Pushing a person to do it or to do it through manipulation

[Enjoy The DeclineParticipant 1719]

There is a difference between pushing a person to do it or to get the person to do it through manipulation. When you are pushing the man to do it, you are doing it to keep the man in check in what he has to do which actually shows that you have no fault in it because it is understandable. When you manipulate the person to doing it like let’s say if the person does not do it, you would be withholding something from the person, it can actually mentally hurt the person in the long run because it creates a lot of stress through being frustrated since she shouldn’t even negotiate something that is actually helping the relationship. Even when some people though do think it is understandable that the women would do that against men in general, it can actually get worse also when after the man actually does do what she says, then the woman would then ask for other demands before she can stop withholding something completely which leads to a lot of broken promises. I think that relationships get less toxic if the person would keep the other person in check instead of giving demand after demand to the guy or else she would withhold something from the guy like having a carrot dangling on a rope for the guy to chase with all those broken promises the woman would make. What are your thoughts on this?

"Question everything" - Albert Einstein

[hmskl’dParticipant 6418]

I remember questioning a psychology teacher about definition of negative reinforcement after an essay exam.
He used to teach in his lectures that a negative reinforcer was something that was added as a discomfort after a certain behavior was performed thus causing the behavior to be repeated less frequently in the future. I found several texts with a totally different definition of a negative reinforcer. They stated that it was the removal of something uncomfortable after a certain behavior thereby causing the behavior to repeated more often in the future. To this day I believe that the texts were right and he was teaching it wrong .. mainly because of the term reinforcement. If you are reinforcing some behavior you want it to occur more often .. positive reinforcement would be to add something enjoyable. Negative reinforcement would be to remove something uncomfortable .. both techniques causing an increased frequency of future behaviors. Saying, as he did to the class, that adding something uncomfortable after a behavior; it would be more on the order of a punishment than a reinforcement. He did give me credit for my answer when I showed him he text.. but he also continued teaching it wrong. Positive and negative reinforcement can both increase a behavior’s future likelihood .. only by different means. The text also went on to say that by using positive or negative reinforcement on a sporadic basis, and not after every event, this also makes the future behavior stronger less likely to diminish as the participant doesn’t know exactly when he is going to be rewarded .. so he continues performing even though he isn’t rewarded every single time. At least that’s what I still believe despite that professor’s teachings.

[ScorpionSpectator 15]

In the words of St. Albert the Great —

“Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison with his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she herself cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one’s guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil…. In evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good.”

[narwhalParticipant]

I don’t think there is anything wrong with stating consequences to someone’s action if they are done for the right reasons. There’s nothing wrong with a man leaving a woman if she’s acting like a bitch all the time. He’s under no obligation (unless married perhaps) and it’s for his own good…even if he really doesn’t want to go.

On the other hand, a married woman withhold sex because her husband won’t buy her that ring she wants is manipulation. There is an existing obligation of sex, and she is not doing this to protect herself, it’s only selfishness.

Ok. Then do it.

[Anonymous 54]

Manipulation is the devils work. It is evil.It is robbing some one of there right to chose and there dignity….That and all that stuff you smart guys just said!!

[HitmanParticipant]

i used to be great at manipulating women to do all sorts of things..
sex mostly.
then i realized it made me no better than they were..
two people trying to manipulate each other..what a mess.
after being her i realized i had a higher calling than to be a hustler ..it was somehow reprehensible to me when it never as before.
i guess when you lay down with dogs you get fleas..
when you go MGTOW you get VALUES !
being here has made me the man i wanted to be.
honest and forthright.
i see through womens lies like i have x-ray vision now.
it’s f~~~ing AWESOME !

[JackinovParticipant 5229]

Sort of how boy are taught when they are young- “when you grow up and get married” over and over and over and over, so when they are fully grown, they don’t question the validity of the statement.

“You will pay for the date” over and over and over and over, so you don’t question the stupidity of the statement.

“Women are special, sweet, loving creatures” over and over and over and over so you don’t question the falsity of the statement.

Or rather that’s the point.

Also being treated as if saying “I don’t want to get married” is wrong, or somehow childish.

are you a chia pet in man drag

[Author]

Posts