that if a woman (dares) to speak out loud she is a feminist, she will 'cause most men to scurry away' fearing for their penises. This is not only misogynist, but it also undermines men, painting them as pathetic cowards who are afraid women will do what with their penises? Verbally insult them? And this is reason enough to never utter the name of the movement that fought to liberate half the population from centuries of slavery and oppression? All so that some men can stop fearing their penises will be 'derided'? What a manifestation of male privilege that is! All it is, though, is an attempt at intimidating women into silence about their human rights 'if they want to ever find a man'. Fortunately, due to feminism and all its supporters (male and female) a woman today isn't a free-for-all target for all sorts of abuses unless she has a man, so the prospect isn't really as scary as one might think.

Personally, I always felt that I'd rather live alone or with a female friend than put up with an idiot who doesn't respect me as a human being. Incidentally, I never needed to avoid men at all, and even though I've been a feminist since my late teens, I was never short on offers and suitors despite them knowing I was a feminist. Most of them even held the same views on the issue. Imagine!

I have never encountered these 'men who scurry away' at the notion of the word, but I did have discussions about feminism with a few, even arguments. What I did find, however, was that some men who were interested in me as a woman, were intimidated by my profession in relation to theirs, which I can understand because a man likes to feel dominant or at least doesn't like to think of himself as in any way submissive, especially during courtship stages. And in a couple of relationships I had issues because the men continually competed over whose job is harder, and they had some trouble accepting I was earning more than them, drove a better car etc. Altogether a vast minority in my experience.

Confident and strong men who are comfortable with themselves don't fear women or feminism. What's there to fear, what's radical or wrong about correcting a historical injustice and giving every human being equal rights? The answer is - there is nothing radical or wrong. It is only the opinions of those men who have self-esteem problems and have dealt with it by latching onto patriarchal stereotypes.

 

People who want to discredit feminism, including terrified men desperate to preserve their special privileges, have hijacked the term. They haven't hijacked the movement. I'm not going to stop using the term as a sort of head-patting "there, there, poor baby, don't cry, nobody's going to cut anything off" reassurance to those men. Those men are going to have to strive to be grownups and deal with their fears.

But what's the source of your viewpoint that women, if they were "honest" would accept your judgement about what they want in a relationship? Those nasty mean feminists didn't back you into a corner, take your lunch money, and make you say that. So where does that come from?

Yes, I haven't let that go. You could just admit that most adults know what they think and feel and want, even when they're women, and back off from those statements as ill-advised and incorrect. I have trouble understanding why you don't.

 

ChickenFreak, I'm trying to figure out why you're so intent on getting me to confess to some sort of sin.

I do agree that the term feminism has been hijacked more than the movement. I apologize for not making that clear.

jazzabel, I don't know how you made the leap from feminazis looking at anyone sporting a penis with derision to men fearing they would be lopped off.

What I (probably ineptly) failed to relay was that political correctness has swung the pendulum to such a degree that many men are afraid to have any discussion such as this around the opposite sex, for fear of being publicly ridiculed for having an opinion. Much the same way as white people dare not mention race ever these days for fear of being labeled racist. Everyone is so busy tip-toeing around on eggshells, afraid to say anything offensive. The relationship between the sexes is not exempt from this ridicule--as evidenced in this hopelessly lost thread.

 

I'm new here, but... what the hell, might as well dive in!

My read on ChickenFreak's posts is that she's trying to get you to acknowledge what you said, rather than blasting off into a lot of tangents. If this thread is "hopelessly lost", maybe that's because you seem to be scrambling around trying to avoid what you actually said. So far we've heard about your marriage, your views on feminism, PUAs, and in this latest post, political correctness and racism?!? Yikes.

I haven't appreciated the "gals" "girls" and "room full of female respondents" bits, but I think you're probably right that you're in a minority here - and the majority also happen to be members of the group under discussion. So, ARE you telling the group of women what women think, feel, and want? If so... why? Why do you think your life experiences trump theirs?

I think most women reading this will have a good idea of why you think your views are more valid than theirs, but I'd like to hear your explanation of it.

 

No. I don't think that's the truth at all. It's just that people these days are being held to account for the views they hold instead of being able to pass it off as common knowledge or a universally held truth. I see it a lot these days, with some men claiming OMG! I feel so invalidated, my opinions aren't valued. Feminism is trying to stamp out personal opinions.

No. Feminism is only asking you not to assert that your notions are true for others.

Anyway I think what's really clear from this thread and the original question is...

• A great male romantic lead character needs to appeal to it's target audience, namely women and/or gay men.
• Stereotypical characters of any description aren't likely to be well received.
• It's worth researching the current views of your target audience rather than assuming your personal views on the matter are shared by your audience.

 

@PensiveQuill your post misattributes @ddavidv's post to me.

 

And I'm trying to figure out why you seem to be incapable of saying, "You know, when I said that I knew what women want, and when I told individual women that they were wrong about what they think they want and that I knew better than they did on that subject, I was wrong."

 

Why does it matter to you? Because you need the man to admit he's wrong? Thanks for fulfilling that stereotype.

It should have been apparent many threads ago that my opinion isn't appreciated on this subject. I was wrong to perpetuate attempting to explain it to most of you. Now that it's become personal, I'll bow out. Maybe work on my writing...which, by the way, have strong female lead characters...but I'm sure I'm writing them wrong since I can't possibly understand the female mind.

 

The female mind? Because there's only one, right?

 

So in a discussion about you telling women what they think...you once again tell me what I think.

I should be finding this funnier than I am.

 

Aren't you telling ddavidv what he thinks right here?

 

He's wrong to tell us what we think. He's apparently either incapable of recognizing that or incapable of admitting it. I don't know which, because I don't know what he thinks.

 

Its wrong to tell anyone what they think. It's also wrong to tell anyone what they should think. And its also wrong to tell anyone how to behave.

That's why we have law. Anything that is not illegal is fair game. The best we can do is try to show respect for each other, and not get angry.

 

Like...you just did in this sentence?

 

Total tangent, but... do you really believe this? Not the first part, that's just... whatever. Right or wrong, it's generally POINTLESS to do these things. And when a group of people are told what they think and feel and want, they generally don't appreciate it, as this thread has shown us.

But the second part? Is the best response to EVERYTHING to show respect and not get angry? Not in this thread, specifically, but in general? Like, if someone's saying or doing really hateful things... we should respect that? If someone's doing or saying things that violate our core values, there's no place for anger? Again, I don't mean this thread specifically, but it seems like you're talking in generalities. Do you believe that's always the best policy?

 

All paradoxes not withstanding.

 

Me, personally? I think we should reinstate the duel.

 

I didn't want to get involved with this (I'm sure no mod does) but we already had a go-around about the term "feminazi." Let's not use that word, okay? Already debated, already decided, and frankly, it's a stupid word.

 

I think it comes down to where/how the incident is happening. If you're present when somebody does or says something horrible and hurtful to another person, then I think it's not only a 'best policy' to get angry, but also your responsibility as a human being to step in and make it stop, if you can.

An intellectual debate is another issue. Somebody earlier in the thread (I forget who) mentioned people taking other people's viewpoints for granted. We've all been there. "We all know (whatever it is) is true." That's the time to step in and say: "Actually, no I don't think it's true at all, and here's why."

In the context of a debate, the other person has three choices. They can say: "Ooops, I didn't think of it that way, you're right, thanks for pointing it out." Or they can dig in and restate their original argument in stronger terms (or 'agree to disagree.') Or they can divert attention from the other person's position by seizing certain phrases used in the discussion, taking them out of context and whacking the stuffing out of them. The other 'side' feels compelled to do the same, and the debate deteriorates from general to personal. Both sides make each other very angry, and the original point of the discussion/debate can get lost.

Getting angry doesn't really work in a debate. I'd say make your point, explain or expand it once or twice for clarity, then back off. The other person—whether they like it or not—has been made to realise their opinion is NOT as universal as they originally thought, even if they still feel they are right. (And onlookers have seen both sides of the argument.) A wake-up bump against another opinion can get new thought processes going. Conversion doesn't happen easily; very few people like to admit to error in public because they can be made to suffer humiliation when they do. The question is: next time the topic comes up, will they decide to do things differently? Here's hoping...

 

said no one ever.