It has become an increasingly common idea that women should match men to gain a man’s respect and hold his interest.
But this is misguiding logic for a variety of reasons, pushed by women who either:
Don’t actually understand male psychology as well as they think they do,
Don’t understand themselves as well as they think they do, or
Are actively trying to misguide sexual competition away from the men that they too desire.
Allow me to explain what it actually takes to have a healthy relationship with a competent, powerful, benevolent man who takes the lead.
Here is a scenario:
Let’s say that a man is highly intelligent, a brilliant critical thinker. We could speak of any character trait, but for the sake of this hypothetical, let’s stick with intelligence.
Then, let’s say that a woman is intimidated by his ability to think critically, not because he flaunts the skill like a cerebral narcissist but simply because whenever he merely behaves as himself, his thought-provoking questions for the sake of conversation can seem deeply penetrating (and they are).
Let’s say the woman in question is worried—that if she doesn’t match him wit-for-wit that she will lose his interest. That he will become bored with her throughout the process of her not being able to continually blow his mind with intellectual rigor, and thus lose respect for her and leave her.
What I mean to highlight here is not any singular, particular feature of character but a thought process: What may intimidate a woman about a man goes hand-in-hand with the key to a healthy relationship with him.
You don’t have to match him. In fact, matching him strength-for-strength is more likely to destroy your relationship with him than anything else.
Allow me to explain why.
A Hero & Villain Are Metaphysically Two Sides Of The Same Coin
What you do with power defines you.
That which is heroic and that which is villainous are two sides of the same coin.
Keeping that in mind, in the romance of a sexual free-market, it is common for women to “date up.”
By “sexual free-market,” I am not referring to prostitution; I am referring to maximized individualistic freedom in which principles similar to Austrian economic theory apply.
When given full freedom to date whomever they wish regardless of race, culture, creed, etc. dating statistics show that most women prefer the top 20% of men in the human population.
The “top 20%” of men can be defined and segmented in many ways, but it generally coincides with money and status.
This, then, mathematically implies that the vast majority of women are not in the top 20% of women.
…which is to imply that as women generally date up, men generally date down (lest they be deemed unworthy by the women in question).
But what does that mean for a man to date down?
…because that’s what a predator does: picks targets that are beneath him, vulnerable.
Which then begs the question about genuinely heroic men that women desire: By mere logic, they same thing must occur.
A woman’s vulnerabilities are the pain points that give a man a place ien her life. The value he brings to those pain points is where his power in that relationship is.
So, it is wrong to criticize a man for dating a vulnerable woman.
…because that’s literally how it is supposed to work: to complement each other’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities.
And if the man truly leads the relationship, then the woman will naturally have a wider range of vulnerabilities than the man.
…because value is contextual.
A man may not be valuable at all to one woman, yet be a superhero to another depending on the context of her vulnerability.
The damsel in distress is vulnerable before both the villain and the hero.
The both have the power to hurt her.
So, the question is not about vulnerability; the question is about what a man does with his power over the woman’s vulnerability that defines him.
That determines whether he is heroic or villainous.
Therefore, the notion of “matching” him strength-for-strength is self-defeating if a woman’s goal is to have a healthy relationship in which there is a mutual exchange of value between partners.
You Are Not Rivals
Zoom out and listen with different ears to what “matching him” actually sounds like: You are not rivals.
Meanwhile, never confuse a singular character trait with the whole of a man’s character itself.
Returning to the “intelligence” hypothetical, both a hero and a villain can be deep analytical thinkers.
For example, let’s observe Sherlock Holmes vs. Moriarty.
When a woman thinks that she needs to match the man, she becomes inauthentic to herself and insecurity-driven in a way that is inevitably bound to fatigue her sooner or later.
Meanwhile, uncontrolled insecurities are one of the most common causes of failed relationships as well as women’s struggle to orgasm in sex with a man she likes—due to being too mentally preoccupied with thinking about that which she is insecure about rather than letting go of herself as necessary to fully enjoy the passion of the moment.
That’s not how a healthy relationship should be.
If the woman focuses on maintaining or optimizing why the man is attracted to her, she’ll see whatever it is she finds intimidating about him not as a threat, but as the every feature of character that serves her.
It is not “I need to duel him with his own strengths or he’ll get bored of me.”
It is, “Why does he enjoy using that specific strength to improve my life?”
Applying the same reasoning to the intelligence hypothetical, the correct thought-process is not “I need to duel him intellectually or he’ll get bored of me.”
Instead, it is “Why does he enjoy using his intellect to improve my life with sound guidance, creative solutions, and planning to provide and care for me?”
So, women who feel the need to match that which they find intimidating about a man they genuinely like express what is actually the polar opposite of what actually works for a healthy relationship with him.
Healthy relationships are based on the symbiotic ebb and flow of mutual value.
Thus, if she proves that he is equal to or superior to him in his same contextual strengths, she fundamentally removes the demand for him in her life.
This is what mean I mean by “Austrian economic theory” when applied to a “sexual free-market,” in the sense of supply and demand.
Think of it this way:
If you have already eaten and are already full, why would you need a chef?
If you are already a master gunman able to detect and slay all of your enemies, why would you need a bodyguard?
If you were superior to him in intelligence and experience, what need would you have of his very thoughts in a conversation?
What you may think of as “matching” him is simply you building the supply of his strength, which thereby lowers your demand for it—which systematically erases his need, or any pragmatic motive, to be in your life.
Therein, what intimidates a woman about a benevolent man is actually the key to a healthy relationship with him if she would have the courage to accept what her vulnerabilities even are in the first place, whatever they may be.
So, it is instead:
Admit to yourself that you are hungry so that the chef may feed you.
Admit to yourself that you are not John Wick so that a bodyguard may protect you.
Admit to yourself that you are not superior to him in intelligence and experience so that his thoughts may guide you.
And, granted, don’t become distracted by the fact that I used “intelligence” as an example. Again, it could be anything, because what if she is more intelligent than he is? So, it’s not about any particular feature of character; it is about whatever the strength is that he may have that she lacks, in whatever context, and vice-versa as necessary to form the ebb and flow of mutual value.
In Conclusion
Healthy romances flourish because of vulnerabilities, not despite them.
This means that as women enter the dating market or their relationships or marriages with the mindset of competing with her man at scale, they tend to not realize how they systematically remove the need for a man in her life at all.
But the complete removal of men is only the desire of the hardest of the hardcore, miserable, and traumatized feminists.
Not the common, well-meaning woman who may not have had a stable or benevolent father in her life as necessary to guide her in the actuality of male psychology…
…and why it is perfectly fine for a woman to be a woman.
Stop trying to be his rival. Even if you don’t think you are…you are.
Stop it.
Instead, take a good long look in the mirror. Admit to yourself what your respective strengths and weaknesses are.
…and allow the man to be a man with his complementary strengths.
If you find yourself depending on each other and protecting each other’s vulnerabilities? Congratulations.
You are finally in a healthy relationship.
And if you look back in your past to reflect upon an otherwise healthy relationship you have lost…perhaps, your desire to compete with him was why.
Becoming a paying subscriber on a monthly basis may be too expensive for you. And, if so, that’s totally understandable. However, if you respect the current article that you have read, you can also show your appreciation and support for this author by leaving a one-time tip.