A Question for the Men...

[LoveMenLoveSex]

Hopefully this hasn't been asked a thousand times before and I am aware it's very generalised, but I have to know ... in real life, literature, erotica or other, do you guys - writers, readers and all - prefer ...

(a) a woman you can take care of and whose need and fragility makes you feel like real men and good about yourselves;

or do you prefer ...

(b) a woman who is capable and competent (not, please note, automatically a bitch) and proves you to be real man by sharing your life fully in every aspect?

Not a trick question, although I've probably stuffed up the wording. My apologies in advance for the use of the term 'real man' ... I hope y'all know what I mean and don't take instant offence at it!

So many stories, developed or not, seem to favour the damsel-in-distress that it would appear that an intelligent, competent and able woman is not what (most) men want. Opinions, examples and thoughts sought and appreciated!

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

Hey, thanks for the quick response. I know, I know, it's vague and generalised. Seems like a lot of male authors, not just on this site, but those published in mainstream media as well, prefer their female characters to be ... a little bit needy ... not quite able to take care of themselves.

https://www.literotica.com/s/one-night-at-cavanaughs

Not sure that adds to my argument My problem is that I'm not a feminist but I baulk at the idea that someone who needs help is a good partner. A good friend, acquaintance, tennis buddy ... sure. But soul mate? Not so much. Too much pressure on the relationship that way. Even 'real men' (ha ha) need time out and someone to look after them for a change.

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[oggbashan]

There are several questions in the two choices:

1. As a writer, and

2. In real life.

As a writer I like my female characters to range from dependent to a controlling Domme but most are strong characters who will stand beside their man or even in front of him. What she is depends on her role in the story.

In real life? I prefer a partner who complements (not compliments) me - is better than me in some things, is worse than me in other things, who can stand beside me against the world if we need that, or just be around for a hug if that's the need. The two of us are stronger and more competent together than we are as individuals, even if that means as little as I open the stuck jars and she loads the dishwasher.

In my youth I dated many women. Some were fragile and needed protection. Those relationships didn't last long. Many were their own strong person and either we behaved as equals, or we fought to decide who was in charge.

I was lucky with my older female relations. One had been a Suffragette before the First World War and spent most of her working life out-earning her brothers. She was on the Board of Directors of the company she worked for (in the days when most women in offices were only typists or clerks). My great-grandmother and grandmother ran their own transport company. One of my younger aunts had worked for the League of Nations in Geneva before World War Two, and spoke half-a-dozen languages fluently. Even my slightly older sister-in-law had worked for the United Nations in Geneva and West Africa (and spoke multiple languages).

I expected potential partners to be as competent. Most were. My wife is.

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

Great response, thank you very much. Two for two, am I on a roll?

Would you say that experience narrowed the field for you? Or was it a matter of individualistic hitting it off? While I understand the temptations of white-knight syndrome, in reality it's a tiring and often futile endeavour. Just trying to work out why so many protagonists feel it's more ... desirable?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I was raised by a smart, effective, competent woman. Dependent dummies turn me off. If you wanted it done right my ma was who you wanted. That said, she fucked up all the time....with people. She invented clueless when it came to people.

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

LOL ... with competency comes impatience and there's nothing like having to deal with someone who can't make a decision when you could have had the job done in the time it takes them to choose an option. I can get with that.

Okay, dudes ... so why are so many male (and probably female, but I'm sticking to the male for the mo') writers writing about 'saving' the ladies from their awful lives and/or selves and where are all the stories about strengths complementing weakness and delving into what it feels like when one person doesn't have to the be 'the strong one' all the time? What do you think drives that?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LOL ... with competency comes impatience and there's nothing like having to deal with someone who can't make a decision when you could have had the job done in the time it takes them to choose an option. I can get with that.

Okay, dudes ... so why are so many male (and probably female, but I'm sticking to the male for the mo') writers writing about 'saving' the ladies from their awful lives and/or selves and where are all the stories about strengths complementing weakness and delving into what it feels like when one person doesn't have to the be 'the strong one' all the time? What do you think drives that?

Its our nature.

My 3rd great grandmother wrote her autobiography, and a females life 200 years ago was an ordeal at best. Females are good for solving problems but have no muscles. Take away the machines and theyre screwed. Men are evolved to do the heavy work. You guys cant lift a water bottle.

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

Ha, tell that to the hay bales I carry every day to feed my damned stock. Tell it to the 20L jerricans I've been carrying twice a day since our power went out due to a storm or the cubic metres of firewood I've been splitting to keep the house warm.

Two hundred years? Or six hundred years ago when Joan of Arc went to battle? Or 2070 years ago when Boadicea led armies against the Romans? Life has always been an ordeal and women who wanted something different have always found a way to get there. Individuals, not the masses.

Not to be argumentative or anything.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

There's so much bias in your question you've ruined any hope of useful answers. It's hard, though, to come up with neutral words for anything that has to do with sexuality and relationships, so...

For me there's no difference in this area between writing and reality. But there's also no simple answer.

Physically, I like them slender, not muscular, with pronounced feminine characteristics: long hair, full up top, long legs, large eyes. All of these characteristics scream "take care of me, I'm fragile!" I smile every time a woman asks me to lift or reach something they can't manage (or choose not to manage.) I enjoy being physically dominant and towering over a woman.

Emotionally I don't mind if they are occasionally fragile - I don't know any women who don't resort to tears in difficult situations, and I think of that as more of a positive then a negative. I enjoy it when a woman's emotions are near the surface, no matter what the emotion is. It probably appeals to my attraction to vulnerability, or just my sense of contrast, since my emotions tend to be tightly controlled.

Intellectually, my turn on is brilliance. Incompetence and stupidity are instant turn-offs. Sure, the pretty stupid helpless bimbo can have a few minutes worth of appeal, but that's the extent of it.

I don't mind if they cry a bucket of tears, but afterwards I want to see them get up and triumph, or at least give a world class effort. Plucky and resilient and competent works for me. Arrogance does not; I'll be the arrogant one, thank you.

My characters mostly all reflect this. The females tend to be bright, but occasionally overwhelmed by emotions and sexual responses. Even my darker females - the Enjines and Miyukis of my stories - tend to be at least cunning, and effective social engineers.

Your question puts an either/or where one doesn't usually exist. I like quietly competent and creative and in control of their lives (without attempting to control mine), right up until my hand wraps around their wrist, and then I want them shivering.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Ha, tell that to the hay bales I carry every day to feed my damned stock. Tell it to the 20L jerricans I've been carrying twice a day since our power went out due to a storm or the cubic metres of firewood I've been splitting to keep the house warm.

Two hundred years? Or six hundred years ago when Joan of Arc went to battle? Or 2070 years ago when Boadicea led armies against the Romans? Life has always been an ordeal and women who wanted something different have always found a way to get there. Individuals, not the masses.

Not to be argumentative or anything.

The best female marathon runner ranks like #600 when compared with the guys. Flukes aren't the rule. My Ma once opened a jar of peanut butter me and my old man couldn't open, but its never happened by any female since then. Don't bet your farm on the girls.

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

Hey HandsInTheDark, thanks very much for your response, and I have to say you've answered the question very effectively. Sorry that it is biased, or at least, slanted, but I'm looking for sampling here, not empirical data

Most people, male or female, that one might find attractive (physically or not) would have that spectrum of strength and weakness, and in a long term relationship, it becomes apparent which party handles certain situations better than others and the responsibility for keeping one's head is usually divvied up quite fairly in that way, always assuming that there aren't ego-traps involved.

But the fantasy element is not so clear-cut, involving as it often does, the element of real distress - a bad upbringing or bad sexual experiences, forcing the male protagonist into the role of teacher as much as lover. Is that a common desire for men? To be wiser as well as stronger?

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

The best female marathon runner ranks like #600 when compared with the guys. Flukes aren't the rule. My Ma once opened a jar of peanut butter me and my old man couldn't open, but its never happened by any female since then. Don't bet your farm on the girls.

No one else here but us chickens. Male versus female physically is no contest, no matter what size the man or the woman. Men have longer muscles, bigger frames, longer bones and their strength is accessed by the nervous system in different ways due to those things. I can't lift what a man can. Doesn't mean I stand around and wait for someone to help - a futile exercise at best since my nearest neighbour can't even see our house from theirs. It does mean that I have to be a bit creative with those tasks that would be simple for a man but are not for me (standing at 5'4" and weighing in at 50 kgs).

But as diverting as the discussion is, it doesn't address the primary question. Does a creatively-inclined heroine spark as much arousal as the helpless heroine who waits to be rescued? Is it more satisfying to imagine that along with toting the barge and lifting the bale more heroically, our male protagonist will also be able to show said helpless heroine what good sex has been missing from her life - or is it just as satisfying for the protagonist to discover that his competent lady friend is a dynamo in bed the like of which he's never seen?

 

[oggbashan]

Great response, thank you very much. Two for two, am I on a roll?

Would you say that experience narrowed the field for you? Or was it a matter of individualistic hitting it off? While I understand the temptations of white-knight syndrome, in reality it's a tiring and often futile endeavour. Just trying to work out why so many protagonists feel it's more ... desirable?

A relationship that is based on one partner taking care of the other - for life - is one-sided. It doesn't matter whether the woman pretends, or is, wholly dependant on the man, or whether the man is incapable of looking after himself and needs the woman as his carer/manager. It can work but the partnership is unlikely to grow into something more equal.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I would have just said "B" but not enough characters... So

B

 

[oggbashan]

I would have just said "B" but not enough characters... So

B

In my writing A or B would be minor cardboard cut-out characters with walk-on parts. Real people (and characters) are far more complex.

 

[QuidProQuo77]

All about strong women

In my writing, I like strong women. My current story involves a man caught between several of them. When it comes to t-girls, I like them little and feminine and dependent.

In real life I have a wife who's 2x as smart as me, I'm not threatened by that. And I have a daughter and nieces who are smart and funny and don't care much about boys, and I'm completely supportive of them.

 

[DreamCloud]

In real life, women save the men.

In fiction, we can return the favor.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No one else here but us chickens. Male versus female physically is no contest, no matter what size the man or the woman. Men have longer muscles, bigger frames, longer bones and their strength is accessed by the nervous system in different ways due to those things. I can't lift what a man can. Doesn't mean I stand around and wait for someone to help - a futile exercise at best since my nearest neighbour can't even see our house from theirs. It does mean that I have to be a bit creative with those tasks that would be simple for a man but are not for me (standing at 5'4" and weighing in at 50 kgs).

But as diverting as the discussion is, it doesn't address the primary question. Does a creatively-inclined heroine spark as much arousal as the helpless heroine who waits to be rescued? Is it more satisfying to imagine that along with toting the barge and lifting the bale more heroically, our male protagonist will also be able to show said helpless heroine what good sex has been missing from her life - or is it just as satisfying for the protagonist to discover that his competent lady friend is a dynamo in bed the like of which he's never seen?

I write the females I know. I've never encountered females such as you describe.

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

In my writing, I like strong women. My current story involves a man caught between several of them. When it comes to t-girls, I like them little and feminine and dependent.

In real life I have a wife who's 2x as smart as me, I'm not threatened by that. And I have a daughter and nieces who are smart and funny and don't care much about boys, and I'm completely supportive of them.

Thanks for your answer! There's a line in the movie "Tootsie" where one of the producers says to the director "She's the first character who's her own person, who can assert her own personality without depriving others of theirs" (or something along those lines) ... I guess that's what I'm talking about.

Cardboard cutouts aside, since the genre is rather known for them, there aren't many female characters around who can make that claim. Is that inadvertent or deliberate?

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

In real life, women save the men.

In fiction, we can return the favor.

LOL ... a very glib and diplomatic answer!

 

[FantasyXY]

In real life I much prefer a woman that is strong and confident, yet appreciates what I bring to the relationship and what I can do for her. While I don't care for the helpless woman, I want a woman that needs me and need a woman that wants me.

That being said, and this is of course just my opinion, but I have a theory about why so many female characters in stories are the damsel in distress type.

In most erotic literature certain attributes of the characters are wildly exaggerated. For example, it is all too common that the lead female character will have a perfectly lean body, yet have breasts so large that in real life they would require reduction surgery. Men in these same stories are always tall, ridiculously muscular, have a giant penis, and are often somehow bullet proof. Maybe I'm mixing action hero with romantic hero here, but there seems to be a fine line between the two in literature these days.

To many readers it can be a turn on to imagine having sex with someone who is somehow the most desirable person they can think of, and in real life "out of reach" for them. When it comes to linking up on a "needs" level (remember that a man usually wants a woman that needs him) authors often write about a woman's neediness in the extreme, just like the sexual attributes. These are "cheap and easy" mechanisms used by writers.

So within the two mechanisms you have both want and need wildly exaggerated.

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

In real life I much prefer a woman that is strong and confident, yet appreciates what I bring to the relationship and what I can do for her. While I don't care for the helpless woman, I want a woman that needs me and need a woman that wants me.

That being said, and this is of course just my opinion, but I have a theory about why so many female characters in stories are the damsel in distress type.

In most erotic literature certain attributes of the characters are wildly exaggerated. For example, it is all too common that the lead female character will have a perfectly lean body, yet have breasts so large that in real life they would require reduction surgery. Men in these same stories are always tall, ridiculously muscular, have a giant penis, and are often somehow bullet proof. Maybe I'm mixing action hero with romantic hero here, but there seems to be a fine line between the two in literature these days.

To many readers it can be a turn on to imagine having sex with someone who is somehow the most desirable person they can think of, and in real life "out of reach" for them. When it comes to linking up on a "needs" level (remember that a man usually wants a woman that needs him) authors often write about a woman's neediness in the extreme, just like the sexual attributes. These are "cheap and easy" mechanisms used by writers.

So within the two mechanisms you have both want and need wildly exaggerated.

Hey FantasyXY, awesome and articulate answer. I do get that it's a fantasy environment with all the attendant delusions that brings along. I have a tendency to skip over those stories that insist on the double D cup and the 12" descriptions.

What intrigues me more are the levels of psychological damage and/or problematic behaviour that appear desirable. It could be, as you've speculated, that the levels of need are simply exaggerated to the highest (or lowest) levels, and if it were restricted to say, BDSM stories, I'd buy that easily. But in romance? Or erotic couplings? Is it essential to be everything? Even Sly Stallone broke down and cried in First Blood?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I write all my women as strong, intelligent and supportive of the man they are with.

Just as my wife is with me...for over 40 years worth.

Most of the women I write about are usually based on a woman I know or have been acquainted with in my life. Either my wife or some other woman. All are assertive, strong, intelligent and provide support for the male protag.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The whole I AM WOMAN thing is myth comparable to affirmative action scholars.

 

[mikoli5763]

I have not

seen anyone else bring up another option which in my personal experience is more likely. Opion C is a combination of A and B.
Option C are the type women I have met more frequently in real life.