Why do men like women who act like little girls?

Many men spend their days in high-stakes, competitive, “adult” environments. A partner who is silly, emotionally expressive, and sexually submissive offers an escape into a simpler, more playful headspace—almost a regression fantasy for both parties.  This is a pretty good way of looking at it.

Not ever having had a relationship with a woman I can't comment from personal experience, but I believe you. In my experience this hasn't been due to the relationship going though a low patch, but normal operating.

I've experienced this especially around xmas and birthdays, I was asked by my then partner what I would like for my 40th and maybe we could go somewhere for the weekend and where would I like to go. I said I quite fancied going to the Eden Project and then to Rick Steins restaurant to see if it was all it was cracked up to be. A few days later, I was informed that we were not going to the Eden Project or anywhere else in Cornwall, but that we were going to London to see a play at The Globe Theatre. I said no, I don't like theatre, I don't like London and I'm not a massive Shakespeare fan, I was told that I SHOULD like it because I liked history?!?!

TheCatWoman said:

Although I think often we get asked our opinion as a sop and our partners have already made up thier minds and we give them the "wrong" answer and end up with a Chinese takeaway instead of the Indian we asked for. Why couldn't they just have said 'do you fancy a Chinese takeaway?" in the first place? Why cause all this aggravation and ill will?

This is not just a male thing - I used to get this from one long term partner when the relationship was going through a low patch. Whatever I said or thought was wrong and we could only ever do what she wanted or the rest of the day would turn into me being constantly reminded that the other option she wanted would have been better.

Oh yes the 'all you women' comments, I think they come from the biggest game players out there, that studied helplessness always draws them in and then they get burned and keep going back for more. 

One of the reasons  will remain single is that I'm fed up of the tropes about women meaning the opposite of what they say, the old women say no when they mean yes thing has crept into every area of relationship life to an often stupid level. Although I think often we get asked our opinion as a sop and our partners have already made up thier minds and we give them the "wrong" answer and end up with a Chinese takeaway instead of the Indian we asked for. Why couldn't they just have said 'do you fancy a Chinese takeaway?" in the first place? Why cause all this aggravation and ill will?

I've experienced this a lot. Being blunt, bookish, and not caving in had a lot of guys keeping their distance when I was younger. At least, that's what I think it was. Men simply wouldn't believe me when I said I wanted a nice guy. In the NT world, it's taken for granted that you say a platitude rather than the plain truth.

The behaviour you describe is also classic social awareness/manipulation, of which I had very little.  The awareness that some men, and NTs, seem to prefer learned helplessness and played-down intelligence. Just my subjective experience. I've been amazed by men who refuse to consider a wider range of women, are wary of sci-fi readers and women who don't like shopping; anyone less sociable, nonconformist, etc. Yet those guys end up disillusioned, wonder why 'women spend so much' and then get burned out because of 'all women'. I'm not saying all men, of course.

You are welcome ArchaeC , I am happy you watched some of it.

I began watching the video with trepidation as I wasn’t sure what to expect. However, it provided good insight into the real state of positive masculinity and patriarchy, and it explained why Tate’s arguments are flawed. Very informative so thanks for posting  

Video tangentially related to the post, by Shaun, about Andrew Tate. I liked it www.youtube.com/watch

I hadn’t read your post properly sorry. My above response was wrong.

Hi Ava, how are you?

Ava said:

Some of the females may not be acting like little girls. They may actually be not as able as others. 

I think it is about those behaving that way deliberately, and for flirting purposes.

And not about those naturally behave like little girls, where it would be an essential part of who they are.

Some of the females may not be acting like little girls. They may actually be not as able as others. 

Can you explain exactly what a child woman is?

As it's not really my thing. I looked it up for you. I'm in the bracket of men that prefers the other types of women listed, and I guess that those women who act like little girls don't really want me either. But here we are:

Many men are attracted to women who display “neggy” or childlike behaviors (high-pitched voice, playful innocence, big eyes, submissive demeanor, calling him “Daddy,” etc.) for a mix of evolutionary, psychological, and cultural reasons. Here are the most common explanations that show up consistently in research and anecdotal reporting:
Evolutionary signaling of youth and fertility
Traits associated with neoteny (baby-like features: large eyes, small nose, soft voice, small stature) are cross-culturally perceived as indicators of youth, health, and high reproductive value. Studies on facial attractiveness (e.g., Perrett et al., 1998; Cunningham et al., 1995) repeatedly find that slightly exaggerated youthful features increase perceived beauty in women but not in men.
Protective/provider instinct
Childlike behavior triggers the male protective instinct. When a woman acts helpless, playful, or emotionally vulnerable, it activates the same caregiving circuitry that parents feel toward children. For many men this feels rewarding and reinforces their sense of masculinity (“she needs me”).
Ego stroking and low perceived threat
A woman who acts “little” often defers to the man, admires him openly, and rarely challenges him. This dynamic is low-conflict and makes the man feel strong, competent, and dominant without having to compete with her. It’s the opposite of dealing with a highly independent or combative partner.
Taboo and arousal from power asymmetry
The “Daddy/little girl” dynamic (even when not formal age-play) carries a mild taboo element because it mimics a parent–child hierarchy. The forbidden aspect can heighten sexual arousal for some men in the same way other consensual power-exchange kinks do.
Contrast with everyday adult responsibilities
Many men spend their days in high-stakes, competitive, “adult” environments. A partner who is silly, emotionally expressive, and sexually submissive offers an escape into a simpler, more playful headspace—almost a regression fantasy for both parties.
Cultural reinforcement
Media (anime, Lolita fashion, certain pop stars, porn categories like “barely legal” or “teen”) heavily promotes the aesthetic of youthful, submissive femininity. Frequent exposure normalizes and amplifies the preference.
Not every man is into this—many explicitly prefer mature, equal, or dominant women—but the pattern is common enough that entire subcultures (DD/lg, age-play, certain corners of K-pop fandom, etc.) have formed around it. For the men who like it strongly, it’s usually some combination of the biological cues (1), the emotional payoff (2–3), and the sexual charge (4–5).

No Iain I don't feel that you're the victim here and it didn't seem '..clearly meant to be informational..' it read as confrontational, as gas lighting and as an attempt to shut down anothers experience.

Informational is an interesting word choice, because it did not come across as informational, but as condescending and dictatorial, hence me asking if you ever read your posts aloud to yourself. 

You live in a very black and white world where there is little room for error, when someone says something more conversational and not able to be backed up with learned articles, dictionary definitions, etc, it seems as though this presents you with an "out of context problem". When presented with an out of context problem you seek to bring it back into a context you understand by moving it to either black or white and if that cannot be done, then question the person who's raised the "out of context problem". The problem, is that this questioning comes across as aggressive and belittling.

Nobody wants or expects you to just post about puppies and kittens, few want that for this site either, but if you challenge other peoples thinking, then you have to accept that your thinking and views will be challenged too.

TheCatWoman said:

In your zeal for balance, you alienate.

My zeal is for both balance and fairness. I don't believe either of these have been exhibited in this conversation.

Consider:

Cinnabar_wing said:

And why are you defending abusive behaviour and victim blaming? Why are you projecting onto me?

I have been accused of some very unpleasant behaviour here and I would ask you to demonstrate where I have shown the things I am accused of. In this situation I am the abused (based on the dictionary definition of To hurt or injure by maltreatment; ill-use.)

I did't notice you defending me when this happened.

TheCatWoman said:

Don't you think it's time for you to reflect on how you approach things and what impact your words have on other

Did you really just try to blame the victim.

I'm sorry Cinnabar_wing took such an extreme reaction to my post. It was clearly meant to be informational and I could not have predicted such an extreme reaction.

Should I just post support wishes and puppy pictures? What help does this offer people to improve their lot.

If this is what you are expecting then it is clear I am not welcome.

In your zeal for balance, you alienate. Not everything is a debate with a set agenda and wining and losing sides, sometimes things are just a conversation.

Now Cinnabar_wing wants to leave as she's finding this site to aggressive, are you happy with that? Don't you think it's time for you to reflect on how you approach things and what impact your words have on others, maybe say them aloud and see how they sound before posting?

TheCatWoman said:

Maybe a conclusion wasn't jumped too, maybe the conclusion was arrived at through observation and talking to the other flatmates?

A fair point. Cinnabar_wing did point out that she never understood relationships so reaching conclusions of abuse based on a lack of understanding was what prompted my response about what the alternatives could be

TheCatWoman said:

If we wrote down every little thing we observe about a situation and how we reach a conclusion

If we don't examine the detail and see if the conclusions we reach are valid then we risk repeating our mistakes over and over.

If you want to make sound bites for posts then that is fine but it is the detail that educates.

Thank you TheCatWoman.

I did not intervene as I didn't want my friend to suffer due to my prying. He was such a cocky **** that he showed no signs of the fear he was inspiring in her. She had other boyfriends, the bad boy who stole cars, I could actually see as victims of poor family life. He had a schizophrenic mother and I could understand he had suffered from a volatile childhood. Why you assume I can't see that and need it man-splained to me is curious.

My pattern recognition wondered if this was learned behaviour.  Children learn from their parents, and relationships are one on these aspects. Either they emulate or rebel against what they see at home. This is what I was commenting on, I did not require you to chastise me for showing empathy.

Some of us have hyper empathy and feel everyone's pain.

Eh, I don't understand that at all?

Maybe a conclusion wasn't jumped too, maybe the conclusion was arrived at through observation and talking to the other flatmates? If we wrote down every little thing we observe about a situation and how we reach a conclusion, it wouldn't be a post, it would be a thesis, which nobody would bother to read