Women have fascinated me now for nearly half a century. Over time and through many mistakes I've discovered much about how their romantic interest is established and lost. I believe the "spark" and feeling of chemistry isn't nearly as mysterious as people believe.
Many moons ago... In a town kinda far away,
My teens and early twenties were spent as a lonely dreamer, longing for the girls I was too afraid to approach, and relying on prayer and karma and fate to help me along...
It didn't quite work out.
(I was a dork)
After my first soul crushing rejection and ensuing depression at the age of 22, I began a six month physical transformation, gaining 40 pounds of muscle from working out every day and taking Accutane to clear up my severe acne. I tried different hair styles, and actually attempted to create a better wardrobe, which admittedly from the photo below still needed some refining...
And you know what? Sure enough, I began to attract the attention of the type of girls I'd always dreamed of.
A few months later, my first "relationship," which made it all of eight weeks, started out fast and furious, with shared feelings, great expectations, and seeing each other every day. I was sweet and affectionate and wanted to be around her all the time, and it was great for a while, but that somehow blew up in my face. She said I was "smothering" her and promptly dumped me!
Well, dang. I thought it was all about being attractive, so why couldn't I maintain her feelings?
It was then recommended by a waitress friend that I try being a jerk for a while and see if it made a difference. That's just what I did, and wow! Within a few months I was dating multiple hot girls at the same time! It was like they couldn't get enough of me. I had no idea why it worked, but heck, I was having fun (and sex) with beautiful women.
But after my first Fiance left me 3.5 years later, I was yet again perplexed about what made women stay in love. Mixing up being a jerk and being sweet had gotten me much, much further along, but something was still missing. I could still sense her interest slowly fading away over time.
After hundreds of hours of online searching, and many more reflecting on how my romantic interactions had played out, there was only one individual who's advice actually matched what had happened with my relationships.
His name was Thomas Hodges, a.k.a. Doc Love. Doc's true genius was his years of interviewing women not about what they said they wanted in a man, but instead about the personality traits of the men they had chosen to stay with.
I devoured his content over several years and put it to good use, winning the heart of the most desirable girl where I worked. We had next to zero in common, yet we still made it 1.5 years on my knowledge of chemistry and attraction alone.
Fast forward to today. I've been with the same hot, sexy, wonderful woman for 17 years. We're extremely compatible, have 4 beautiful crazy kids, and feel just as in love or more than we did at the beginning of our relationship.
And I don't think it's Luck...
BUT, "WHY?"
After continual confirmation over the past 20 years of highly successful interactions with women, I found myself wondering about the deeper "why" people do what they do with love.
Specifically,
1. Why do people rarely if ever fall back in love?
It seems a bit strange that people don't at least occasionally fall back in love. Sure, many people pretty much stick with the same mentality throughout life, known as a "fixed" mindset.
But what about the growth minded people? They can't fall back in love later on down the road? If so, where are they?
2. Why do women respond so consistently favorably to a man being indifferent and aloof once a romantic connection has been established?
What come's next usually causes my more liberal leaning readers to bolt away like frightened gazelle.
Don't be a frightened gazelle, as I too came from a very liberal leaning background myself. However... My views and theories have been developed over many years of personal dating experiments and observation, versus via personal bias.
What I found is that men and women are indeed biologically different, and our neurophysiology plays a much larger role in who we're attracted to than we realize. We have different bodies, different hormones, different physiology, different psychology, varying strengths and weaknesses. We are different, and that's okay. Not "equal," but instead, complimentary.
For the first question, I arrived at the concept of survival. What if women didn't get back together with men once their interest level got low enough because a sort of genetic switch turned off deep down inside them?
If certain non-physical male strengths were neglected enough, that switch turned off as a primitive fail safe to keep them alive, because staying with a weak organism would be too risky.
Hmmm.
This might sound pretty weird to you at this point, so let me mention that the process I'm speaking of takes place inside a woman's subconscious mind. She doesn't know it's happening. There’s a disconnect. As I see it, women lose interest for biological reasons, deep down triggers from many millions of years of evolution.
It's really that simple. Females have an instinctual set of instructions that drive their feelings and responses to a mate. I currently refer to it as the "survival mechanism", and just like the infamous honey badger from YouTube fame, the survival mechanism doesn’t give a “F”. It has one primitive and very important job, making sure life continues. Therefore when it detects enough "weakness" in a male, it dismisses said male by turning off the warm and fuzzy feelings, never to return, because doing so would risk survival.
For the second question regarding challenge, I continued down the survival path of thought. Say you have a crude biological organism, stripped away of all higher level logic and reason, and that organism relies solely on stimulus (feelings) to keep it alive. What does it respond to?
I would think strength and weakness.
Strengths, or aspects good for survival, are measured by the sensation of pleasure such as attraction and sex.
Aspects detrimental to survival are met with the sensation of pain, likeburning your hand on a hot stove.
So wouldn't it make sense that a primitive organism wanting to mate, without the ability to think critically with logic and reason, would respond to strength, and repel weakness?
If you had no logic or reason, and a potential mate pulled away from you, how would that register?
It’s as if it's the opposite of the predator/prey response, where the animal that runs away is perceived as weak. In this case, the animal (human) that doesn’t overload the other with sexual advances is perceived as stronger, more desirable.
THE TRIUNE BRAIN MODEL
Say hello to your little primitive brain friend! And a bit of controversy! Contemporary scientists currently believe around 95% of our brain’s activity is unconscious. Contemporary scientists also don’t dispute that the area of life sustaining function resides inside the human brain stem. That area was once theorized by a Scientist Paul MacLean years ago as the "reptilian brain."
According to MacLean, humans have three different areas that control our thoughts and actions. The most advanced, the cerebral cortex, or “Neomammalian complex”, is the center for logic and reason. The more primitive are the limbic system, or “Paleomammilian complex”, and basal ganglia, or “Reptilian complex.”
While the Triune Brain Theory gained popularity and was influential in its time, it has faced criticism and challenges from the scientific community in recent years. Many neuroscientists and researchers consider the theory to be an oversimplified and outdated model of brain structure and function. Here are a few points to consider:
The theory suggests that the three brain components have distinct boundaries and functions. However, modern neuroscience has shown that the brain's structures are interconnected and highly integrated, with various regions playing overlapping roles in multiple functions.
Fair enough.
Furthermore, the theory's evolutionary framework, which suggests that the brain evolved in sequential layers, has been questioned. Evidence indicates that brain development is a more complex and dynamic process, with structures evolving and adapting in a non-linear manner.
Ok, so where did the cerebral cortex come from and when? If our brains didn’t evolve with more advanced layers added on top of more primitive ones, then doesn’t that have to mean the advanced layers were always there, from the earliest lifeforms? I could absolutely be wrong, but that’s not what I remember from single cell organisms and biology class.
Critics also argue that the Triune Brain Theory lacks robust empirical evidence to support its claims. The theory is primarily based on anatomical and comparative studies of animal brains rather than direct evidence from human brain research.
Finally, MacLean using the word “Reptilian” to describe the basal ganglia has definitely been a turn-off for modern neuroscience, with contemporaries pointing out that we did not actually evolve as reptiles. The theory of evolution tells us that all living organisms, including humans, share a common ancestor, and over millions of years, different species have evolved and branched off into various lineages.
The common ancestor of reptiles and mammals can be traced back to a group of ancient reptilian-like creatures called synapsids. These synapsids eventually gave rise to mammals, including early mammalian ancestors that evolved characteristics such as hair, mammary glands, and the ability to regulate body temperature internally. Reptiles, on the other hand, evolved along a separate lineage, developing their own distinct characteristics and adaptations to suit their environment. Reptiles have traits such as scales, cold-blooded metabolisms, and different reproductive strategies compared to mammals.
Again, fair enough. I’d rather refer to the basal ganglia as the “primitive” brain.
To me, all brain areas influence behavior, and are interconnected, but emotions precede, and often trump, rational thought. Emotions are much more likely to compel us to action, while reason is much more likely to temper our emotions, or limit actions.
Speaking of which... enter,
SIGMUND FREUD
Many of Freud's theories and concepts have also been heavily criticized, revised, or even discarded over the years. The scientific community does not universally accept his theories as valid or supported by empirical evidence.
Some of Freud's ideas, such as the existence of the unconscious mind and the importance of early childhood experiences, have had a lasting impact and continue to be explored and integrated into modern psychological theories.
However, other aspects of Freud's work, such as his theories of psychosexual development, dream interpretation, and the Oedipus complex, are considered controversial and are not widely supported by contemporary scientific research.
I totally agree that theories such as the Oedipus complex are a bit far fetched, but the Id, Ego, and Super Ego?
According to Freud, the id represents the primitive and instinctual part of the mind that operates based on the pleasure principle, seeking immediate gratification of desires and impulses. It is said to be driven by unconscious and primal urges.
The ego, in Freud's theory, represents the rational and conscious part of the mind. It functions as the mediator between the id and external reality, seeking to satisfy desires in a socially acceptable and realistic manner. The ego operates on the reality principle.
The superego represents the internalized moral values, societal norms, and the conscience. It develops through socialization and represents the idealized standards and moral judgments that individuals internalize.
Critics argue that the id, ego, and superego are theoretical constructs that lack empirical evidence and are difficult to measure or observe directly.
How do we run an experiment with the human subconscious? Those processes are still quite mysterious to modern science.
To me both MacLean and Freud were more on the right path than not in regards to their theories on brain function, and regardless of whether you're a man or woman, I believe our primitive foundation is setting the tone for your wants and desires.
Feelings compel action.
Logic and reason manage those actions.
Feelings are not logical.
At the most basic level, men are searching for sex, and women security, but that doesn't mean men don't enjoy security and women sex.
Just because we have foundational urges doesn't mean we can't live fulfilling lives together with all the higher aspects of human morals, friendship, and compatibility.
You might be thinking, but hopefully not... “Listen here you Troglodyte! We have put humans on the moon! We have Snapchat and Instagram! Cars that park themselves! We are soooooooo much more advanced than what you’re describing!”
Yeah, so I'd venture that our primitive brain is still going along in the background doing what it does best, giving us humans what it feels is the best chance to survive. It doesn’t know we’re up in outer space. It doesn’t know how far we’ve come technologically, culturally, politically, economically… It. Is. Not. Logical.
It's a chemical process that produces feelings of pleasure, comfort, and longing when it detects enough strength, and displeasure, disgust, and avoidance when it detects weakness.
I will add that it's a lot more possible to suppress primal urges, than it is to feel something when it's not there, i.e. women and interest. Either way I hope that someday we as humans can get past our egos and denial about what drives our behaviors, because going against it causes pain. We're all just animals, we just happen to be the most advanced on earth with our fancy opposable thumbs and highly tuned Neo cortex!
So what does this have to do with you and your lack of romantic success?
You've been playing a game logically that's not logical. The dating game.
Allow me to teach you how romantic attraction really works.
There are plenty of dating and relationship "gurus" out there, but ask yourself, "how many are actually in a successful relationship?!?" Who has a hot wife of 14 years still chasing him around getting frisky even with four kids under 11? This guy!
If a hot girlfriend/wife chasing you around after decades of building your lives together and continually creating new adventures sounds like something you'd be in to, then I'm your guy.