Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf;1153225
I'm attracted to contentious people, but then I'm contentious myself so that makes sense. I don't have to worry about hurting their feelings and I have more in common with them. I have someone to bounce off of so to speak. I hear most other women insist that they don't like contentiousness, and I can't see inside their heads, so I wouldn't presume to tell them what they "actually think." I couldn't call Pensive, LadyLuck, Buh4Bee, MonaAmon or Helga liars (those who specified that they like "kindness"). They're too sweet and nice, it'd be like stomping on a kitten (except Buh4Bee, I bet that lady can handle her own). And yet, before the second page is over their thread is hijacked by men telling them "what they really think" and you and Neely call them hypocrites and liars without the slightest hesitation. *sigh*
Anyway, it makes sense for women to like men with more edged personalities (if indeed they do). I don't think this "dominant male" really has anything to do with it, to be a leader you have to be a bit more subtle, you need something besides pure aggression to lead. I've never liked leader types. I doubt they're popular with the general female populace either, no one likes Scott Summers, it's all about Gambit. I don't think it has so much to do with "dominating" other men as it does "strength." If someone is able to communicate honestly without ridgidly adhering to the socially-prescribed rules of behavior, it means they're strong enough that they don't have to stand on ceremony. Loners are popular too, because it takes strength to be alone, whereas "leaders" [I
So you are speaking in a manner which suggest you do not agree with what I say, yet the substance of your post agrees with everything I said.

