Back in the day men used to be men and women used to be women, but the men didn't have any sensitivity towards women which caused their manlihood to become repressive.

My father is a very manly man, but he has the sensitivity of a dead tree. His relationship with my mother was one in which he always got what he wanted, and he didn't care much (or even know about) the needs of my mother.

He was the leader and the head of the family, but his leadership was expressed through dominance and violence. My mother was frustrated through all of her married life and finally divorced him. He still didn't have a clue what he was doing wrong, and he didn't care either, blaming it all on my mother.

When I see master seducers teach their teachings, in general they have - to my perception - developed their feminine side so as to be sensitive towards the needs of their women - while still having the balls to direct these women to where they (both) want to go. True leadership is sensitive enough about the needs of those who are being led, such that those who are being led have no reason to question the leadership or to revolt against it. Leadership without sensitivity turns into dominance and violence. That seems to be the lesson.

After all: dominance is only required when the girl does not feel like her needs are being fulfilled, causing her to not voluntarily follow. The smoothness disappears and the guy will try to assert his own needs at the expense of the girl.

We often view dominance as the primary male quality, but is this really so? Does dominance not result from the fact the masculine has dominated the feminine for the past several thousand years? (Some scholars argue that there have been periods in the past when the feminine actually dominated the masculine - Riane Eisler) Dominance would result in the attraction game being a zero-sum win-loss event. But our teachers remind us that seduction is not win-loss, it is win-win. You are not here to conquer the girl - a term borrowed from warfare - but rather to fulfill her needs in the best way possible. Part of fulfilling those needs revolves around being a man with balls - someone who has vision, direction, guts - another part revolves around being sensitive enough to take care of her. Man enough to surprise her and lead her - woman enough to know her.

I was talking about this with someone who is in a long-term relationship herself with her husband, and who knows many couples where she observes the same thing: it is in our modern world often the woman who holds the balls in the relationship. The woman plans and organizes all vacations, she plans the entire household, she chooses the schools and hobbies the kids go to, she picks up the kids and brings them away, she does everything. "If I'm gonna wait around for him to do it, it will never happen." Meanwhile the men have become passive, lazy, sitting around the house doing nothing, spending time on their hobbies outdoors or in the shed, and losing themselves in their jobs. They have become wussies. Their woman is in charge.

The invitation was to get to know your feminine side, but what happened instead (through feminism and the like) is that women got to know their masculine side, and men got to forget theirs. Men have lost their balls. They no longer lead.

What I witness in the PUA world is thousands upon thousands of men who wish to regain those balls they have lost, and with righteous cause. When I look around myself in the Netherlands, most men have become real wussy; they do not dare approach a woman. I find myself in the same park. What makes it so hard to overcome this in the first place, is that nobody seems to do it. Girls aren't used at all to being approached. So basically, you have to break the cultural norm. From past experience I know that once people are accustomed to your breaking the norm, the way you act will become the new norm that people set for you. Once people get to know you as a Don Juan, they will expect you to continue this behaviour. It's very hard to break away from expected behaviour. The full weight of cultural norms bears down on you.

There was once a TV report of a PUA training event in the Netherlands. Some big event. One of the guys said "as long as women don't admit to their own sexual needs and desires, men will never become the manly men that women want them to be". Basically he was blaming women for the failure of men to be men which is typical wuss behaviour: I can't be a man because my woman doesn't allow me to.

A man has to take back his balls. He has to lead. But does he have to dominate?

I wonder what you guys thing about leadership versus domination.