While in conversation with one of my buddies it occured to me that a man’s man is quite different from a woman’s man, and have different routes to getting there. Quite a few times I’ve met guys who are successful with women but who I have no respect for and look down on, while other guy’s its the reverse. Only just now have I figured out how to put words onto this feeling.
A man’s man (MM) exemplifies those qualities men respect in other men such as honour, work ethic, dependibility, state control, toughness, interesting conversation, life experience and so on. These are guys you want to hang out with, the first guy you ring up when you want a few beers and also when you are in trouble. You want a MM behind you in the foxhole or a bar scuffle.
A woman’s man (WM) exemplifies those qualities women respond to sexually such as aloofness, strong frame, emotional highs and lows, full attention, touchy, passionate, complex. Girls get roped in and try to solve his mystery in all it’s angst-ridden, creative, whimsical glory. To say I don’t trust these men is an understatement.
They love women and orient their life around them. They are the guys with extremely high (100+) lay counts. Some of them are good company but there’s always that feeling that they aren’t right. That they’ll throw you under a bus for pussy, fail to repay a loan, disappear when the shit goes down, get all temperamental and throw a hissy fit etc.
I think it’s due to an identification with the feminine which is a double-edged sword. An ability to adore and understand the feminine smoothes out all obstacles to a woman’s pussy. The over-identification that comes with natural seducers often leaves them failing to develop the normal structures of a man’s life: career, mission, friendship circle, hobbies. In contrast I know men who are great company but simply cannot translate the high esteem with which men hold them into an ability to close women. I wonder of the two archetypes of MM and WM are mutually exclusive or can be transcended to become a James Bond-esque man that “all men want to be and all women want in their bed.”
July 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm
I appreciate you putting it into words. I personally see Beckham as a combination of both.
As a man I love him for his ability, hard work, and reliability on the pitch. Hate him for his peacocking (suited looks good though), pansy voice, and seeming flakiness with clubs.
Women coud care less about reliability and hard work. Women go crazy about his styles and his endless commitment to family.
July 24, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Good observation here, Krauser. I’d be willing to bet my last $ that there would be a significant co-relation between the types of households these archetypes grew up in.
The MM’s grew up in a house for which he had a MM as a male role model and influence.
The WM’s man either grew up in a single mother household or one for which his Mother “wore the pants” and his father was just another one of her kids to be mothered.
July 24, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Just because one man chooses to pick up a paintbrush over a boxing glove, doesn’t make him any less a man. It’s how he lives his life that defines him, not specifically what he does or excels at. This is what defines a man’s man, not really any other aspect.
July 24, 2012 at 11:10 pm
I think it’s possible to have both. Having a broad understanding of a woman’s internal structure will only favour women since a man will be able to know and intuitively feel when something is wrong and needs fixing in a relationship without verbally stating it. Something which many women complain about due to their men ‘not getting it’.
On the other hand, part of a woman’s attraction requires a man to pursue his purpose and to have ‘manly qualities’. So it all fits together perfectly.
If anything, i don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. They’re all part and parcel of one broad stroke which all men need to fulfill which is, understanding his woman and understanding himself.
Using boxing as an analogy, a great boxer must be able to read and understand his opponent as well as be able to adapt in accordance to his physical abilities.
July 25, 2012 at 12:29 am
There was a mate of mine I went to both high school and college with. He had one of the highest lay counts I know of, but there was always something off about him to me. He was fairly socially adept and a good guy for the most part, but I always felt like he would fuck you over if it benefited him and not give a rat’s ass about it.
I haven’t talked to him since Uni… I wonder what he’s up to now. Coincidentally, he’s never really had a Facebook presence either….
July 25, 2012 at 1:19 am
Men who are both mens men and womens men likely get married early and stay married. They’re probably the ones with successful marriages and adoring wives, provided they don’t lose their edge.
Also, the woman’s man ideal comes from the Byronic hero, created by poet Lord Byron who created the character type in his work and then lived it in his life.
July 25, 2012 at 3:01 am
Women’s man = Man aping a women.
July 25, 2012 at 9:15 am
we had this discussion a week or so back, good expansion on it here.
July 25, 2012 at 10:13 am
You certainly can have the best of both I think i.e. me. LOL.
100+ is a middling lay count I think…
Infact thinking about it, I wouldn’t describe your womans man as any kind of man at all: more like shitbag perhaps, or faggot.
True masculine men- with strength of identity, emotional mastery, protective instincts combined with dominance will always blow away opportunistic conniving “ladies” men. Every time.
July 25, 2012 at 10:16 am
I have so many examples of WM at the edge of my friendship circle: they are friends of friends, but not *my* friends. What I hate about them is that they have no clear line, no substance that drives them. Nothing like that at all. Funnily, the girls who like them sexually do not see it that way (at least their logical mind does not). Some of them were telling me.. and they seem to like his ability to understand them – but what they fail to say is that they miss his male qualities, as they are’nt really there. My guess is that girls can not really get happy with these guys as they lack major male qualities and sooner or later the girl’s emotions will tell them “to get the fuck out of here”..
July 25, 2012 at 10:47 am
A good test of a MM is would you introduce this guy to your old man and his mates. Would they intuitively think he was a great bloke or would they instinctively regard him as a Fanny Rat. Old guys drinking beer can work this stuff out in nanoseconds.
An alternative test is would five early 20’s American girls in a hostel think you were “an interesting guy”? If so, you’re a WM.
July 25, 2012 at 2:41 pm
mans man right here
July 25, 2012 at 1:07 pm
“That they’ll throw you under a bus for pussy”
Question for Burto: remind you of anyone you know? 😉
July 26, 2012 at 12:16 am
Great post. Reminds me of this gem of an article
July 26, 2012 at 4:24 am
The main problem is “TIME” when it comes to developing BOTH archetypes. A man’s man is more conducive for getting that one woman. He does not have time to learn all the subtleties that make a master womanizer what he is. Same with the womanizer, he does not have the time to invest in making his life more fundamentally sound due to his lifestyle. It will generally a compromise.
One solution would be what the community recommends, spend a few years learning the art of seduction, and then get back to a normal life. Most of the skills sets would have been internalized at that time. Maybe then they can co-exists in one man.
July 26, 2012 at 11:49 pm
Funny, what first came to mind reading this was Fitzgerald. Gatsby is a WM – he’s empty on substance, he’s overly sentimental, he cares so damn much getting Daisy. Tom, Daisy’s husband is a MM. He’s masculine, into his hobbies, he doesn’t really give a fuck about Daisy. Guess who gets Daisy at the end? Yup, Tom. Fitzgerald knew what’s what.
July 27, 2012 at 9:58 pm
Interesting post, I hadn’t thought about MM and WM but it ties in with systemising/empathising theory fairly neatly. A WM gets the hamster wet whilst the MM gets the vag wet, so if you can be both at the same time then she’ll be squirting out of every hole, but I believe that there’s a spectrum of masculine & feminine traits so to be at both ends at the same time all the time is either rare or not possible. Game allows you to bounce around a bit tho.
July 29, 2012 at 11:23 pm
I think Russell Brand is the perfect example of a WM.
August 12, 2012 at 4:00 pm
In the 60s, Gavin Arthur (grandson of President Chester A. Arthur) wrote a book called The Circle of Sex. His “circle” was overly focused on bisexuality, but he talked about a “Don Juan” type who was great with, and loved by, women because he enjoyed their world and was so sympathetic to them that he came off as effeminate at times. The Don Juan character was contrasted with “Pioneer” and “Caesar” types who were the real “men’s men” who were more interested in commanding women than relating to them.
I recently had to dump a friend who was a Don Juan/Woman’s Man type. He was great to hang out with when he was banging lots of chicks and not really paying attention to one, but as soon as he became enamored with one, she became the “most magical vagina in the whole world” and he pushed her into everyone’s life and brought her everywhere with him and wanted everyone to hang out with her. He did this 3 or 4 times over a 2 year period to the point where it became ridiculous.
Pingback: Magic mushrooms as an inner game accelerant « Krauser's PUA Adventure
September 9, 2012 at 6:48 am
I’d say I started out as a ladies man, and have always had a strong sentimental and empathetic side, and in later years grew into a more dominant personality more interested in leading, with stronger boundaries and less interested in womens emotions.
Perhaps some men do it the other way around.
Either way, women do appreciate a little emotional variability.
Pingback: B. Dynamics « the professor
September 21, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Liked the post a lot. I thought that the very PUA movement is an attempt at combining WM and MM qualities, by promoting WM skills but in an MM setting.
Pingback: Study a broad program « stagedreality