No one needs to get upset; this is a discussion, not an argument

_________________
[color=red:7c51ae7520]email is a better option: thelockestar@gmail.com[/color:7c51ae7520][/size:7c51ae7520]

Again, Read This: I LIKE threads like this because it sparks great discussion. That's the last time I'll say it.

I re-read the first post. I'll wait for the next post you'll make after you're not so tired. I've got an open mind about this, and I'm not some crazy feminist. Like I stated BEFORE, I'm a humanist. My problem with this theory is mindset. My opinion, so far, stands.

Let's see how it turns out after further discussion.

And, as a moderator and a senior member of this forum, here's a note to EVERYONE: Stop getting your collective panties in a wad. Don't take strong opinions as personal attacks. That is just silly.

_________________
- Zip

I actually saw a TV programme where they got a dog-trainer to teach women her techniques, then the women used exactly the same techniques on their husbands to get them to 'behave'. They worked as well lol. So I guess this works the other way as well!

I think Hobbit summed up a very nice rebuttal to this by simply refocusing the spotlight onto comparing males to the alpha males of the dog packs rather than the human masters.

Even so, I also think that the whole "master/slave" thing (let's call it the "leader/follower" dynamic) is being mislabeled by an unrelated negative connotation here. A dominant leader and a submissive follower both share the same amount of power, just different kinds. One often assumes the leader to have more power, but without the follower's consent and trust the leader cannot lead. It's like a tango. OK, I admit I know nothing about tango, but I've seen movies with Antonio Banderas in them, and that's close enough, right?

The dog training analogy to pickup compares all parties to the dogs (man as alpha male and woman as submissive), putting everyone on the same level in terms of species. I'm going to be so bold as to say that women are naturally submissive (and are therefore attracted to dominant men to compliment their submissive nature), but that doesn't mean they have any less value or power as the naturally dominant male. Sure, things get fucked up when dominance turns into force and aggression, but such foolish acts are actually beta and would go against the creed of "leaving her better than you found her."
If I'm interpreting what you're trying to say here correctly, you're telling me that it's wrong to say that humans and animals are on the same level when I am also saying that women are on the same level as dogs. There's a logical fallacy in your argument because it appears as though you are failing to place women into the category of humans and dogs into the category of animals. If you did that, then you'd see that I'm putting men, women, dogs, and all animals on the same level in this particular argument, which freely allows me to distinguish between men and women in comparison to any animal without discriminatory intentions.
This argument is also moot because of another logical fallacy. The premise of your argument here is the assumption that I am saying "because Pavlov said this, it must be true." I am simply saying that I am agreeing with his findings in his research of classical conditioning, as any sensible person would do. Human beings are never right or wrong 100% of the time. I am sure there are times when Hitler, often known for his wrong mindset of hate, said statements that were indeed true. Maybe he once said "2 plus 2 is 4." That wouldn't make 2 plus 2 not 4 just because Hitler said it. In the same sense Pavlov would not be wrong or unethical in his findings in classical conditioning just because he concluded some fucked up shit in other studies.

And yes, Locke, I am giving you a hard time just because you think that anyone who loves America is a republican. lulz
Awww thanks hobbs, but I actually expected you to argue against me lol. I jumped into this debate just to have the opportunity to take on some giants! I'm trying to hit rock bottom here. Honestly I could take either side because there is truth in both perspectives but I'd rather try to piss off the other mods because it's fun and intellectually stimulating.

In my experiences i have always been the "dominant" figure in a relationship. Unless you are into leting a women dominate you, which i'm not really into, then i see no wrong in my experiences. There is always a dominant and ressessive in a relationship. For me, i personally like to lead.

_________________
The New Breed
Evolve

Subtracting the admittedly degrading dog analogy, this boils down to "giving them unearned attention can only lead to their misbehavior and poor SPAM of you... DONT HAND THEM LOVE THEY HAVE NOT EARNED."

I think that is the concept we should be discussing.

In my opinion, this is what is called "conditional love". I have mixed feelings about it. Obviously, unconditional love serves no useful purpose, that is why it is called unconditional. And many women use this all the time, it is no coincidence that some women call men dogs. "I'll have sex/be in this relationship if you do this, this, and this." they say. So why shouldn't men flip the roles and say, I'll give you love and attention, only if you do what I want?

I don't think I have an answer, but I personally find this behavior repulsive when I see it in women. That kind of woman, to me, is a whore. I don't care if she is a prudish virgin, because that is whore mentality in its essence.

Thats why I would never use this repulsive mindset. You give a child a reward for cleaning her room, and the child will believe that cleaning her room should only be done if their is an ulterior reward. You give a women conditional affection, you will get conditional affection back. Worse, you will attract that kind of conditional-love whore woman, and repulse the real women who know how to love.

I know this is an impossible paradox, but the ideal situation to me is where you give unconditional love in return for unconditional love. The end of the relationship should be for when that feeling fades, not a threat to be avoided by doing things for the other person. This is not an achievable goal, but you want to get as close to this as possible.

I think this applies both to long term relationships and one night stands. That is the emotional dynamic that will make you the happiest in the end.

I'm not saying this to belittle your theory, I'm sure it will work quite well on many women, who have been trained by society to ration love so that they won't be called whores. I am just making clear the type of women it will attract and the type of relationship it will create, and why I personally wouldn't use it. I'm not being a romantic, I just believe that the emotional dynamic is more important than the relationship/sex itself in relation to your happiness. And your happiness is the main goal, careful not to lose sight of that.

Mind if I bump this? I kind of wanted to see the response...

I like the concept actually. I'm not saying treat women like dogs, neither is Chill; he's merely saying that the confidence and communication skills (body language and voice tonality) required to effectly deal with dogs is similar to the skills needed to effectively deal with women. I'd personally scratch that though and say the same skills are needed to deal with people in general.

Now Zip I know you're all about the being a Humanist thing (do you not think humans are still animals, is that what you mean by that?). People are still animals though and things translate really well from one to the other. I recommend reading Why Is Sex Fun? by Jared Diamond because he draws amazing parallels between various animals and human sexual psychology.

This isn't saying to treat other people as lower life-forms, I'd actually say that it's saying animals are more like humans than it is the other way around. By saying that animal psychology is very similar to human psychology and then refering to animal psych to learn more about humans you open a lot of new doors.

_________________
"The 'Brick Walls' are there to allow you to prove how badly you want something!" ~ Randy Pausch

~ Rye

I think it's a perfect metaphor. If you don't like referring to women as dogs, then flip the roles - men are dogs and women are masters. Doesn't matter..

My point: We can't communicate well with animals. Some people can. I befriended the neighbor's cat that runs away from *everyone*. I always knew when the dog had to go outside. (Everyone else can't figure that one out) When we speak a different language, we have to find other ways to communicate... Reward/punishment aka push/pull... Body language... etc. You might not know when a dog has to go outside, but you KNOW when he wants to tear your balls off!

But we are all animals, unless you're a creationist, in which case you're either modeled after God or Adam's rib... (sorry feminists). Despite our [supposedly] better intelligence, we still respond to external stimuli with instincts. These are ingrained. When you hear a loud noise, you jump. But if you hear it often enough, you stop paying attention. Why? It becomes less important to your self preservation.

Watch some of Shaun Ellis' work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5rN1m2nJzk

Going off this, there was also the milgram study. Where it showed that people will obey legit authority even though it may be hurting another human being.

_________________
Men fall in love with their eyes. Women fall in love with their ears.

I think as long as guys can keep their egos in check and view everyone on the same terms, then this is a good theory but I can see some major newbie power trips with this type of thought.

As for the actual theories behind this, they are the same throughout the entire animal (human) kingdom, you bark, squark or meow in the most authoritative way you will be seen as the most authoritative, You stand like the leader you will be seen as the leader. Basically what you project is how you will be interpreted.

As for not giving undue love or love/interest first I am kinda against this, I think this is one of the areas of the game which is left inflexible for a lot of people. They read that they shouldn't show interest first and follow it like gospel, when sometimes you need to demonstrate a moment of weakness to get past a woman's defenses. have a good idea where these defenses come from as well its asshole guys who mistreat women and show them little love and so I think a little honesty can go a long way.

_________________
Troll the trolls
free book http://www.4shared.com/file/123140320/b ... ndows.html

I've already answered this. I do not argue that human beings are still animals. I base a lot of my theories on base brain studies.

What I do disagree with is the premise of this theory where there is a master and an animal. Both are, connotatively, not on the same level. It affects mindset.

_________________
- Zip

I read the title of this thread and thought it was a romance novel or a daytime sitcom or something. Turns out, it's a thread advocating the adoption of dog training methods on women.

And that's fine. Whatever works for you. It's not the worst thing a guy can do to keep a girl.

But there are two flaws in this theory. Instead of treating just women like dogs, you should treat EVERYONE like dogs. If we do indeed contain the instincts of a hierarchical dog pack, then it would be just silly to treat half of the pack like dogs and the other half like people. If you want to be the alpha male, the leader of the pack, then you must assert your dominance and mastery over every dog in it, not just the bitches. So instead of "The Woman Whisperer", a more apt title would be "The People Whisperer".

The other: Know that if you apply the method to conclusion, you will find that you have degraded the value of the human being you are with, whether it be your friends or your girl. You will start to objectify people and find ways to manipulate them based on methods used for training dogs, and that devalues us all. So while it's helpful to have these concepts in mind when dealing with leadership decisions in life, as the guy in the Tanqueray commercial says, "Always in moderation".

_________________
afc-challenge-to-the-masters-social-anx ... 10108.html

Yeah, I wouldn't say that one is the master and one is the animal. We're all animals. Just like humans interacting with dogs are just 2 different animals interacting together, 2 people are just 2 animals interacting together as well. I wouldn't show fear to a dog, or a bear, or any other animal that takes advantage of that emotion and I sure as hell wouldn't show fear to any human that's gonna take advantage of that emotion either.

_________________
"The 'Brick Walls' are there to allow you to prove how badly you want something!" ~ Randy Pausch

~ Rye

But the point here is not about humans and animal. That was just an allegory. Its about not giving someone, human or animal. "love they have not earned", because that leads to bad behavior, and whether that is the correct way to deal with people.