This is a public service announcement.
End alimony and no-fault divorce.
If women were forced to deal with the financial consequences of failed marriages with high risk cads they would be more discerning about choosing provider betas for husbands. If women did not have the option to unilaterally walk away from a marriage no questions asked, then that would also create an incentive to marry carefully chosen partners who are more likely to possess traits of loyalty and faithfulness, and to be more circumspect about leaving beta husbands who’ve proven their worth as good providers.
This is a great example of how feminism has been most beneficial (inadvertently or deliberately?) for alpha males. The very male chauvinist pigs they rail against are reaping the rewards of living in the society these feminists have created. To that I say: oink.
*Update: Child support should not provide an incentive for a wife to leave a responsible beta husband, so its reward should be severely restricted only to those cases of fault divorce where the father has clearly reneged on his end of the deal.
This would only be a benefit for beta males if we all lived in a state where marriage was necessary to provide for the raising of offspring. With child support, a woman can have the necessary two incomes to raise a child on, without having to deal with betas at all.
This would hurt betas as females would really have to decide whether the marriage would be worth it, and whether it would be more beneficial to settle and throw away her last fertile pre-wall years with a beta, or to keep pumping and dumping alphas while praying for a defective rubber.
LikeLike
End alimony
What about the women who give up their careers in order to stay at home and take care of the children, so their husbands careers can advance further? Shouldn’t there be some reconciliation about those lost costs during the divorce proceedings? The same would be true for men who give up their careers for their advancement of their wife’s career. I am not saying that alimony should be given automatically, but one simply can’t declare alimony to be some evil thing that must be done away with.
no-fault divorce
I would like the option to divorce my wife if somebody better comes along. I know you would too.
then that would also create an incentive to marry betas who are more likely to possess traits of loyalty and faithfulness.
They already marry those beta men and divorce or cheat on them with alphas now. If anything, this *could* backfire, and create less of an incentive to marry if it becomes difficult to flee an unsatisfying marriage, and if there’s no reimbursement for sacrificing spouses.
LikeLike
Research shows that people engage in more risky driving behavior when wearing seat belts and especially when their cars have more safety features like side airbags, crumple zones, etc. Chalk it up to human nature that we slack off when we have a safety net and become more careless.
Another reason why immigrant girls are better girlfriend and wife material. We always feel unsafe, like outsiders in this country, even if we’re citizens…
LikeLike
“You created me, it’s your fault”
Best breakup line ever.
LikeLike
“I would like the option to divorce my wife if somebody better comes along. I know you would too.”
Oh MY GOD. That is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen here – the idea that marriage is there until something better comes along.
I am, as mentioned before, divorced. It was a quickie six-week no fault procedure. I shelved my career in support of my husband’s (I had to, as we were living overseas). So I asked for a cash settlement of about six months’ living expenses so I could get back on my feet.
I think the people with the strongest (and least realistic) views on divorce are people who have never been married.
LikeLike
Roissy is completely right. 50 years ago, all a beta male had to do was to make a decent income and he would get a nice 15-22 year old wife, and even 5s are attractive at 17. Nowadays thanks to the pill most young females (14-26) are fucking the bad boys until they are thirty and become invisible, at which stage they are divorced or single mothers and become born again christians and want a beta ATM machine (note: this only apllies to middleclass girls, prole girls are married to the state).
LikeLike
“until they are thirty and become invisible”
Hello? Hello?!?!? Is this thing on? Can anyone see me?
LikeLike
did you hear something? nah, must be the wind.
LikeLike
Ok, I’ll be more specific.
They start to become invisible at around 30, and complete that process at around 40. They become invisible for forming a family, although they still exist in the material realm. Seriously speaking, I have had sex with an older woman and I enjoyed it, but the harsh truth is that man need young nubile females to found families. Feminists want to change that, and expect men in their thirties to provide for females in their thirties and their offspring from other men. Feminism, if not stopped, coupled with high birthrates of muslims in Europe, will lead to the bloodiest civil war in our western ancient homeland.
LikeLike
Nobody who gets married ever thinks they’ll get divorced. It’s a simple fact of life, or of human psychology, and exists in the face of statistics showing high divorce rates.
Given this “it can’t happen to me” mindset, reducing a woman’s likely recoveries in case of divorce isn’t likely to make her more willing to accept non-Alphas.
Gannon: why don’t you come to America and start nailing 14- and 15-year-old girls, and see what happens?
LikeLike
@Peter
“Gannon: why don’t you come to America and start nailing 14- and 15-year-old girls, and see what happens?”
Because federal age of consent for nonresiding non citizens is 18, and I’m a law abiding citizen and no idiot by the way. American prisons are hell.
I think you misunderstood me, by the way. Young twentysomethinh men shouldn’t nail 15 year old girls, they should date only one they really like and then marry her and start a family when she finishes HS. The girls parent’s should asses the sincerity of the suitor. By the way, I’ll soon travel to the US for business (without my gf, sight).
LikeLike
Obligatory comment:
The Glorious Natural Pelt rules!
LikeLike
Feminist sexual liberation / utopia has resulted in a one-two punch for betas. First, most women are heavily shop-worn by the time a beta gets access to one, or at least reliable access. And when the beta “is allowed” to buy (marry) one of these over-the-hill 30-something princesses, his investment is built on a foundation of sand. She can bolt on a whim (no fault), taking with her his kids, his property, and his future earnings.
Feminist utopia indeed. What’s most fascinating about all this, is the beta / male drones for the most part keep lining up to enslave themselves to these aging sexually liberated females. This is particularly conspicuous when a beta marries a single mom and raises another man’s children. This must be the triumph of social / Pavlovian conditioning over rationality.
Probably the only relief a beta gets these days is cheap DNA testing. His wife may have had several dozen “boyfriends” before him, and may still bang alphas on the side, but at least he can know for sure that his kids are his kids. Of course, that still doesn’t mean they are legally his. She can bolt at any time with “her” kids to shack up with a new alpha, and the beta is obliged to subsidize the arrangement for a decade or two.
LikeLike
One Refinement: No Automatic Child Custody for Women.
When Custody is challenged we should likely see about a 50-50 split.
======================
And, Shannon, I can hear you.
The point is this, if women (not neccesarily you) knew that they got nothing, absolutely nothing, after a divorce, what would the marriage and divorce rate be?
I understand that I am pushing things to the extreme, but it is to make a point.
LikeLike
AC:
What’s most fascinating about all this, is the beta / male drones for the most part keep lining up to enslave themselves to these aging sexually liberated females. This is particularly conspicuous when a beta marries a single mom and raises another man’s children.
Actually, to my eyes, I am seeing a change. I think that you are seeing more and more Guys, well, White Guys, marrying their PS3 or Xbox 360 instead of getting with the 32 year old single mom.
LikeLike
“Nobody who gets married ever thinks they’ll get divorced.”
Even if true, so what? There’s still the fact that marriage rates in the West are declining –all-time low in Britain, which suggests that a lot of people who might otherwise get married HAVE and ARE thinking about the odds that they might get or be divorced and are deciding against it. What are some of the results? Alpha jacklegs/guys with game running pump & dump “relationships” on a plurality of the attractive women; those women ignoring beta’s/guys sans game.
“Given this “it can’t happen to me” mindset, reducing a woman’s likely recoveries….”
More BS. Most divorces in the US are filed by women. Check the numbers. No fault divorce isn’t about convincing women to get married in the first place, it’s about making it easy for them to get out 4-5 years or whenever down the road when they get tired of their beta, forgot why they agreed to the deal in the first place, and want to try their luck for an alpha (or just some fun) one more time. Conversely, getting rid of no-fault divorce, i.e. returning to a the legal regimes that existed pretty much forever before the 1960’s sexual revolution, is about making it difficult/costly for women to split.
LikeLike
“She can bolt at any time with “her” kids to shack up with a new alpha, and the beta is obliged to subsidize the arrangement for a decade or two.”
AC, you make good points but don’t let outrage cloud the logic of your argument. She can bolt at any time with “her” kids to shack up with another BETA. Why would an alpha take a divorced chick with kids when he’s got options? You follow. At best she would be sharing an alpha if she moved on from her beta provider.
Gannon for future reference, “young nubile” is redundant.
LikeLike
Gannon for future reference, “young nubile” is redundant.
I like poetic expressions. By the way, nubile means ready to be married. A married 17 year old would not be nubile, because it applies to young unmarried fertile women strictly speaking.
LikeLike
Gannon: Put your ego aside for a moment kid.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
nubile
Main Entry: nu·bile
Pronunciation: \ˈnü-ˌbī(-ə)l, ˈnyü-, -bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Latin nubilis, from nubere to marry — more at nuptial
Date: circa 1642
1 : of marriageable condition or age
2 : sexually attractive —used of a young woman
— nu·bil·i·ty \nü-ˈbi-lə-tē, nyü-\ noun
If you were a proper English speaker you would have known this but let me give you a hint. Wikipedia is not a “gold source” of information. Its helpful but not always accurate or complete.
LikeLike
It’s true that most divorces are filed by women, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the woman is the one who wants the divorce while the whinging beta wrings his hands and sobs.
Sometimes the man has already checked out of the marriage and the woman is wrapping up the housekeeping via filing the paperwork. Or sometimes it’s a legal thing – even if both parties want to split up, divorce is legally an adversarial process in which one person has to file a case against the other.
In my case, I was the filer because my ex and I were sharing a lawyer. The lawyer required that one of us be his official client/the plaintiff. As my ex is an attorney himself, he ceded the client status/filing/plaintiffhood to me so I would have an advocate.
The point is this: marriages, and therefore divorces, are far more complicated than most people will ever realize. You don’t know unless you’re one of the two people in a marriage, and even then you can never be sure.
LikeLike
“Conversely, getting rid of no-fault divorce, i.e. returning to a the legal regimes that existed pretty much forever before the 1960’s sexual revolution, is about making it difficult/costly for women to split.”
Not “pretty much forever” but since the late 19th century – I’m speaking of English common law (the foundation of American law, along with the Constitution). Before that time, a man could treat his wife pretty much as he wanted, had absolute rights to her property (until 1872), and if she wanted to leave – something most women only did if desperate, since they would become social pariahs afterwards – he could keep the children. There was no special consideration for women who left because their husbands were adulterous; they still received nothing.
Men received automatic custody of their children until the 1890s-1920s; it varied from one common-law regime to another, and in the US, varied from state to state, so it’s difficult to give a definitive date. The reason men agreed to put an end to this system (and it was men, because women couldn’t vote yet) was that they saw it was unfair…After that, if you wanted a divorce, even by mutual consent, you had to “sue” for it, and even set up a fake adultery so you could divorce/be divorced (the two were different things) for cause. Even adulterous husbands, under English law, paid minimal child support/alimony, and this at a time when married women seldom had many resources to fall back on. Do you really want that again?
When no-fault divorce came along in the early 1970s, “alpha” males were as much in favour of it as women, because it meant that they didn’t pay an extra penalty for adultery.
LikeLike
The point is this: marriages, and therefore divorces, are far more complicated than most people will ever realize.
individual marriages and divorces are complicated. the general trends are not.
LikeLike
By the way, DF, you are proving my post number 18 because the main definition is number 1, and not number 2. Therefore, nubile young is not redundant, because according to your own definition and in that context it refers to the marriageable condition. OTOH, this is a byzantine discussion.
LikeLike
and if she wanted to leave – something most women only did if desperate, since they would become social pariahs afterwards – he could keep the children.
alias, another factor in the unintended consequences of no fault divorce shredding marriage has been women’s economic empowerment through their entry into the workforce. having that safety net of a steady income coupled with the ease of opting out of marriage and a virtually guaranteed alimony/child support payment has made it very enticing for women to leave marriages. we see this in the numbers, with over 70% of women initiating filings for divorce.
LikeLike
By the way, in German there is a pretty good new word:
Lebensabschnittspartner, or lifestage partner. Women first want exciting bad boys to fill them up with hot cum, then a beta for a few years to get from him lifelong alimony and his retirement, and then at forty a second divorce and no man at all or only one who drops in from time to time to screw her.
LikeLike
Your little diatribe is reminding me of a conversation I had with my (beta) ex-husband a year or so before we divorced. He was venting over the unfairness of Rupert Murdock’s wife getting a huge sum of money in their divorce. Wasn’t HE the one who amassed that fortune? So I asked him what he thought the 25 years was worth that she spent as his wife and the mother of his children. Was it 10 cents on the dollar? 25 cents? 5 cents? Anything? What the courts figured was fair and it was 50 cents on the dollar. Who can put a price on the value of 25 years of anyone’s life?
Thankfully it’s not up to you, roissy, but I get your point. Right now I’d love one of those worshipping beta’s; only one who is not an alchoholic/turned workaholic which is what I dealt with for man years. I gave up my career to stay home and raise our child, which turned out to be great benefit to all of us.
Believe me, roissy — and you’ll have to since you have no kids of your own–my career was 100 times easier than being a stay-at-home mother. At least 100 times easier!! My job, though highly skilled and stressful, was a cake walk by comparison. You have no FUCKING idea…… If I was to have been paid actual money for that? I would have been paid at least twice what I made in my career. 😀
LikeLike
#14 Usually Lurking
The point is this, if women (not neccesarily you) knew that they got nothing, absolutely nothing, after a divorce, what would the marriage and divorce rate be?
I understand that I am pushing things to the extreme, but it is to make a point.
Wouldn’t that just lead to… more men filing for divorce? If they know it’s not going to cost them anything, they could divorce their wives on a whim and suffer no consequences, just as opponents of no-fault divorce argue that women are able to do now. I’m not saying the current system isn’t flawed — and I realize you were using a hypothetical — but that would seem to be the outcome.
Of course, this whole thing is moot if you don’t get married.
#20 Shannon
It’s true that most divorces are filed by women, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the woman is the one who wants the divorce while the whinging beta wrings his hands and sobs.
It’s true that most domestic violence is committed by men against women, but that doesn’t mean that the man is the one who beats her unprovoked while the innocent housewife cowers in the corner and sobs.
Point being: You can say, “It’s a little more complicated than that” about absolutely anything, and the great thing is it’s always true. But, as Roissy notes, the general trends don’t lie. A lot of the possible scenarios you outlined in your post could just as easily apply to men as to women, and yet the fact remains that the majority of divorces are filed by women. They can’t all be due to extenuating circumstances.
LikeLike
Change in the general society will only come with the introduction of high quality sexbots. Female value on the marketplace will plunge massively, and single women will suffer badly. Only once it becomes blatantly obvious that it is perfectly legitimate nay necessary for government to somewhat regulate the sexual marketplace is there any hope of changing things.
It is interesting how feminism has realigned the incentives in favour its enemies, or at least the genes of its enemies. You’ve mentioned the benefits for Alpha males/high end players. Those are interesting, but as these tend not to reproduce as much anymore. What interests me more, in this ruthlessly Darwinian world, is who is actually passing on their genetic programming. Traditional marriage and reproduction are only a good deal for more patriarchal religious men who pick their wives from a religious community where there are still strong taboos against premarital sex, adultery and divorce. A woman whose whole identity and social life is wrapped up in her involvment with her small town church is far less likely to cheat on you or divorce you. (Though this holds only if she is relatively educated/intelligent. Dumb religious girls are still prone to impulsive bad decision making. See Jamie Lynn Spears.) And last but not least, there are the low end deadbeat dads who casually impregnate women, but who are so irresponsible in their lives that are pretty much completely beyond the reach of the family law system.
An interesting side benefit for religious men of the sexual revolution and the declining taboo against women sleeping around is that its now a lot easier to pick out the good girls from the sluts. It used to be that if you married a virgin it didn’t mean much. It could just be that she just hadn’t figured out the right way to fuck around. Nowadays, if you marry a virgin it means something. (Incidentally, nowdays, about 10% of women in North America have not had sex before their first marriage. Its rare, but its not_that_rare.)
Steve, as usual, has some interesting thoughts:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060305_patriarchy.htm
LikeLike
A loosened up version of (non-polygamous) patriarchy is probably the best overall system for both men and women.
LikeLike
Change in the general society will only come with the introduction of high quality sexbots.
Or more realistically, mass immigration of east Asian, south Asian, eastern European, and Arab women.
LikeLike
“It’s true that most domestic violence is committed by men against women, but that doesn’t mean that the man is the one who beats her unprovoked while the innocent housewife cowers in the corner and sobs.”
Unnecessarily provocative and rude. Not to mention a false analogy.
Roissy:
“we see this in the numbers, with over 70% of women initiating filings for divorce.”
But that doesn’ t mean that 70% of the time, it’s the woman that wants out. Because of the complex legalities involved, and because many married women table their careers (thereby putting them in the one-down position), lawyers will advise that the woman be the one to file.
“General trends” such as the kinds of cars people buy or what colors are in fashion? Simple. General trends that govern the way we live and love and raise our families are never as simple as Roissy would like us to believe.
LikeLike
Have a Great Big Old War. Beta’s benefit in two ways – less competition at home as lots of countrymen are dead, lots of action abroad too, whether it be the spoils of war or the congregation of prostitutes.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t that just lead to… more men filing for divorce? If they know it’s not going to cost them anything, they could divorce their wives on a whim and suffer no consequences, just as opponents of no-fault divorce argue that women are able to do now.
Yes, that might be the case. And I am not advocating for it. I guess I should have said something like, “How many women would file for divorce…”.
My point I was trying to make sorta dovetails with what Clio was saying about older marriage laws. People did not get divorced for a reason.
LikeLike
…lawyers will advise that the woman be the one to file.
And the women agree.
Shannon, nothing is ever as simple as we might describe, but we attempt to simplify for purposes of understanding and debate.
I mean, should we qualify every damn thing we say?
LikeLike
Clio, could you talk a little about what happened to widows (who took care of them?) and average men (not elites) who chose NOT to support their family (say, spending their money on alcohol instead).
My understanding was that when a woman married, she was now apart of HIS family and it was now their responsibility to see that she and her children were taken care of. And, to a degree, you still see that today in many places.
And, two, that men who “fell” to wine and women were often “corrected” by the local men, or worse, the wife’s brothers/uncles.
LikeLike
It’s true that most domestic violence is committed by men against women
another of the great lies foisted upon us by feminism.
—
What about the women who give up their careers in order to stay at home and take care of the children, so their husbands careers can advance further?
this is a thorny question, because it’s difficult, if not impossible, to discern the intent of the 2 parties. ideally, we’d want some sort of compensation for a spouse who really did give up a career that (s)he otherwise would have been single-minded about pursuing, but we would NOT want to compensate a spouse with the surprisingly common intent of working only until having children. if there were some way to determine that intent, then the spouse should in most cases get nothing at all, especially if (s)he is the one who moves for divorce first.
LikeLike
#31 Shannon
Unnecessarily provocative and rude.
If you’re really so offended by provocation, why do you regularly read and comment on a blog that sets out to intentionally provoke? I think you’re still mad about my calling astrology idiotic a few posts back.
Not to mention a false analogy.
How’s that? You wanted to muddy a fairly straightforward statistical reality with some obfuscation about how complicated divorce is when you start looking at specific scenarios. I responded with an admittedly absurd counter-example to show how you can do the same thing with virtually any issue you so choose.
General trends that govern the way we live and love and raise our families are never as simple as Roissy would like us to believe.
And they’re never as complicated as you would like us to believe.
LikeLike
27 Reggie
“It’s true that most domestic violence is committed by men against women, but that doesn’t mean that the man is the one who beats her unprovoked while the innocent housewife cowers in the corner and sobs.”
Reggie, I agree and disagree with you. Agree that the man is usually provoked, but disagree that as to how he is provoked. He is provoked BECAUSE of the woman’s own view of herself as innocent victim, which she probably picked up subconsciously from her environment growing up. I don’t believe anyone consciously wants to be beaten up.
This leads to her cowering in the corner sobbing while the husband validates her view of herself via beatings and abuse. In reality the victims have more power over the victimizers, than vice versa, and the victims are generally less likely to seek help than the victimizers. I’ve read studies on this and will find the link, but it’s not a very popular site where I found this information; believe me.
Our society validates victims to a huge degree. Well meaning as that may be, it’s counter-productive to ending the abuse. Which is why women will go from abusive relationship to abuse relationship until she figures out how to stop being a victim.
LikeLike
fucking html tags. i give up
LikeLike
So I asked him what he thought the 25 years was worth that she spent as his wife and the mother of his children. Was it 10 cents on the dollar? 25 cents? 5 cents? Anything? What the courts figured was fair and it was 50 cents on the dollar. Who can put a price on the value of 25 years of anyone’s life?
Symmetrically, Robert spent 25 years as her husband and the father of her children. Shouldn’t she pay Robert an essentially equal amount? Yes, this is all rhetoric.
To me, your post shows that you implicitly agree that marriage is a legal form of prostitution.
LikeLike
40 tsurupettan
“To me, your post shows that you implicitly agree that marriage is a legal form of prostitution.”
That’s exactly what it is in a woefully huge percentage of cases. In the case of prostitution you buy a woman for a night, in marriages you buy a woman for a lifetime. The 70% of women who initiate divorce indicates that this does not work for them.
LikeLike
Reggie:
“If you’re really so offended by provocation, why do you regularly read and comment on a blog that sets out to intentionally provoke? I think you’re still mad about my calling astrology idiotic a few posts back.”
That was you? And you’re misreading me.
I believe there’s a line between provocative in a way that forcibly jolts your worldview, and provocative in a way that is simply mean-spirited and teaches nothing. This blog and associated commentary is usually the former, when it’s the latter, I don’t see anything wrong with pointing that out.
LikeLike
oh and by the way:
if any of you still harbor the laughable notion that family courts treat men and women equally, just remember that, if you’re a woman, little peccadilloes like killing your kid aren’t enough to plug the flow of alimony.
just try to imagine reversing the sexes in that situation. then laugh until your sides hurt.
then cry.
LikeLike
“….lots of action abroad too, whether it be the spoils of war or the congregation of prostitutes…”
What does that mean?
LikeLike
spoils of war: the raping of the enemie’s women
congregation of prostitutes: where there are soldiers, there are brothels
LikeLike
johnny five #43. While I do not doubt the Calbi’s are proles, its clear the courts have abandoned any concept of justice.
LikeLike
DF,
>> She can bolt at any time with “her” kids to shack up with another BETA. Why would an alpha take a divorced chick with kids when he’s got options?
couple of points on this. First, the term’s alpha & beta are relative. Today’s alpha is only a health problem, accident, job loss, or some other nasty event away from being another loser / beta. Consider a great athlete that tears an ACL / meniscus. Such an alpha better have more going on than just strength and fitness because knee disability is unlikely to impress chicks. Consequently, one isn’t just alpha, but rather claws their way up the social / financial food chain, and constantly works to stay there. Any slippage, and the wife may decide her man is way less interesting as a husband. She may take up with another BETA, but the BETA only has to be slightly more alpha than her current beta to pique her interest. The Darwinian struggle of always trying to be alpha is a rat race, free for all, without end.
Second, we have to define true alpha. Is he the guy that can game and bang young nubile chicks at clubs? Chicks who are on the Pill / infertile, who get abortions, etc? Or is the true alpha one that can take a 20 year old young, healthy wife, have children that are genetically and legally, along with the ability to protect his property?
American men appear to have zero reproductive rights these days. So even a badass alpha with “game” is really just a play toy / dildo, sperm donor, for an empowered, sexually liberated female.
LikeLike
#36 – Johnny: it’s not whether she gave up a “career”; it’s whether, having been married, and made some kind of contribution to the household – a kind of “small business” partnership as I believe you once said here – for a considerable length of time (let’s say 25 years here, since that’s the figure floozie gave), she is then entitled to claim a share of that “business” when the partnership is dissolved. If you say that she is entitled to claim nothing, then you are reducing her to an employee, rather than a partner, in the business.
The talk of marriage as “prostitution” is silly hot-air provocation, and ought to be dropped.
Usually Lurking: About widows, well, their position depended first on when and where they lived. English law at one time allowed widows a right to no more than a third of their husbands’ property – and this did not necessarily represent the value of the property they had brought into their marriages, because all of a woman’s property became her husband’s upon her marriage. Oh, and if she remarried, she lost her right to the use of whatever property she had inherited from her husband. It’s a complicated issue, and as I said, the laws regarding widows varied throughout Europe, esp. between the northern regions governed by customary (“common”) law, and the southern regions governed by civil (“Roman”) law; they also tended to change over time. But under English law, a married woman was a legal nonentity until 1882 (not 1872, as I said earlier); she had more rights as a widow.
LikeLike
#38 Belinda
Reggie, I agree and disagree with you. Agree that the man is usually provoked, but disagree that as to how he is provoked.
Belinda, you misinterpreted this. I’m in no way attempting to justify domestic abuse. Instead, by phrasing it such that it mirrored Shannon’s statement that divorce is more complicated than statistics would have you believe, I was using it as a deliberately absurd example of the way that if you parse any issue finely enough, complications are sure to show up.
Another poster linked some data that seems to indicate most abuse is actually perpetrated by women. All the better; the facts in my example aren’t important; it’s the way an issue can be muddled by deliberately ignoring statistics in favor of anecdotes and hypothetical scenarios that’s the core of the argument.
LikeLike
@Floozie
only one who is not an alcoholic/turned workaholic which is what I dealt with for man years
Why did you pick such a man?
LikeLike
What are the rules about divorcing career women with a high salary? Seems to me one of these pathetic over-30 career women who have wasted their lives climbing the corporate ladder would be a good pick; good ambitious genes for the spawn, and doesn’t her ability to peg you for alimony decrease with her salary? Can someone comment?
LikeLike
Anonymous Coward this is why I keep asking roissy to state what the definition of alpha and beta is. Natural alphas or alphas who never discovered The Game have situational confidence and once they are a fish out of water they are just as beta as the natural betas. A lot of actors admit to having this problem. The Game helps people become core confident naturals. In other words you become a man through this right of passage instead of slaughtering an elephant.
LikeLike
How about giving men an injection at birth stops out of control lust after age 19.
LikeLike
Why do men have a love/hate relationship with their attraction to women?
LikeLike
How about giving men an injection at birth that stops out of control lust after age 19.
LikeLike
The best analogy I ever heard for the anxiety men feel when approaching women is to imagine jumping out of an airplane over and over again without knowing beforehand whether or not your parachute is going to open. Sounds like an extreme comparison, but guys put their egos on the line each time they approach. If it goes well, they feel validated. They crash and burn and it can really be a blow to the ego to those without a thick skin. hence the love/hate relationship.
LikeLike
all a beta male had to do was to make a decent income and he would get a nice 15-22 year old wife
they should date only one they really like and then marry her and start a family when she finishes HS
What’s so good about that? I don’t see anything enticing about that lifestyle.
this only apllies to middleclass girls, prole girls are married to the state
Prole men earn less than the state.
more Guys, well, White Guys, marrying their PS3 or Xbox 360 instead of getting with the 32 year old single mom.
Why get married and have children and responsibilities when you can play video games, have fun, go on vacation, and bang more than woman before childbirth robs her of former beauty…
Women first want exciting bad boys to fill them up with hot cum, then a beta for a few years to get from him lifelong alimony and his retirement, and then at forty a second divorce and no man at all or only one who drops in from time to time to screw her.
This will obviously sound silly, but maybe we should separate our emotional and sexual needs from each other. In short, maybe we should have open marriages based on emotional satisfaction, but with sexual satisfaction met with other partners?
LikeLike
On Lebensabschnittspartners:
Bad boy, then provider-beta, then drop-by f-buddy; isn’t that the typical long-term marriage? Why not save the closing costs and keep the same one!
LikeLike
Clio, thanks.
I am assuming that the other 2/3 of his property would go to his son(s).
Obviosuly, there will be variation between Northen (Common) and Southern (Roman), but I bet most of them try to keep the property and weath within the Husbands’ family.
And, again, they would also be responsible for the widows well-being after he dies.
LikeLike
If you all want to get into more detailed discussions of alimony/child support/divorce, you way wanna check out the Web site of men’s rights advocate and author Glenn Sacks (www.glennsacks.com). He addresses these issues in detail, replete with statistics and testimonials.
Just don’t expect a pretty picture of what family courts are like for anyone who doesn’t have ovaries.
LikeLike
@T-Thanks, I like the airplane reference. That is probably the best explanation I have gotten on the subject.
I can tell you one of the reasons many women come off as cold or nasty when being approached by random men is the fact that any decent looking woman has had a number of men do this to her daily basis since she went through puberty. For every man that approaches there are twenty who look at you as if you are a ham sandwich. Over time, most women become sick of being bothered, approached or looked at etc… Especially when being approached by men who they are not initially attracted to (I guess this is where game comes in). It does not help that by the age of 20 most women finally *believe* that men only want us for two things.
LikeLike
Well, sort of, Usually Lurking. But it didn’t always leave the widow with much independence, if her sons were jerks, or if the will hadn’t been carefully written, or the property was only modest to begin with, or entailed. Did you ever read, or see the movie of, Sense and Sensibility? The father leaves his entailed property to his eldest son by his first marriage, with the “expectation” that the son will provide for the comfort of the widow and their daughters (the heir’s half-sisters, in other words). Comfort, that is, beyond the bare minimum that she is entitled to inherit by law. But the son’s greedy ambitious wife refuses to consent to this, and the family is reduced to near poverty.
BTW, until 1882, under English law, if a marriage failed and the wife left, the husband was still entitled to all his wife’s subsequent earnings.
LikeLike
This only makes sense if you assume the guy is never at fault for the divorce. You’ve repeatedly quoted statistics saying that women are more likely to file for divorce. But I don’t know many people who cheated on a spouse and then filed. It’s usually the one who caught the cheater who files. I don’t even know anyone who cheated on a boyfriend or girlfriend and broke up. The cheater seems prone to staying. So your rule would just make it hard for guys to leave their wives for a younger model when they are “commanded” to do so by their biological urges.
My main point though, is that your rule would only make sense in a world where every man is a perfect, non-cheating, non-asshole angel, who is just somehow forced to put up with the woman who bears his children and listens to him bitch.
LikeLike
[Chic Noir said] It does not help that by the age of 20 most women finally *believe* that men only want us for two things.
The first is sex, the second is…?
LikeLike
BTW, that’s one of the reasons Gannon is so big on reserving a youngster to marry when she reaches 18. Such a girl hasn’t had time to become cynical.
LikeLike
But it didn’t always leave the widow with much independence…
Clio, what, maybe 1% of the human population had “independence” back then. I am not trying to be cold, just saying that doesn’t really mean much.
For instance, when Abraham Lincoln’s mother died, his father looked to remarry almost immediately. This was not callous on his part, just the opposite. When he was out tilling the field, he could not look after his son and daughter.
This was the western frontier (Kentucky). Very “independent” people.
The father leaves his entailed property to his eldest son by his first marriage…
Right. But this does not speak to bad marriage laws as much as a short-sighted father.
BTW, until 1882, under English law, if a marriage failed and the wife left, the husband was still entitled to all his wife’s subsequent earnings.
My guess is that this law was to REALLY discourage mothers from leaving. Remember, women and men got married for a reason back in the day. Also, I bet society would have seen divorce as something that should be discouraged at all times.
LikeLike
Thanks four your support Yakking guy. Girls at 16 still believe in love, whereas women at thirty believe in the almighty dollar (although probably I should say almighty Euro, since you US guys are flushing your currency down the toilet).
LikeLike
No, it wasn’t to discourage mothers from leaving. Motherhood didn’t have much to do with it; it had more to do with English common-law’s understanding of the meaning of wifehood. A married woman became a “femme couverte” – “covered” under the law by her husband, so that she became in effect a non-person before the law. This had some advantages: it meant that it was impossible to bring a lawsuit against a married woman without bringing one against her husband as well; it also meant that any contracts she had entered or debts she had incurred while single were automatically cancelled upon her marriage. But it also meant that married women could own no property. And it meant that abused women could not leave their husbands without enduring great hardship. There was no grounds for divorce for women for either cruelty or adultery; only men could get a divorce on the grounds of adultery. But because divorce was so costly (it required an act of parliament), few people bothered; the rich arranged private separation agreements; the poor just separated.
One case in particular – that of the society lady Caroline Norton – was so egregious that it ended in changing the law regarding married women and property, though it took several decades of agitation to bring this about.
LikeLike
Alias Clio, are you still banging on, losing the forest for the trees? Before No-Fault divorce, all divorce in the West was …. wait for it… for cause. Even Caesar needed a pre-text. This is the radical change Roissy is talking about. You’re still on about minor particulars, as if a social revolution is justified because Fanny or Lucy or Mrs. Norris or whomever was a few shillings a month short of her former lifestyle when her bitch sister in law exercised undue influence.
LikeLike
50 Slumlord
Why did I pick an alcoholic turned workaholic? Well, I could go on and on about how I was in love with him and all of his fantastic qualities, but bottom line, the reasons are too stupid to mention.
LikeLike
dizzy8:
“My main point though, is that your rule would only make sense in a world where every man is a perfect, non-cheating, non-asshole angel, who is just somehow forced to put up with the woman who bears his children and listens to him bitch.”
Wait a minute…the world DOESN’T work that way?
The majority of infidelity is conducted by men. The majority of divorces are filed by women. Anybody see a connection?
LikeLike
#71 (Shannon) – “The majority of infidelity is conducted by men. The majority of divorces are filed by women. Anybody see a connection?”
Some stats to back you up:
infidelityfacts.com:
Percentage of men who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they’ve had: 57%
Percentage of women who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they’ve had: 54%
LikeLike
Floozie, I understand you. I picked a guy who did a lot of bad things, but he had enough willpower to quit them without AA, nicotine patches, etc. But it was a long and difficult road before he became marriage material… Your reasons were noble. You shouldn’t have to apologize for making your decisions based on love.
LikeLike
If Betas could improve their blast inside all their problems would be solved. Alpha’s don’t need as much skill in bed, just like 9s and 10s don’t need as much skill in bed. Become a great lover and you can look like the Hunchback of Notre Dame and still attract women who will bond to you like industrial strength velcro. Women who are highly intuitive will sense the sexual confidence of a man. We don’t require you look like a 9 or 10, but are a LOVER in the true sense of the word. Betas should use to their advantage, that looks are not as important to us, but the ability to fearlessly LOVE is the biggest turn on to a woman.
LikeLike
No, cz, I’m not going on about minor particulars. I’m going on about women’s legal status law prior to the late-19th – early-20th century under English common law. I wouldn’t have bothered, except a) someone asked me about it, and b) because there seems to be a widespread conviction on this board that the world has always and forever been unfair to men, who are thus justified in taking whatever measures they think necessary to rein women in. When Roissy does this, it’s usually tongue in cheek, to a degree. I’m not so sure about the rest of you.
LikeLike
I’m not so sure about the rest of you.
You haven’t figured out yet that modern Americans don’t really give a hoot about history?
LikeLike
@Alais Clio: the real problem is that feminism is destroying families, the nuclear unit and the backbone of every solid society. All of what feminism stands for is antifamily:
pro abortion, pro on fault divorce, high ages of consent and marriage, delaying of marraige until women are postmenopausal, no age mistake defense on good faith, no shared custody in case of divorce but exclusive for the mother, man must pay alimony for children who aren’t his, gay marriage, high taxes for men which are redistributed by the staet towards single women, destroying the father role.
The feminist goal is to destroy the traditional family and substitute it by a model in which children belong to the mother, and the mother has different children from her different lifestagepartners. She is financed through alimony from different men or by the taxation of the general population of men. In a certain sense, there want ths African myth of that the whole village raises the child.
LikeLike
“legal status law prior ” – leave out the “law”
LikeLike
Gannon, you aren’t seriously trying to tell me that there are no men – alphas, most likely – who benefit by “no fault divorce” in North America?
I’m not much of a fan of feminism as it has developed in the last 30 years, but it is not the Original Sin, the First Cause of all the evil in marriage and family life, and Gloria Steinem, though a bore and a bother, is not Lucifer.
LikeLike
“The feminist goal is to destroy the traditional family and substitute it by a model in which children belong to the mother, and the mother has different children from her different lifestagepartners. She is financed through alimony from different men or by the taxation of the general population of men. In a certain sense, there want ths African myth of that the whole village raises the child.”
Busted! Gannon sorted out the feminist conspiracy!
Maybe we just want to make our own choices in life and deal with the consequences accordingly, instead of being guilted into unhappy early marriages, unable to financially care for ourselves if the husband is useless and/or leaves, bossed around, cheated on, and taken advantage of. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting a say in who you are and how you live.
There are selfish feminists and generous feminists, just like there are selfish and generous versions of all sorts of people. Being so ridiculously freaked by feminism that you think it’s a conspiracy says way more about you than it does about us.
LikeLike
It’s no secret that feminism is linked towards comunism, and their collectivist dreams. Feminism wants children to be raised by the community, and not by the family.
LikeLike
Crap! I’m a commie now, too?
LikeLike
An INVISIBLE commie, by the way, complottingin the darkness the downfall of the PUA.
LikeLike
That’s kind of funny, because a lot of the old communist revolution leaders were rather alpha. But they hardly ever had offspring, too interested in power themselves to care about family.
Oh wait, I’m talking about history again. No one cares. Ooops.
LikeLike
@Hope
By the way Hope, since you are our expert on Chinese Issues, isn’t it true that Chairman Mao had a weakness for young nubile virgins and made love to hundreds of girls as young as 13 and as old as 25?
LikeLike
Crap! I’m a commie now, too?
Not exactly. Lenin had a term for his Western supporters: useful idiots.
LikeLike
I don’t know about hundreds, but he did have several wives (serial monogamy) and they were all successively younger. His last wife, whom he married while he was holding the chairman office, was blamed for most of the ills of the Cultural Revolution.
Interestingly, Mao actually espoused women’s rights. He said famously that “Women hold up half the heavens” and allowed female participation in work and government (my grandmother was a high-ranking party official). I guess he liked women because they flocked to him.
LikeLike
Yeah but some historians say that besides his wifes he also made love to a lot of young communists girls when they visited him, and these were very young (HS age) and very honored by Mao’s attentions.
LikeLike
…so that she became in effect a non-person before the law.
Clio, what is it with the language. You did not need to say that she became a “non-person”. Had you said everything that you did, without that statement, it would have been just as clear.
I appreciate you educating me on this, but statements like that make it sound like “victimhood”.
I get it, things were definitely imperfect…but, so what. So was every other place. But, fortunately for us (those of us in North America and elsewhere), the British basically developed the greatest society in the history of the world.
But because divorce was so costly (it required an act of parliament), few people bothered
That was sorta my point. Divorces were very difficult to get.
Anyway, thanks for the knowledge sharing.
LikeLike
You haven’t figured out yet that modern Americans don’t really give a hoot about history?
Hope, I have found just the opposite. Actually, I have never met a group of people more interested in History than Americans.
I am sure those are fightin’ words, but there it is.
Granted, I can not really compare to different Asian cultures. But, I have known many Chinese people (born and raised, not ABC) and from my understanding, they couldn’t really take an active interest in History. There education was so intense it was difficult for them to have many extra-curricular interests.
LikeLike
Actually, I have never met a group of people more interested in History than Americans.
Perhaps this is tunnel vision. Is it not possible that you know a different group of Americans since you belong to a certain subculture? The mainstream American has very little interest in, say, the decline and fall of the Roman empire.
As far as Chinese people born and raised in Asia, their parents usually push them to excel in non-literature/history related areas. My mother couldn’t supervise every aspect of my education since she was too busy working, but whenever she did she insisted I study math and science.
LikeLike
There are selfish feminists and generous feminists, just like there are selfish and generous versions of all sorts of people. Being so ridiculously freaked by feminism that you think it’s a conspiracy says way more about you than it does about us.
Shannon, I am positive that you can come up with examples of (prominent) Feminists who do not read of male-hatred, but, as a man who used to Lurk on Feministing.com, DAMN, they could not contain themselves.
Yes, yes, they all had boyfriends and what not. And they would talk about being sex-positive and all that, but, they really would get worked up when a reasonable book like “The War Against Boys” was mentioned or cited.
Actually, the main host of the site was so happy when an author had published a retort to that book. The fact that the author never actually responded to the specific points in the book never seemed to faze them.
And, I mention Feministing.com, because they often criticize other popular Feminist resources/sites for being hateful of men.
LikeLike
Oh wait, I’m talking about history again. No one cares. Ooops.
Hope, Clio has been talking about history and we have cared. I mean, they may not have agreed, but they cared.
LikeLike
Is it not possible that you know a different group of Americans since you belong to a certain subculture? The mainstream American has very little interest in, say, the decline and fall of the Roman empire.
I am not saying that every America is equally fascinated with the subject, but, when you think about:
– Civil War re-enactments
– World War II displays
– Interests in things like, the Titanic, P-51s, Diesel Trains, Locomotives, the building of the railroad, Kitty Hawk, The Monitor and the Merrimack, A. Lincoln, the Cherokee nation, etc.
– Walk into any Borders and Barnes and Noble and you will see tons of books, pominently displayed, that highlight the history and photographs of the local area (i.e. Akron, Then and Now)
– Sons of the Revolution
– Daughters of the Revolution
– Historical Societies
– the list goes on and on
I am sure that you will pick at this example or that, but adding them all up and it is really inpressive.
The History Channel is a prime example.
It gets quality ratings. People will complain that the unwashed masses don’t care about “intelligent” historical works and then Ken Burns “Civil War” get better ratings for PBS than I think anything in its history.
Take a look at the NYT bestsellers list and you will see works by David McCullough topping the list for weeks on end.
I remember seeing a british author interviewed on a book he had written about a particular branch of British gov’t (I can’t remember which now) and saying that it was only the second ever written on the subject. The first had come from an American author in an American publishing company.
…but whenever she did she insisted I study math and science.
Yeah, that has been my experience with Chinese people born in China.
China does not have too many of the proverbial “Philosophy Majors”.
LikeLike
“Shannon, I am positive that you can come up with examples of (prominent) Feminists who do not read of male-hatred, but, as a man who used to Lurk on Feministing.com, DAMN, they could not contain themselves.”
That’s like saying that all single men are total freaks, which is what I would think if I only had this site to go on.
Feminism is a good thing, unless you’re a whiny man who can’t keep up with the times and needs a woman under his thumb to prop up your fragile ego. (Deliberate provocation there – I’ve found the people who freak about feminism the most are easily threatened in general.)
We can argue feminism eight ways to Sunday, but I am sick and tired of hearing about how it’s a mass conspiracy, or we all hate men, or whatever. How about seeing people as individuals first and ideologies second?
LikeLike
– Civil War re-enactments
– World War II displays
– Interests in things like, the Titanic, P-51s, Diesel Trains, Locomotives, the building of the railroad, Kitty Hawk, The Monitor and the Merrimack, A. Lincoln, the Cherokee nation, etc.
The history of America/Europe =! the history of the world. Having grown up in China and been exposed to the Chinese education system, I can tell you quite confidently that they are just as interested in (heavily state-edited) Chinese history as well.
In Chinese pop culture, the most popular television dramas are often period works featuring emperors from previous dynasties. Poems and writing from various famous ancient Chinese authors are required reading material from elementary school onward. Often these must be memorized.
These fall under the overall umbrella of “nationalistic” history, not the kind that Alias Clio referenced.
LikeLike
BTW, I meant to say “reak” of Male-Hatred…not “read”.
That’s like saying that all single men are total freaks, which is what I would think if I only had this site to go on.
I am not basing my opinion on one site. I was choosing a popular, “centrist” site as an example of how Feminists often represent themselves.
Feminism is a good thing, unless you’re a whiny man who can’t keep up with the times and needs a woman under his thumb to prop up your fragile ego.
Wow. Ask yourself this question, should the readers of that statment think that the feminist saying it was intelligent or unintelligent?
We can argue feminism eight ways to Sunday, but I am sick and tired of hearing about how it’s a mass conspiracy, or we all hate men, or whatever. How about seeing people as individuals first and ideologies second?
I do not see Feminism as an individual. Nor do I see Feminists as an individual. They are a group with a group ideology.
For instance, I see Clio as an individual. But, when I am looking to criticize, say, Catholics, I would definitely look to her for a response. If someone identifies as Feminist, well, they are going to have to answer for the more “moderate” feminists, if not the MacKinnons and Dworkins
LikeLike
The history of America/Europe =! the history of the world.
And Calculus is not Linear Algebra, but, those that are interested, in any branch, are definitely interested in Math.
Having grown up in China and been exposed to the Chinese education system, I can tell you quite confidently that they are just as interested in (heavily state-edited) Chinese history as well.
I believe it, but, that was not my point.
We are defined by our actions. And, I ain’t hatin’ on the Chinese…I spent time with the people I mentioned for a reason. But, to say that the Chinese have shown an equal interest in History as compared to Americans is, I think, off. But, either way, the original point was, “Americans are not interested in History”…and I am saying, “Baloney!”
These fall under the overall umbrella of “nationalistic” history, not the kind that Alias Clio referenced.
That is right, the one history is different than the other history. And the people here (not all), were definitely interested in the one. Either way…
Americans: no interest in History? Your call.
LikeLike
Hope, there is a strong interest in history among male intellectuals, professionals, and elites. Its the proles and the vast majority of women (exclusive of intellectuals) that have little interest in history. Of course they make up the majority of Americans. Walk by the office of a male investment banker or lawyer and you’ll see a copy of the FT, WSJ, and most likely a book on history or bio. Check out the desk of a female lawyer or banker and you’ll see the FT, WSJ, and copy of In Style or People magazine.
LikeLike
Americans: no interest in History? Your call.
No, I’d rather leave it up to those who make it a point to analyze modern Americans’ knowledge of history to gauge their interest in history:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/05/10/history.scores.ap/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20061003/ai_n16756555
Granted, they were college students, but I was in college in 2002. So the people surveyed are about my age.
LikeLike
“Wow. Ask yourself this question, should the readers of that statment think that the feminist saying it was intelligent or unintelligent?”
Actually, they would wonder why you didn’t catch when I said it was a “deliberate provocation.” Which proves my point: you’re all too ready to insult my intelligence.
LikeLike
UsuLurking, the comment about “non-person before the law” wasn’t hyperbole, but a statement of fact. Married women were virtually “erased” as legal entities before the law except when guilty of a crime. (Even then, husbands might receive some words of admonition from a judge about controlling their wives better.)
There was a famous 19th C. case of an Englishwoman whose purse was stolen. When the thief was apprehended and she went to court for the trial, she discovered her purse there as an exhibit; it was marked “property of Mister Butler” (her husband”. The incident outraged her so much that she successfully pushed for the passage (at last) of the Married Women’s Property Act, to which I’ve referred here before.
LikeLike
Regarding interest in history among Americans: yes, I do think there is a great deal of interest in it in your country. The problem is that the kind of popular history that’s been published in the last 30 years or so is painfully tendentious. All history is “biased”; it can’t really exist without some sort of bias. But bias of interpretation is different from a bias that excludes some facts or invents others for the convenience of the researcher.
I’ve noticed an alarming trend in recent years – among intellectuals as well as ordinary people – to believe whatever they want to about the past, as if the facts were so impossible to verify that you could choose to ignore them altogether. I mean, Da Vinci Code, anyone? It was a work of false history posing as a work of fiction, and still it apparently has millions of people believing that Leonardo painted Mary Magdalene into The Last Supper.
LikeLike
Hope, don’t back down. You made an assertion. I countered.
There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. I am curious, what is yours?
Germans or Americans? Who is more interested in history?
Brazilians? Nigerians?
LikeLike
@Alais Clio
I think your statement of nonperson is wrong. Women were always considered persons, but had the legal status of minors. Minors are subjects of the law, but can not act legally unless they are properly authorized by their parents or by their husbands. A woman was a person, but always needed the authorization of her husband to act legally.
LikeLike
Shannon, it proves nothing. I asked a question. Provoke or not, you are making an assertion.
That is, Feminists, by and large, are not man-haters.
I am saying the opposite: they are.
Are you? Dunno.
I am looking at groups and trends. Damn, just look at how most Feminists react to another Feminist, Wendy McElroy (who actually looks for equal treatment, not just empowerment).
LikeLike
UsuLurking, the comment about “non-person before the law” wasn’t hyperbole, but a statement of fact.
I understand. But that is not what I said. I was saying that you could have chosen different words. I appreciate what you have to say…it has been an education.
But whether it was meant as hyperbole, or not, you know how it sounds. It sounds like 19th century England was an evil place. But, comparing the lives of women in England at that time to almost any other place on Earth and, well, they did a pretty good job. And, they learned from their mistakes and improved. Good for them (England, and the women).
LikeLike
I’ve noticed an alarming trend in recent years – among intellectuals as well as ordinary people – to believe whatever they want to about the past, as if the facts were so impossible to verify that you could choose to ignore them altogether. I mean, Da Vinci Code, anyone? It was a work of false history posing as a work of fiction, and still it apparently has millions of people believing that Leonardo painted Mary Magdalene into The Last Supper.
Unfortunately, I can not disagree. We (Americans) have gotten dumber over the last 40 years. And I do, partly, blame the Social Revolution and Politicall Correctness. As Steve Sailer once said, “PC reduces effective intelligence”.
LikeLike
“Shannon, it proves nothing. I asked a question. Provoke or not, you are making an assertion.
That is, Feminists, by and large, are not man-haters.”
Usually Lurking, where did I make that assertion? I’ve never said one way or the other – I may hate men for all you know, or I may agree that feminists are man haters (and have every right to be). You continue to put words in my mouth and make assertions without really listening. It’s very annoying.
LikeLike
Alias, was No-Fault Divorce a radical departure from precedent that, as I take Roissy’s argument, in combination with a few other identifiable factors, had radical implications on human behavior? Or not? Something else?
All else is being pedantic. In fact, we might be in vehement agreement on the point: you from the perspective that, yes, it was a radical departure, but one that was long-overdue, necessary, good and just; me from the perspective that the cure is killing the patient.
LikeLike
Yakking Guy
[Chic Noir said] It does not help that by the age of 20 most women finally *believe* that men only want us for two things.
The first is sex, the second is…?
As a maid and personal cheerleader.Roissy admitted as much in his perfect woman post.
Yakking Guy
BTW, that’s one of the reasons Gannon is so big on reserving a youngster to marry when she reaches 18. Such a girl hasn’t had time to become cynical
I think so too. I think Roissy mentioned as much in a past post somewhere.
LikeLike
Usually Lurking, sorry, but writing to you is just too exhausting.
LikeLike
In fact, cz, I don’t believe in “no-fault divorce”. Not at all; not one whit, not one iota. I think it’s an unmitigated disaster, and not just for beta males. I brought up the issue of what women once endured in seeking divorce, or having it imposed on them, because I was annoyed by the remark that divorce law as it was before the 1970s had been around “just about forever”. I would have dropped the matter there, but other readers asked for more information, so I tried to provide it as well as I could.
Meanwhile, you won’t succeed in convincing anyone to alter the law as it now stands if you insist on framing it as beneficial mainly to “beta males”. There are many other parties who suffer by no-fault divorce; and there are many people besides feminists who wanted it and have benefitted by it.
LikeLike
“Usually Lurking, sorry, but writing to you is just too exhausting.”
Hope, preach it, sister. It’s exhausting to debate someone that doesn’t read what you say, but instead jumps to his own conclusions and nitpicks every word to suit his own viewpoint. If I wanted to deal with that, I’d still be married. *rimshot*
UL, are you by any chance a lawyer?
LikeLike
alias clio, you and I differ on opinions on divorce. What do you think about moving the state out of marriages entirely and leave that up to churches? States provide civil unions to all (gay or straight), but intervenes as necessary for the welfare of children?
LikeLike
Hmm, Shannon, tough question. I don’t think the option you’re suggesting is one that is going to prove popular: even the most die-hard tolerant liberals are beginning to discover that there are some forms of marriage that are difficult to reconcile with their values and with the greater good of society.
What is more likely to happen is that marriage, as a practise, will gradually disappear altogether except among the religious, but that divorce will remain as it is. The law will then have to find some way to settle disputes about property and children between cohabiting partners who choose to end their (polyamorous? multi-parental, as in biological, gestational, and caregiving parent?)relationships. It could be grisly.
But even if my predictions about marriage are wrong (and I hope they are), I don’t see your proposal as a workable solution. Instead, how about no-fault divorce as one among several options, one especially appropriate for two people without children, who agree that they do not want to contest their divorce? If two parties with children agreed to an uncontested divorce for “irreconcilable differences”, then again, the path would clear to no-fault divorce. “Fault” would be at issue only if one of two spouses with children or perhaps just a long-term investment in each other’s lives made allegations of abuse, adultery, abandonment or addiction (all As for mnemonic purposes) that could be substantiated in family court.
Well, a lawyer, which I am not, would probably be able to see all kinds of problems with that proposal, but it sounds good to me on the surface.
LikeLike
70 Floozie
Why did I pick an alcoholic turned workaholic? Well, I could go on and on about how I was in love with him and all of his fantastic qualities, but bottom line, the reasons are too stupid to mention
I’m going to be hard on you, not for personal reasons but for the sake of the argument.
How about that you were attracted to this man by the fire in your loins rather than reason? You were thinking with your pussy rather than with your brain. Sexual availability,like familiarity breeds contempt and after a while, this man’s patently obvious character flaws–to any objective observer of his behaviour except to yourself– finally became a more dominant characteristic of your relationship with him as your sexual attraction to him waned. He is probably the same man he was 25 years ago, you have changed.
The point is after 25 years you have changed your mind about the nature of this man. What was good 25 years ago is not good now, fair enough.
But marriage is a basically a promise, like a mortgage; remember “till death do us part”, no fault divorce is basically an institution which allows breach of promises and clouds it with an aura of respectability. When politicians break their promises they are evil, when couples break their promises to each other they are socially progressive.
Roissy is right: the main winners of this situation are alpha males but to a certain degree beta males are winners as well. Alphas get the pick of the unmarried females and the recycled divorcees. Some of the divorcees however grow up and begin to look at other characteristics besides “alphaness”, so beta’s get a second chance. ( though I agree that the betas don’t satisfy the fire in the loins).
The main loosers in this situation are women, particularly single mothers. They have to compete with an ever expanding pool of competitors for the few available alpha males. Having kids is the equivalent of being a few points down the rating scale, so the choice of potential suitors becomes even more limited. As most women are unhappy being alone they begin making serious compromises in picking a new mate i.e. criminals, child molesters, lawyers etc or they slut around hoping to attract a mate through sexual availability. Not a situation conducive to happiness.
The irony of this is that women were the main proponents of this social change.
Women need to be protected from themselves.
LikeLike
Hope, you stated an opinion, that Americans don’t care about history. I said the opposite. I gave some examples. You then said, well, read this from CNN.
So, I said, what is your opinion, do you still think that Americans have no interest, at least compared to other countries, or not?
Do you stand by what you say or not?
And Hope, don’t give that line, that I am exhausting. I know that I over-analyze, but I care about things. And I engage people for a reason.
LikeLike
Shannon, someone was going off on Feminism. You said,
There are selfish feminists and generous feminists, just like there are selfish and generous versions of all sorts of people. Being so ridiculously freaked by feminism that you think it’s a conspiracy says way more about you than it does about us.
And that is when I started.
LikeLike
Alias,
You jumped on me because I said “pretty much forever” when talking about the fundamental difference between no-fault divorce law and the law that preceded it, again, pretty much forever: divorce only for cause.
We can get to the other mischaracterizations, false assumptions, factual errors, and literary criticism after we get past this one, threshold, important, point.
LikeLike
“And I engage people for a reason.”
Because you have no respect? Hope told you to back off, and you’re hounding her. You’ve done the same thing to me. Dude, learn when to let go, and stop harassing the female posters.
LikeLike
Whoa, whoa.
Hope did not tell me to back off. I asked Hope for her opinion because I respect her opinions. I can’t say I agree with all of them, but that is true for anyone.
So she said that I was exhausting. Fine. I am a big boy. But I persisted because I was genuinely interested in her thoughts.
And I remember exactly what happened with you.
I never harrased you. This is a god damn blog after all.
Damn, you have your own site with, presumably, your email available. I didn’t go harassing you.
LikeLike
UL, continuing to pepper someone with questions after they’ve said you’re exhausting them, boring them, annoying them, whatever, IS harassment.
Even on a blog, people have boundaries, and those need to be respected. Even the real loop-de-loops ’round here (and they are legion) don’t continue bugging someone after they’ve been told to back off.
LikeLike
Clio, your proposal is the current actual state of Canadian law for divorce. I’m not sure it is practically much differerent than the various state regimes in the U.S. (Marriage and divorce are federal jurisdiction here, while all other familiy law is provincial.)
LikeLike
UL, continuing to pepper someone with questions after they’ve said you’re exhausting them, boring them, annoying them, whatever, IS harassment.
though i think UL would do well on the therapist’s couch, what he’s doing is not harassment. it’s time to stop defining down these words that you victimologists like to fling around when things don’t go your way.
Even on a blog, people have boundaries, and those need to be respected.
no they don’t. if you don’t like what he writes you can STOP READING IT. gee, what a novel idea!
don’t continue bugging someone after they’ve been told to back off.
you have no power to tell anyone to back off here.
LikeLike
“So she said that I was exhausting. Fine. I am a big boy. But I persisted because I was genuinely interested in her thoughts.”
Or because you don’t know when to back off.
LikeLike
Thanks, Thursday. I thought that might be so, but it was late and I didn’t want to google it to be sure. I’m not very well-informed about divorce because I know very few people who have had one.
LikeLike
That’s not well-informed about contemporary divorce. I know a little about its history!
LikeLike
117 Slumlord
“How about that you were attracted to this man by the fire in your loins rather than reason? You were thinking with your pussy rather than with your brain”
I get your point but that was not this particular case here. He was a friend and coworker for two years before we went out. I was married to someone else, had a red hot flaming affair for six months and got together with him; my second husband. I genuinely liked him before I loved him or slept with. You’re thinking of my most recent ex-boyfriend. Now there was a case of thinking with my pussy.
“The main loosers in this situation are women, particularly single mothers. They have to compete with an ever expanding pool of competitors for the few available alpha males. ”
I may misunderstand what you all mean by alpha, but it’s my opinion that alpha’s are highly over rated. There is a much more desirable man who is a nice balance of alpha and beta. The good life is all about balance. The man I want is highly intelligent, sexy, compassionate, and does not have a huge image/ego problem. He’s out there. I think I found one on match.com. Hehe.
It’s true; if a woman goes for the man who makes her hormones rise off the scale by looking at him? She’s fucked and not in a good way. Balance. That’s where it’s at long term. The alpha’s I think of? They have a serious need to get over themselves. Then there’s the “confidence or arrogance” scenario roissy talks about. There’s a fine line between the two. A beta can be more arrogant than an alpha. Bottom line; it has to hit on all four cylinders.
LikeLike
The only thing that needs to happen is more men have to compete for women under 30. Even the most beta of men have to band together and reject divorcees with kids or sluts who fucked alphas all through their 20’s. Basically, they have to remember this: Do not subsidize another man’s genes. The message will slowly seep down after that, and women will learn to look for a husband, and a nicer husband, earlier.
NEVER SUBSIDIZE ANOTHER MAN’S GENES.
LikeLike
Dizzy8
“But I don’t know many people who cheated on a spouse and then filed. It’s usually the one who caught the cheater who files. I don’t even know anyone who cheated on a boyfriend or girlfriend and broke up.”
Absolutely not true. Women do it all the time. MEN don’t very often cheat and ask for a divorce, that’s true. Women do though. Often the asking for a divorce is on a delayed basis after the cheating, when they find (unlike men who cheat) that they can’t really fall in love with their husbands again. It’s over. (How often do women fall back in love with the same man, if they’ve ever fallen in love with someone else after him. I won’t say never but it’s damn rare.
I’m going to outrage you Dizzy, but I’m going to speak truth to you. Truth you’ve probably never heard before, or certainly never listened to. Well you probably won’t listen now either. Male cheating usually doesn’t mean deep emotional cheating or a full blown love affair. If wives would let it, it could actually rekindle both sex and romantic love in the relationship. Now I’m not talking about a guy who spends all his time and energy on cheating with other women, won’t stop and appreciate his wife romantically, and has stopped caring deeply for her. That’s another matter entirely and a marriage that should end. One illustration of the difference is that married men usually won’t (voluntarily) leave their wives for the woman they are cheating with even if she’ll marry them on the day they do. That used to be received wisdom for young girls on the make and it’s still true. Married women in contrast usually will leave their marriage immediately if the man they are cheating with will marry them right away, especially if he has any kind of scratch at all, but often even if he doesn’t, what with divorce theft being what it is in America today when women are married to men with some bucks.
IF the husband is an artist type, the it’s more likely his cheating or some of it becomes the full blown love affair sort that involves a deep and fully competitive love. It remains true though that men are polygamous by nature, pretty much to the extent that they are sexual. That is a low testosterone beta may not be all that polygamous but any guy with a high sex drive is. Most any guy who achieves great success will become so in drive even if he wasn’t so much before. Maybe not the true nerd sort who’s successful, but most men.
Female cheating on the other hand, while possible to be do in the male manner only rarely is. For most women that’s only half a meal, or less. It’s not the big kahuna, the real thrill of cheating. An affair may not be successful, in which case she’ll usually try again, but when it is and she’s getting what she wants, that’s marriage destroying full blown romantic love. The fact that she’s doing it in an at least partly taboo way makes it all the more thrilling and so does the fact that she has emotional and financial security more or less In women far more than men, that destroys what remained of the romantic love and sexual attraction SHE used to feel for her husband – though it may take them awhile to fully admit that to themselves.
When women cheat (as opposed sometimes to certain kinds of open relationships with rules where it can maybe with effort be kept to something closer to just sex) and end up in an affair that they stay with for any period of time they often or I’ll say usually fall pretty much completely out of love with their husbands. The new love destroys the existing one for women in the overwhelming majority of cases. They may or may not still feel affection and friendship, for their husband esp. if he’s a very good father, but out of love. They may SAY they still love their husbands but if you ask lots of questions it turns out it’s no longer romantic love but the sort they could feel for a man they’re just friends with but admire in various ways, or for a gay guy. The sexual pull is ALL gone. Men DON”T have that same off on switch. Their sexual desire for their wife generally does fade over time for sure but it can also be rekindled and a man having an affair is actually at least as likely to feel that rekindling rather than lose all desire for his wife, esp. the brand newness of the affair wears off.
If the guy a married woman falls in love with in an affair (and that happens in all successful female affairs, just read romance novels) will marry them, then that’s it. She’s gone, and quickly these days. If not (if her lover is married and has has any sort of close and loving relationship with his wife regardless of how bad or infrequent the sex has become he usually WON’T voluntarily leave his wife).
If the wife’s lover won’t / “can’t” she’ll usually eventually move on to another guy, She’s unlikely to stop cheating once she’s tasted love outside of her marriage. That’s because that outside love will have KILLED all her romantic love for her husband. If her husband finds out and the affair is still strong (i.e. hasn’t reached the “he really won’t leave his wife and marry me instead”) she often won’t end it. Depending on her personality she’ll tell her husband she will will and then after awhile won’t, or she’ll just refuse, or she’ll say she’ll try, and then pretty soon doesn’t. Keep in mind that our culture reflected in her circle of female friends is telling her that pretty much any marital problem is either largely or all the husband’s fault, or just a state of nature and nothing she can do anything about (she married a guy she wasn’t really sexually attracted to without admitting that to herself, etc.). It’s just about NEVER the woman’s fault or anything she can or should work on or restrain herself about. If she feels “irrestiably drawn” to another man then that’s obviously her husband’s fault. If he feels “irresistibly drawn” to another woman well it’s pure bunk that he couldn’t resist it and he’s a moral leper, just another male dog and well rid of him.
Anyway, if her husband makes things at all difficult for her (I’m not talking violence) and is “too insistent” or “too snooping” i.e. looks for signs she has gone back to her deep emotional affair (anathema precisely because she probably has or wants to be free to do so if SHE decides she wants to), she’s likely to demand a separation and then after a few months she’ll go for divorce. Very very common pattern.
No, none of these scenarios happened to me.
Among other things read Women’s Infidelity, by Michelle Langley (it can be downloaded for a few dollars from her website easily searchable by that title).
Female cheating, at least when it’s “successful” and becomes the full blown deep love affair that most women who cheat are looking for, is immensely more destructive of the marriage bond FELT BY THE CHEATER TOWARDS THEIR SPOUSE than male cheating typically is. Married men usually don’t leave their wives, the archetypal feminist and before that Anglosphere women’s writer tale notwithstanding (which occasionally does happen of course, but pretty rarely). It’s the WIFE’s response to the man’s cheating that ends the marriage, not the husband’s most likely.
In contrast it’s also the WIFE’s response to her own cheating, right away if her lover will marry her, on a delayed basis if he won’t, that most often ends marriages. Most husbands will be devastated but imagining it’s like if they cheated (especially in our cultural misinformation age about sex differences) and will forgive her if she’ll gives it up and show him she still loves him. He’ll even typically shoulder a lot of the blame for e.g. “not being attentive enough” or “not doing enough to make you feel as sexy and desirable as you really are to me” and so on. How often do American women do that after they learned their husband has cheated, even if they’ve like you know, just about totally cut him off from sex with her for a year or more before it happened? Just about never in today’s American feminist climate is the answer.
She may try to rekindle her romantic love for her husband, but typically she won’t be able to, which may or may not take her a while to realize. When she does she’ll file for divorce regardless of how much he tries to convince her not to. Actually, in a dynamic Roissy explains well, the more he tries without her responding, the less she’ll want him romantically.
Of course I’m talking the usual patterns. Men and women are different, but not as wholly different platonic essences, but rather in overlapping bell curves on any particular characteristic sex difference.
LikeLike
It’s folly to believe that married alpha males aren’t unwillingly divorced by women who don’t then take them to the cleaners if they’re high earners, as most (but certainly not all) alpha males are. It is true that alpha males are more likely want a divorce than beta males are, but I think mostly alphas don’t want one either.
Well it depends of whether their wife is a good wife and mother in most respects ouside the bedroom, most of all. If she is, rather than an impossible to live with nag or lunny tunes, then he’s not likely to want to divorce her. He is very likely to want to be getting some on the side though.
It’s absurd that in feminist America women regard any kind of male adultery, most absurdly of all even with a prostitute, as always utterly intolerable, no matter how the male does it, or how just sex the outside nooky was. Women are simply wrong about that. A male extramarital affair CAN replace a man’s romantic love for his wife but it certainly doesn’t have to and in fact it usually doesn’t – if that love was there beforehand, even though the sex had cooled. It’s actually likely to end up heating up his sexual desire for his wife again as a matter of fact, if she’ll respond to his renewed much greater efforts.
The main reason women are so wrong is because they imagine themselves committing adultery and what it would mean 1) for them to badly want to; and even more 2) what the effects that would really likely have on their feelings for their husband long term. I’m not saying women reason it out just like this all or most of the time, I’m saying that their emotions about what it means are coming from this projection.
But women and men are very different in this area. Men, to the degree they are sexual are polygamous by nature. The sexiest thing in the world for men, for any men if they’re being honest, is to have a bevy of hot women (as in clearly hot but not necessarily the very hottest) on tap to screw him singly in succession or in some combo of two or three on occasion. That is indeed EVERY highly or even just reasonably sexed man’s dream. The second sexiest, but way less so, is to have the hottest girl in the room be singly but committedly his, or failing that, a girl everyone will agree is hot. This later is immensely easier to manage than what men find most desirable.
Women may want skads of suitor, worthy admirers, and men on call if the one they’re with proves unsatisfactory after all. Sure they want options too. But what women want most of all is the very most desirable man (and Roissy does a pretty good job of showing what women in fact find most desireable if they aren’t too worried about security, as most American women aren’t). What he doesn’t say though is that all things being equal (which they almost never are, so we’re describing one of several pulls on a woman here) women who get really got for a guy tend to stop feeling so hot for him after about four years — unless they’re constantly fighting off challenges for his love and sex. So yeah women ARE naturally monogomous in a hypergamous sort of way (hold out for the best male she can get), but only for a span of a few years, if she can still get comparably or better yet even more alpha males from the pool out there.
LikeLike
American men should wage a marriage strike. Well to an extent they are but it should go viral and become much more pronounced.
There is something to the female explanation that men are “scared of commitment”, at least if we translate. What’s true is that men value sex with a variety of partners even if only serially most of the time more highly than women do (on average, always read in “on average”), and value emotional commitment esp. when not also deepest love, much less than women do.
But that’s only part of it. That’s an evo/psych, sociobiology constant sex difference.
In America today feminism has helped make the conditions for extra marital sex great but marriage terrible for men.
It’s not that marriage automatically becomes terrible for men the minute it happens. If that was true far more men would we wise than are. The power shift happens immediately but women don’t know that (or care) right away either, most of the time. Gold diggers and some other women do, but most don’t.
It’s a suckers deal for men to marry in America today. You’re also wrong to think it all depends on the girl / woman. A lot does and you may because of her skate through. When you get married though you’ll be handing her enormous power over you that neither you nor she will likely be at all fully aware of, and depending on your location and SES might not be aware of at all. You both, but she especially will be after awhile after you’re married. Her girlfriends some of whom will be divorced or friends with divorced women will see to that.
Exaggeration you say. Ridiculous? Hardly. Just what does a woman promise in American marriage today, I mean that’s either legally or even culturally enforced? If you ask what a man promises I’ll tell you. Money, on a high percentage basis. Sure if he has none it’s not worth much. But if he does, it’s worth huge, and oh so enforced (again when he’s got and can be found). She also gets their kids. If she wants to fully alienate them from their father she can. She can flout all custody agreements or court orders with near total impunity — he certainly can’t cut off her child support=alimony if she does.
How is it that even when the marriage ends because the woman wants to fuck and love some other man, that the ex husband is state co-erced into supporting the children, even if she leaves him when they’re 2 and 4 and will never really fully be his kids no matter what he does?
All these rules were made in the belief that 95% of the time it was men’s adultery and desire to replace his wife with a younger woman that lead to divorce, and that men should be punished accordingly, or at the very least the rules should pay huge attention to what’s fair to the wife and children in that circumstance and essentially none, or only “what the beast can be made to bear” kind of attention to what’s fair to the man. When you then substitute the modern feminsit American situation where women initiate 70% of divorces and admit to cheating in about 50% of marriages (and we all know that women understate sexual partners often greatly while men overstate), we arrive at the current massively unfair situation. Especially when you factor in that women have the same opportunities to work and earn whatever their skills are worth on the competitive market that men do.
Marriage has ALWAYS involved obligation exchanges beyond the hoped for “love”. Men offer financial security in return for THEIR children and frequent and regular sex. Does an American woman promise regular and frequent sex when she gets married today? HELL NO! The very idea is repellant to feminists. She must always want to, rather than feel in any way obligated, and it’s up to the husband to constantly woo her to make her want to.
Now I’m not against husbands wooing their wives rather than taking them for granted. American men have indeed tended to always look for the truth in what at least mainstream feminists were advocating and to try to agree based on that, rather than seeing how far wrong it could go and, well, has. What about women still flirting with etc. and in that way still wooing their husbands? Well since their security and money is locked in and male adultery even if not marriage threatening unless the WIFE’s outrage makes it so (as it usually does today in feminist America), that tends to happen way less, at least after the first few years of marriage.
Any sense of female DUTY to husbands, as opposed to children, is just about gone completely in the feminist American cultural form of marriage. American marriage is (to the extent there’s enough money for there to be choices) all about what the woman wants to do, whether that’s big career emphasis or a “balanced and rewarding” career or none at all, and what a man is morally or legally obligated to support. If a man decides to purse a less remunerative but more fulfilling career path that’s great if his wife is supportive, but if she isn’t and feels he’s “kidding himself” or “not living up to his responsibilities”, esp. if she earns strongly but even if she doesn’t earn at all, then that’s morally reprehensible.
In short American marriage in it’s legal form and cultural pressures is a REMARKABLY one way street at least when we’re talking about a man earning in the upper half on up, all benefiting the woman and burdening the husband. I’m NOT saying that all American marriages are in fact that way. We’re still talking about people here. Many, many American women are in fact great people and loving women, despite the enormous cultural pollution of American feminism.
LikeLike
Men offer financial security in return for THEIR children and frequent and regular sex.
Masturbation > so-called duty sex
Masturbation > all fake orgasm sex
LikeLike
David Alexander–
How would you know? You’ve only fucked one girl once in your life. You are dead ignorant about many things sexual and emotional between the sexes, and fully feminist indoctrinated.
Plenty of arranged marriages turned out pretty damn well, especially when the age difference wasn’t too great (15 years or less is ok if the man is vigorous and not fat). There’s probably at least as much love after say five years in arranged marriages if they meet the above requirements as in romantically arrived at ones.
Resentful sex is indeed shit, but play acting out of duty can very easily turn into the real emotion or a lot of it if the man is by turns tender, lustful and passionate.
LikeLike
American men should wage a marriage strike. Well to an extent they are but it should go viral and become much more pronounced.
Doug, I know a lot of guys who reluctantly, though willingly, got married. They did not particularly llok forward to getting married for all sorts of reasons, but, the idea of not getting married to their respective gf’s and then likely losing said gf’s scared the crap out of them.
In other words, they were confident that this was the best they were going to get. And, I would probably agree with each of them. Granted, they were “betas”.
So, for a full-on Marriage Strike, I believe that more guys need to drastically improve there Game. Without it, they will be very scared of either going completely without sex or only spending time with ugly idiots.
Any sense of female DUTY to husbands, as opposed to children, is just about gone completely in the feminist American cultural form of marriage.
I think that you are right on about this. However, I have seen more and more girls wanting to create a more “old fashioned” home for their families. Especially when it comes to cooking. They still fall far short of what past generations were doing, and they certainly do not feel obligated to perform any duty, but, they do seem to be trying.
LikeLike
I think an end to alimony *with* no-fault divorce is a better solution.
In some “no fault” divorces, someone was definitely at fault for the end of the marriage, but the couple just doesn’t want to go through a lengthy court battle over who was worse and who deserves what.
My husbands and I made our own separation and divorce agreements. We were able to do this because of the ability to get a no fault divorce. If we didn’t have that option, I’d have had to make the legal system privy to much that was not their business.
LikeLike
It’s just about NEVER the woman’s fault or anything she can or should work on or restrain herself about.
I feel like this is issue #1. Women need to take responsibilities for themselves, especially with respect to their feelings. One can control emotions, a lesson taught to boys from a young age and seldom offered to girls. The psychotherapy given to women is just making her feel better, not making her a better person.
It’s a conscious choice. Solid character is forged through hard work, sweat, toil, learning, difficult situations, pain and suffering. Not through “I need to get hot for this guy” and “I need more sweets.” Which do most people choose?
Does an American woman promise regular and frequent sex when she gets married today? HELL NO! The very idea is repellant to feminists. Any sense of female DUTY to husbands, as opposed to children, is just about gone completely in the feminist American cultural form of marriage.
Yes I agree, but this goes back to issue #1. Women are acting like small children when it comes to duty, work ethic, respect, and care — in other words, they’re not doing it. This is a cultural problem, a product of postmodernism. Feminism started in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and women still felt that sense of duty up until the boomer generation.
I absorbed a lot of this cultural garbage from adolescence into my college years, so I speak from experience. I was that self-entitled American girl. Even though I had it really fucking good with a man who is really amazing, somehow that was just not enough.
The modern world is a giant advertisement billboard, one long commercial. You’re watching TV and seeing all the gorgeous people, all their glamorous lifestyles, and all these expensive extravagances. Then you look on your own life, asking, “Why don’t I have that?” while the TV whispers in your ear, “You cannnnn…” Want? Take. Who cares about the consequences?
women who get really hot for a guy tend to stop feeling so hot for him after about four years — unless they’re constantly fighting off challenges for his love and sex.
This is issue #2. The worship of the self. The glorification of the pleasure principle. Individualism. Inability to sacrifice personal happiness for the happiness of others or the greater good. This does not just happen in romantic relationships, marriages, famillies. This happens everywhere. It’s endemic.
If a woman does not have her loins burning all the time she is not “in love.” In that sense, for modern Americans, romantic love is just childish infatuation. I mistook sexual arousal for love the first time it happened to me, too, when I was 13 or 14 years old. That rush inevitably cools off, and we have to keep looking for the next rush. We are armed with the mistaken belief that when we as individuals are pursuing what we want, we can do no wrong. And we’re surprised that we don’t get what we want all the time.
This is a stage people in the past grew out of, because they had to. These days people an stay in perpetual adolescence, partying their whole lives and minimizing duty/work/responsibility and all that boring shit. Subsidized by others, like their parents or “the economy,” they live for the pleasure of the moment. It’s telling that there is no linguistic equivalent of the “mid-life crisis” in other cultures. People idealize childhood and strive to live like children. And really, who wouldn’t want to go back to their carefree childhoods?
And children are slaves to their instincts, their screaming id.
In other words, they were confident that this was the best they were going to get. Without it, they will be very scared of either going completely without sex or only spending time with ugly idiots.
It’s not just about the “best” sexual market value. It is also about how long they have known each other, and how they have bonded to each other. You know how a lot of school friends stay friends for life because they met up while they were young? That kind of bonding is not easily replaced. Young love’s purpose is to bond, and when women throw away this bond because they no longer get super horny for the one they love, they are being devastatingly stupid.
A lot of men can do (as in sexually do) better than their wives — on the surface. My husband can have sex with a woman physically more attractive (to the crowd presently) than me, right now if he wanted to because I wouldn’t stop him. I could probably marry far better than my husband in terms of wealth and status, but why the hell would I go for something like that when I have someone I truly care about, and who truly cares about me? There are so many human intangibles when it comes to genuine love. Choosing a mate only on the woman’s looks and the man’s alphaness is a quick recipe for misery.
So, for a full-on Marriage Strike, I believe that more guys need to drastically improve there Game. Without it, they will be very scared of either going completely without sex or only spending time with ugly idiots.
Game is just another symptom of the childish materialism and pleasure-seeking culture, and it feeds into women’s pursuit of lust. The revelry that the PUA seek to make, the burning in the loins, quickening heartbeats and fleeting feel-good fuck sessions… they are more odes to the worship of the self.
More people need to be mature instead of rushing into some fairy tale marriage with everyday amazing, loin-burning sex and all the time wonderful love and babies popping out to become perfect adults. Marriage is a social contract, and it’s being broken left and right. It’s not just the women’s fault, but women definitely have a big role to play in this grand old tragedy.
LikeLike
Game is just another symptom of the childish materialism and pleasure-seeking culture
Game, for men, is simply showing yourself as a sexual being and being confident about it. That is basically it.
With better game, you get more options. With more options, you are less likely to get married to the first cute-smart chick you bang. And, nowadays, less likely to get married at all.
And women like men who have options.
LikeLike
Oh, BTW, that was well put. Except, I am not so sure I agree that it takes “hard work, sweat, toil, learning, difficult situations, pain and suffering” to build (solid) character.
LikeLike
I am not so sure I agree that it takes “hard work, sweat, toil, learning, difficult situations, pain and suffering” to build (solid) character.
No, it doesn’t take all that to build character. Being a person of integrity and character is a choice one can make, but the choice needs to be tested or else it only exists in the realm of the theoretical.
For example, a man who believes he is honest but who was never put into a difficult situation where he could stand to profit a lot if he lied — how do we know if this man is really honest or if he is just another smooth talker?
Of course, reality is whatever people perceive it to be. Everyone lies, everyone manipulates, everyone plays silly little games… and everyone justifies it. But the world is not black and white, and if we can admit our faults and flaws and try to improve, then we’re choosing a path toward building character.
Game, for men, is simply showing yourself as a sexual being and being confident about it. That is basically it.
With better game, you get more options. With more options, you are less likely to get married to the first cute-smart chick you bang. And, nowadays, less likely to get married at all.
And women like men who have options.
If “game” only involves confidence and sexual projection, then why call it game? Why not just call it confidence and showing yourself as a sexual being? You’re glossing over the parts involving pick-up techniques and conscious manipulation.
In the pick-up world, a man with many choices vis-a-vis hot women and who never gets married exemplifies the pinnacle of manhood, and marriage is some horrible abomination upon nature. Women automatically flock to such men, unless they are low value and can only settle for betas.
Things are not so clear cut, even if you wish them to be.
You can yell high notes about the external world, but if you never turn the mirror on yourself, you will be stuck running in the same place.
LikeLike
If “game” only involves confidence and sexual projection, then why call it game?
That euphemism was coined long ago. It is up to the man to make the approach, get her interested, keep her interested, escalate and close. Call it Game, Seduction, whatever, it doesn’t really matter.
conscious manipulation
Really?
In the pick-up world, a man …
In the pick-up world only PUAs are respected. Whether or not that exemplifies manhood is up for debate. Personally, I think that PUAs are simply reacting to the current environment. And that environment enables them to bed many women with little long-term investment.
LikeLike
UL, we all manipulate. I thought I mentioned that.
Honestly, I have no problems with people engaging in flings for pleasure per se. It is natural and something people throughout history have done. I can understand and appreciate that, unlike David Alexander who says that all short-term sex make him feel guilty.
But some people turn short-term sex into the basis for their entire existence, will break marriages (by definition a long-term deal) to go after it, and disdain oxytocin-based companionate love and favor the rush of dopamine-based passionate love. It is becoming more and more common. Game, regardless of its “usefulness,” is involved in this.
LikeLike
But some people turn short-term sex into the basis for their entire existence, will break marriages (by definition a long-term deal) to go after it, and disdain oxytocin-based companionate love and favor the rush of dopamine-based passionate love. It is becoming more and more common. Game, regardless of its “usefulness,” is involved in this.
I can’t say that I disagree with any of this, but, it may be over-analyzed for me.
Most guys absolutely love short-term sex. And, if it is available to a young man, it may well likely preclude him from even considering marriage. For me, this is a good thing. I think that marriage should be left for those interested in it.
There is nothing like a child being raised in a family where he KNEW that his parents got married and started a family because that is what they really wanted.
And Game is no more guilty in promoting short-term sex than kitchen knives are in promoting violence. Game is simply that set of tools and knowledge that help guys approach girls. It is the girls, ultimately, that decide whether or not short-term sex will be the result.
And, yes, guys will stick with Fun and Exciting as long as they can. Ideally, that Fun and Exciting sex will be available within the confines of marriage. Like you have said before, you find that kink, and you have him hooked for life.
LikeLike
Hope you very often have very wise and rather unusual (in mainstream American chattering culture) things to say. I think what you picked out as the first and second most key points in all I had to say about the current American cultural undercutting of strong and enduring marriages was very perceptive.
You didn’t comment on my contrasting of typical male vs. female adultery, and of their current American partner’s typical contrasting reactions to it — but I’d be fascinate to hear your thoughts. I’d actually be pretty surprised if you didn’t mostly agree with me, though I’d also be surprised if you completely did.
For one thing I imagine you would talk about the downsides of a man being free to completely walk all over his wife in pursuing affairs with impunity, and what that does to her – drawing upon the experience of how your father treated your mother. I did say though that anything remotely close to that is unacceptable and there should be divorce with a big settlement in such cases.
LikeLike
A lot of girls also love short-term sex, but various cultural and religious shackles used to prevent them from engaging in it lasciviously. Left to their own devices and with lowered inhibitions (loose social controls and abundant alcohol), people devolve into a bit of a free-for-all. That’s pretty much what you have in many areas these days.
Most people still want to start families, have children and rear them. But the responsibility of doing so contrasts starkly with the message of “do what you want” and “pursue what makes you happy,” because those things are diametrically opposed to short-term fun and pleasure.
You seem to believe that “game” is a good “tool” for getting guys to approach girls. But again, that’s it. Game seems to be all about provoking the initial romantic lustful feelings (e.g. negging, being mysterious, seeming cocky and arrogant). Yes, you might be able keep that new relationship high and excitement alive for longer with game, maybe even for years. But in the end, if the woman is addicted to the dopamine rush and cannot learn to appreciate the oxytocin bonding, she will need to be gamed constantly. Isn’t that exhausting? And when depleted of her dopamine supply, as she can’t be aroused all the time and will have bad days, won’t she be looking for something else?
What strengthens oxytocin love, or familial and long-term bonding? Not negging, but support. Not being mysterious, but being open. Not being cocky, but the humility to admit to wrongdoings. To cultivate and appreciate that kind of love requires a great deal of maturity and wisdom (not intelligence per se). This is how relationships can last through the trials and tribulations of the years. No, they won’t be perfect, but expecting perfection from flawed human beings is unrealistic (something women are guilty of quite often). “Settling” is an ugly word to modern people.
Maybe you are one of those people happy without long-term emotional bonding, but I can assure you that a lot of people do want it. But they can’t have it both ways — and that is another cultural shortcoming, because puritannical tradition teaches people to not tolerate affairs. The biological truth is that human beings are much like birds, with the usual mating pattern of monogamy and flings on the side. Throughout history this has been the case.
LikeLike
You didn’t comment on my contrasting of typical male vs. female adultery, and of their current American partner’s typical contrasting reactions to it — but I’d be fascinate to hear your thoughts. I’d actually be pretty surprised if you didn’t mostly agree with me, though I’d also be surprised if you completely did.
I do agree with it, and I can see that as a pattern emerging in my own relationships and in others’ relationships. But I think what you see is mostly what happens “in the heat of the moment.” When the woman is actively involved in the affair, she might really believe that she does not love her husband anymore, or that she only has platonic feelings for him, and that she really wants this new man.
Truthfully, what she really loves is love itself, not the new man. She loves the feelings the new man arouses in her, the feeling of arousal and thrill of new love excitement. It is incredibly shallow, fleeting and destructive. It is not a solid foundation upon which to build a relationship, although it’s possible that with time she could also come to love the new man for who he is. But what’s more likely is that as soon as the new man stops giving her the rush of dopamine, she’ll move on and find a new target. The man does not really matter. It’s just a crush turned into a longer fantasy.
My favorite quote when I was 12:
“In her first love, a woman loves her lover. In all others, all she loves is love.” – Byron
I posted this elsewhere on Roissy’s blog:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/toothbrush-game/#comment-5604
For one thing I imagine you would talk about the downsides of a man being free to completely walk all over his wife in pursuing affairs with impunity, and what that does to her – drawing upon the experience of how your father treated your mother. I did say though that anything remotely close to that is unacceptable and there should be divorce with a big settlement in such cases.
As I grow older I get the sense that I inherited a lot of traits from my father, not just his artistic talents but also his predisposition to being unfaithful. So I do speak from experience — shamefully — when I talk about female prevarication in relationships. I am extremely fickle, and a lot of things I preach I don’t exactly practice. I’m still working on it, but it’s been a whole lot easier since I became more open and honest about it with my husband.
I also had a very solid upbringing by my grandparents. Even though my grandfather cheated on my grandmother, had an entire other family by another woman, the two families actually remain on pretty good terms. I’d met them when I was a kid, and I had the sense that there was a deep bond between my grandparents even though there was no sexual attraction. True caring for someone need not come into the picture for people to have sex, but it seems to me rarer than sex. Sex is pretty easy to come by, arousal is, too.
As far as my father’s behavior — it is typical of high testosterone men. I realize that now, from what my mother said about my father having a lot of acne problems. I inherited his high testosterone, too, along with high estrogen. I think the real problem was that he was not self-aware, and he married a woman whom he did not truly love — he married her for her money and looks. He probably was more in love with his lover from college, and even though I know he’s had affairs since then, they are still married today. I didn’t make that particular mistake, though I’ve probably repeated others.
LikeLike
Hope 147–
“Truthfully, what she really loves is love itself, not the new man. She loves the feelings the new man arouses in her, the feeling of arousal and thrill of new love excitement. It is incredibly shallow, fleeting and destructive. It is not a solid foundation upon which to build a relationship, although it’s possible that with time she could also come to love the new man for who he is.”
Yeah, there’s a lot of truth to that. It often takes American women until their in their forties to figure it out though.
Men tend to not get swept up in this nearly as much. They might in the build up of sexual tension and when actually making love but then afterwards, everything changes. The world looks different and far more rational. That’s why the dewy afterglow of sex is far stronger in women than in men. Men are more likely to just enjoy a nice comfortable rest for a bit after so really energetic shagging. Yeah closeness but nothing like the frequent female suffusion of emotion if it was real good.
Those are powerful differences, esp. given the current American interpretation of them, and the essential message that if there’s anything missing in the romantic life of a couple, it has to be either 1) the man’s fault or 2) the natural order of things.
So net net, as much as many women may enjoy short term sexual liasons and not full fledged lover affairs necessarily first before much sexual enjoyment, I still think to the point of being sure that there is naturally FAR more likelihood that really good sex repeatedly with the same partner outside of marriage will pull REALLY strongly on her emotions most of the time, esp. if there is any way he could in fact be a replacement husband.
Not saying it can’t be done, just saying the tendency is much stronger for women.
LikeLike
Not saying it can’t be done, just saying the tendency is much stronger for women.
Yes. So given this, why would you advocate open relationships?
LikeLike
I don’t advocate truly open relationships — I think there need to rules, some crucial rules, to work, and even then it’s probably only for a minority, at least in this cultural environment. We are talking about swimming way upstream against the cultural currents. It takes both smart and very independent minded people.
Also I don’t think it’s usually a good idea to start a relationship this way. Only after you’ve grown very comfortable together and the love / affection is very deep, but the sex is maybe getting stale and you’ve tried various spicing up things not involving other people. Fantasy play may be one. But that fantasy play might involve her playing a “slut wife” or his playing a lothario.
Basically the idea is to have just sex or “fuck buddy sex” but to stop it with any particular sex partner if deep emotions start to develop.
Assuming a good if slowing sex life between the couple, the usual experience is that one or both partners playing outside but avoiding falling in love greatly increases the attraction the partners feel for each other. I.e. the wife usually becomes highly sexualized again including towards her husband, and the man usually desires her all the more.
The idea is also to give each spouse absolute veto power over the other’s choice of play partner, and just as important or maybe more so, over things continuing with any particular partner. It needs to be understood and agreed going in that in all likelihood things will start to go too far whether eventually or as luck may have it right away, for it to be at all good for the marriage for that to continue. If it’s not agreed, really agreed, that the tempted spouse will stop with any one person, or yes the whole outside game entirely if the other spouse asks them to, then they shouldn’t start.
Absolute honesty and full emotional discussion is needed. Yeah that’s easy to say but it has to be the constant ideal. Every meeting with an outside lover has to be discussed just as much in just as much detail as the other spouse wants. It’s almost certainly much better if that’s a whole lot, rather than “i’d rather not know too much.” (Actually I think that can work when women feel that way, but if a man does or accedes to his wife’s wish that he act that way, it’s likely to lead to her falling in love with someone else — due to the sex differences I talked about above and you agreed with.)
I’m not sure this will really work if this doesn’t turn the other spouse on, while probably also making them worried jealous. if they are sure their wife or husband will end something the really don’t at the moment want to end, that makes all the difference in limiting the bad, truly threatening side of jealousy. The good side is that it makes that spouse super horny for his wife again, or her husband. I’m talking about full blow by blow descriptions of a date if the playing is done apart. Some regard that as a big step and want it to only be done together, spouse observing, at first or sometimes always.
It’s a lot safer for each spouse, esp. women, to see several other people rather than just one other.
If people do much of this it’s dead ringer certain that e.g. a wife will have better sex with a lover than she usually does with her husband, or maybe in some ways, in just sex leaving aside the emotional connection side, ever did with him. If she’s had many sexual partners, as in more than say ten that’s probably already true when she got married. Most women don’t marry the very hottest fuck they’ve ever had, both because they want a different balance in a relationship (safer reason) and because he wasn’t willing to marry her (more dangerous reason to have in her head).
Anyway, I could go on and on, but this gives you an idea of what I’m talking about I think.
LikeLike
Hope-
Oh, a dead ringer give away that things are going too far with a particular lover is if while at first seeing him leads to the wife being way more eager for full spectrum sex with her husband than before (as it almost always will if there’s anything left in her romantic attraction to her husband at all), after a while she starts to only want to have sex with that guy, or only penetrative sex with him, whether or not she tries to hide that (she’ll usually be lousy at hiding it). Pull the emergency brake, and pronto!! This is where the rubber meets the road, and what should be very clearly rehearsed and agreed ahead of time. If you don’t think your wife will pull through for you here, then don’t go here. But then would she stay with you anyway? Maybe sometimes yes, if her views on ending marriages were conservative but she’s extremely out of control emotional when all her buttons are pushed. So that’s the central danger for a man to evaluate.
Flipping the script, I can just about guarantee you that if a husband is permitted by his wife to play some outside, as long as she gets to monitor his level of emotional attachment to any other woman, and especially if she wants to hear about it, or see it, and gets jealous/turned on, he will madly want to fuck his wife more too. Yeah if she’s become hopeless fat or otherwise unappealing that will be a lot less, but then he didn’t want to anyway. He’ll still be more likely to want to, esp. in borderline cases.
Unless that is the guy really wants to become a cuckold, as that term is used to distinguish a style from swinging or hotwifing.
LikeLike
In America today feminism has helped make the conditions for extra marital sex great but marriage terrible for men.
Retard, marriage was always fucking terrible for men. The sex was awful, expensive, and you couldn’t permanently dump your wife if you were bored with her. Then you had to deal with supporting kids. Please explain to me how that can be alluring for any man?
You’ve only fucked one girl once in your life.
And she faked her orgasms once, and it was downright pointless to have sex with her when she chose to waste our time faking orgasms. My policy is still to immediately stop sex during a faked orgasm.
In other words, they were confident that this was the best they were going to get. And, I would probably agree with each of them. Granted, they were “betas”.
Maybe given their choices, it would have been better to stay alone. If they needed these women, then obviously these men are weak and pathetic, and deserve their sex free marriages.
I think an end to alimony *with* no-fault divorce is a better solution.
I would also add that child support should be issued as debit cards that are itemized every 6 months until the children are no longer eligible for such support with high price restrictions built-in unless agreed upon by both couples.
Choosing a mate only on the woman’s looks and the man’s alphaness is a quick recipe for misery.
So you don’t engage yourself in marriage, and you simply engage in a platonic friendship with none of the drawbacks that marriage has. One can go bang hot women or chase alphas, but share emotionally satisfying time as friends.
“Settling” is an ugly word to modern people.
Settling is a sign of one’s failure to get what they want.
LikeLike
I can just about guarantee you that if a husband is permitted by his wife to play some outside, as long as she gets to monitor his level of emotional attachment to any other woman, and especially if she wants to hear about it, or see it, and gets jealous/turned on, he will madly want to fuck his wife more too
That makes absolutely no sense. If I choose to cheat on my wife, it’s obviously because she has a defect in her sexuality that has forced me to look for a superior alternative. After experiencing sex with a superior alternative, why would I return to the inferior product that lead me to cheat on her in the first place? At that point, I’d rather get another woman to add to my “collection”.
Besides, if it’s your nature to cheat, then one shouldn’t be involved in any marriage in the first place since it would require breaking marital bonds.
LikeLike
Child support=alimony should be eliminated in all situations except where a man is dumping his wife and kids for another woman despite her happy williness or desire to have sex with him regularly and often and despite her remaining in good shape (or good shape relative to him).
I’d want to and would voluntarily help pay for kids that I agreed to have together and had spent a lot of years helping raise and bonding with. So would most men. Even if she left for some other man or “to find herself”.
But if she does those later things when the two kids are say two and then forget it. I absolutely don’t want to have to pay for them. I’ll start again with a wife who wants me thank you very much, and have kids with her. Let her get some other guy to pay for her kids if she’s gonna actually or constructively leave the marriage (constructively = no or terrible sex or otherwise making life miserable).
The whole human long infancy childhood needing two parents nurturing thing is based on women enticing men with their readily avaiable sexing.
You take that away, and I so much don’t want to pay I feel like bombing sometimes. It’s an amazing rape of Anglosphere manhood, which our pussified beta suckup boy breatheren have helped bring about. Disgusts me.
Me – no kids. Many, many scores of women, and seven or eight more than one year live together relationships, mostly post marriage but a few before. One marriage. Not again in this country under these laws and to a lesser extent cultural conditionings, thank you. (Cultural conditions is lesser extent because there are exceptions and subcultures, but a pre-nup will only take you so far against American divorce law these days, and does essentially nothing re: child support=alimony unless you’re in very rich territory.
LikeLike
You seem to believe that “game” is a good “tool” for getting guys to approach girls. But again, that’s it.
Yes, it is a set of tools for approaching and getting girls, it is not a cure-all.
And, again, Game is there to help with the approaching, escalating and closing. It helps you get the girl, it says little about keeping the girl. And I personally think that is a great thing.
Otherwise, we are talking about Gaming someone from cradle to grave.
What strengthens oxytocin love, or familial and long-term bonding? Not negging, but support.
Lets make this perfectly clear to any girl reading this. NEGGING IS A VERY SMALL PART OF GAME.
Being comfortable in your own skin, confidence, presentation, eye contact, touch, telling your story (hell, telling a story), excitement, variety…this is what makes up Game.
To cultivate and appreciate that kind of love requires …This is how relationships can last through the trials and tribulations of … expecting perfection from flawed human beings is unrealistic …you are one of those people happy without long-term emotional bonding…
All of this stuff happens AFTER the guy approaches a girl, gets her interested, keeps her laughing, builds mystery, escalates the sexual tension and makes an actual date with her. THEN, they can start worrying about how imperfect they might be.
Dopamine, Oxytocin, whatever. It means nothing if you are at home every night playing Madden ’08.
I am actually amazed that we are even debating this.
Until girls start approaching guys at the park hoping that they can make them laugh and get their phone number, guys will need to learn game or pray to God that they get lucky.
LikeLike
Don’t believe the hype. Husbands often have no idea that their wives are cheating because many women are so good at it. Many women simply grow sick of their husbands after being with them for long periods. As a few men here have acknowledged, men are prone to violence and excessive bossiness. This can completely turn a woman off from a man. I fell out of love with an ex boyfriend who was becoming bossy and nagged me to death. Towards the end of the relationship, just picturing his face would make me feel bad.
LikeLike
Chic Noir 156–
“Husbands often have no idea that their wives are cheating because many women are so good at it. ”
Yeah, I agree. Pretty much.
It’s partly that women are way better at emotional play acting and stealth than men are, and partly that men are taught to believe that any good and decent woman won’t cheat by our culture (way more white than even higher end black American culture here I think), and partly because women’s survellance of the possibility of cheating is endlessly supported in American popular culture these days (everyone pretty much consiously knows this much) while a man’s doing the same is viewed in an entirely and very disapproving way: he’s “not respecting her privacy” or “her space”; he’s “being controlling”, and so and so forth. I mean describing the precise same actions of say i) viewing email, IM and other contact records; 2) checking out cell phone records and contacts, and 3) and so on.
I think it’s probably the case that in liberal blue states and areas, women are now cheating in marriages more than men and very possibly a lot more. I DON’T think that’s because men and women have equal internal imperatives to cheat. I still think men far more do, esp. in good on up marriages, but overall too. I think rather it’s because women feel so empowered today in America (and are) and i) it’s always MASSIVELY easier for women to have sex with quite attractive partners than it is for men everywhere and at all times (consensual sex I mean); 2) American divorce punishes men VASTLY more than it punishes women, even when it comes about entirely because the woman not only cheated but became emotionally involved, and even when the husband was ready to forgive and move on, but she was the one who felt she “needed” to end the marriage.
Marriage and divorce in America today is the most unfair and often oppressive to men in human history.
LikeLike
Otherwise, we are talking about Gaming someone from cradle to grave… I am actually amazed that we are even debating this.
Well, I was not necessarily pointing to you specifically, but other men have talked on this site about using it in such a context. So don’t be amazed that we are debating this, because the debate has happened before, with several men agreeing with Roissy that game should be used on women in LTRs and marriages. Since you disagree with that premise, it’s not really you I’m addressing.
It means nothing if you are at home every night playing Madden ‘08.
And don’t be so quick to dismiss the nerds. We geeky types get into long-term relationships, too, in which we play those games together every night. There are more and more girls getting into online gaming these days. Though the chances of a guy meeting a girl playing Madden is slim, plenty of guys are meeting their girlfriends or wives playing online games and doing other things. A friend of mine in Seattle is getting married in September, and she’s missing Warhammer Online’s launch for it…
and gets jealous/turned on
Funny how this works for both men and women, no? It is really wrapped up in the whole “game” thing. It’s basically designed around arousal and sexual feelings. Trouble is, it’s very emotionally turbulent and draining, and usually makes both people nervous and upset.
I think with risks like STDs and pregnancy, sexual experimentation and casual play with multiple people is probably not the best of ideas. But there’s nothing wrong with some good fantasies, which both partners can still imagine and talk about without reserve.
Basically the idea is to have just sex or “fuck buddy sex” but to stop it with any particular sex partner if deep emotions start to develop.
Even with rules, clear boundaries and a stop gap, I still see this as dangerous — playing with fire, so to speak. But we as humans of course adore adrenaline and thrills, not just in romance and relationships but in a lot of other ways. As previously said, it probably could work for other people, but I’m a real play-it-safe kind of person, and extremely conservative in that sense.
Furthermore, I think my past has shaped me to behave in the way that a 45+ year old woman who is about a 5 on the attractiveness scale would act, while my real rating is probably a bit higher — for now. I don’t want to end up old and alone though, and I certainly don’t want to throw away my best friend and companion in exchange for fun and excitement.
Marriage and divorce in America today is the most unfair and often oppressive to men in human history.
It’s ironic that this is the case. Having grown up in a society that still likes to kill off female babies, I find western men, on average, tend to be more understanding, more protective and more romantic in nature. I believe these in part from western men’s greater self-confidence and personal strength. Men in other cultures often oppress their women harshly.
Western men do not often feel the urge to constantly put a woman down, but in their magnanimity and leniency they have allowed their women to have too much — the right to vote, work, to become their bosses… and to leave them in droves. They are treated without much genuine love or kindness, yet so many go back for more. I see this behavior even among women who immigrated recently to America, and it is because their boyfriends and husbands let them get away with it.
No, I’m not advocating blame the victim. The men are really the victims in many divorce cases. Not in my mom’s case, but she fell in love with a man who didn’t return her love. But men usually do love their wives, or else they would not marry.
I do wonder if it has anything to do with the perception across the world that white women (and mixes thereof, for example Brazilian, Argentinian, Israeli) are the most beautiful. Also, there seems to exist the stereotype that a white man who is not with a white woman has “failed” somehow, or is a loser who couldn’t do any better (e.g. got a mail order bride). Do a search for “top most beautiful women,” and you will see mostly white women, too.
Here on this blog men discuss at length the attractiveness of various women, who tend overwhelmingly toward white. There are of course guys with ethnic tastes, but we’re talking about statistical averages. I hate to single DA out, but he posts about his tastes quite often. He, too, has turned his back on black girls in favor of white porn stars.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, but so many men going after a few young, attractive white women is surely going to drive up their self-image and at the same time warping them into the abominations you see today. If a few men will not give the gorgeous white girls the pedestal treatment, other men will.
LikeLike
It means nothing if you are at home every night playing Madden ‘08.
And don’t be so quick to dismiss the nerds. We geeky types get into long-term relationships, too, in which we play those games together every night.
One, geeks play WarCraft, not Madden. Two, I am a programmer, so, I am quite familiar with our kind. The Madden reference was more for the average guy than a particular kind of geek.
Though the chances of a guy meeting a girl playing Madden is slim…
Again, that is my point.
He, too, has turned his back on black girls in favor of white porn stars.
I am not speaking for DA, but a guy who prefers white women over their own race has not necessarily turned their back on that race. If they always preferred white women, then their was no back turning. This may seem like a small semantic issue, but I believe it is an important one.
LikeLike
Oh, one last thing about playing games while you are in a relationship. I don’t believe that we will ever stop playing games. Ever.
And to advise people to stop is not that helpful. For instance, you would then see young women asking their bf’s to propose. But, of course, that defeats the purpose. If she asks, it is not really worth it anymore. So, she does all sorts of things to get him to propose. Some of them are probably positive, some negative.
The more important thing, IMO, is for society to be honest about what it is that we really want. Then, the games would be more honest.
For instance, you might notice that your girl is doing things to get more attention, but, you know that she needs a fair amount of attention, so, you recognize and give it to her (assuming that it is a good relationship). She doesn’t need to feel guilty about pursuing this selfish need/want, and you do not need to resent her for it.
And, of course, the street goes both ways.
But, again, honesty like this has great consequences. Girls would soon learn from everybody that guys prefer to marry (when they marry) girls who are not old, fat and used up. They prefer young, fertile, faithful, fun, sexy girls.
So, games are not going to go away, so, we might as well embrace the honesty.
LikeLike
Hope–
“I see this behavior even among women who immigrated recently to America, and it is because their boyfriends and husbands let them get away with it.”
Yes.
We are are very much social creatures, even the relative lone wolves and independents or rebel leaders (I tend to be the later sort) amongst us. It’s hard to impossible for almost anyone to think completely independently. Feminist and “be a gentleman” (earlier survivals) messages suffuse or media, education and other official culture. What I’m saying is the completeness of the propaganda is mind boggling.
Roissy’s blog is real fresh air. As well, game arose for a reason. It was needed to counteract feminist and English gentleman indoctrination.
In macho cultures it’s very different. The starting point was so different. There’s a reason why extreme feminism has occurred only in the Anglosphere and not in Spain, Italy, Latin America or France. Or even Germany, which is a more mixed bag. I also think the degree of Jewish presence and influence in American culture has been a big part of the completeness and extremeness of feminism’s victory here. Jews have always been at the vanguard of Marxist movements, and feminism is cultural Marxism par excellence. Not just some but most of my best friends have been and are Jewish so no this isn’t heading in THAT sort of direction at all. Hell my ex wife was very secular Jewish. Though everything is individual, I would now make a strong case that the odds on that aren’t very good.
As for white women being the most beautiful, I don’t know. For one thing I think white women are the most various looking — really extreme range. I know that’s a cliche, that every group sees lots of variation in their own group while “all Amerindians look the same”. (Actually I might think that American plains indians of various tribes and within them have a common look and narrow range, I sure don’t think they look like Mayans or like Amazon rain forest indians.)
I probably think Eurasians are the most beautiful. East Asian Euro mix I mean. Hungarian women can be stunning and they often have some Eurasian mix, from, well, those steppe invaders, Huns and Magyars and others. I sure don’t think West Africans women are, and more, I don’t think many non blacks think so either — unless they’re heavily white admixed that is, sometimes. Haley Barry for example, who I think is cute and hot enough looking but really no stunner, is more than half white. You want to really go ugly racially though, consider Australian aboriginies. I have never in my life seen any aborigine woman who was at all close to full blood who wasn’t dead ugly. Not a single picture. I challenge you to find one. Now if you’re talking 1/8 aborigine or something, yeah she could possibly be very good looking.
LikeLike
I am not speaking for DA, but a guy who prefers white women over their own race has not necessarily turned their back on that race. If they always preferred white women, then their was no back turning. This may seem like a small semantic issue, but I believe it is an important one.
I would guess that as DA was growing up, he did like black women at some point. That might be personal experience projection, since I had schoolgirl crushes on Asian guys when I was growing up, even though I’ve never dated one. Maybe “turning the back” on one’s own race is the wrong terminology to describe one’s sexual preferences for the “other.” Even so, when most men of all races prefer white women, women of other races become essentially the leftovers. Female pecking order is rather brutal and fierce. White women are at the top.
I don’t believe that we will ever stop playing games. Ever. And to advise people to stop is not that helpful. For instance, you would then see young women asking their bf’s to propose. But, of course, that defeats the purpose. If she asks, it is not really worth it anymore.
Why wouldn’t it be worth it? When two people are getting married, it’s a pretty big life decision. Why not make it together? I have tried the games thing, i.e. trying to make him read my mind, and let’s just say that has a pretty high failure rate. My husband has said he’d like to marry me, but never proposed formally. So I said do it around this Christmas, then I picked out the engagement ring myself so it would be cheap. Yeah, there was less mystery and guesswork involved, but I don’t think that defeated the purpose.
As well, game arose for a reason. It was needed to counteract feminist and English gentleman indoctrination.
Counteracting the cultural indoctrination is fine, but why not just abandon these things without still taking part in it? Seduction techniques did not just rise in modern America as a response to feminism and gentlemanliness. Men in the past have seduced women with their charms and wiles. There are lines in the Karma Sutra on how to bed married women. Womanizers throughout history are numerous. Pick-up in itself is not new.
But pick-up artists being in a community… that is somewhat new. Most casanovas in the past worked solo. The new PUA community promotes this cult of sexual conquest and tends to objectify women as sexual commodities. Sex is an end goal in itself, and little else. It reminds me of the criticism by the French on American style of sex, that it is like a vigorous physical activity with little real emotion.
The women who respond well to game are seen as unsuitable long-term partners, which is ironic because game is tuned specifically to arouse women and bed them. The lifestyle also endorses all fun, no children and lots of casual sex. This is supposed to be a better alternative to feminism which also supports… all fun, not having children and sexual liberation. It boggles the mind.
If women are to rise above this insidious culture, they need the men’s help. There can’t be virtuous women without virtuous men, and vice versa.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t it be worth it? When two people are getting married, it’s a pretty big life decision. Why not make it together?
Understand, that you are asking me to speak for these girls, so…
The girl wants to be pursued. And, a man getting down on one knee to propose lifelong monogamy and ever-lasting love is the greatest display she will ever get. And something she will tell her mother and gf’s all about.
Contrast that with sitting down with some guy and asking him to propose basically destroys all that. It is basically like asking for a surprise party. Especially if you thought that he might not be that interested in proposing.
My husband has said he’d like to marry me, but never proposed formally. So I said do it around this Christmas, then I picked out the engagement ring myself so it would be cheap. Yeah, there was less mystery and guesswork involved, but I don’t think that defeated the purpose.
He said that he wanted to marry you..score one for Hope in that game. That is the point. You knew that he wanted to marry you, that is gratifying and satisfying. But, if you need to ask some guy who is simply dragging his feet, or, worse, is uninterested…well, it isn’t the same.
Men in the past have seduced women with their charms and wiles. There are lines in the Karma Sutra on how to bed married women. Womanizers throughout history are numerous. Pick-up in itself is not new.
Yes, a few guys talked about pick-up over the many years, but it basically had zero effect on those societies in general. Fairly formal practices were in place, almost everywhere, for finding and getting a spouse.
In the West, once those things completely broke down, Game rose up. Because Guys needed it.
The new PUA community promotes this cult of sexual conquest and tends to objectify women as sexual commodities.
Men have always objectified women. it was never that big of a deal because they could only get so far with it. For sex, they needed to marry. So, you better act like a gentleman if you want a quality girl. Now, we can objectify women and, well, it actually helps you.
When a young man, now, sees girls as very sexual beings and takes the attitude that he is disinterested in long-term relationships, well, this helps him…instead of hurting him.
The PUAs are reacting to the mating market, not creating it themselves.
The lifestyle also endorses all fun, no children and lots of casual sex.
Baloney. Three of the biggest names in pick-up would be Mystery, Neil Strauss and Lance Mason and these three guys have some very different views on life and love (Hell, some of the Real Social Dynamics guys get all Eckhart Tolle on your ass). Game is simply a set of tools. What each young man does with that set is up to them. Surprisingly, young men gravitate toward short term, fun and exciting sex with hot girls. It is available, so they grab it.
If women are to rise above this insidious culture, they need the men’s help.
Ba-fucking-loney. You take the hottest broads, or, even, better than average looking women, and have them as teenagers decide that they are going to live very traditional lives (i.e. few lovers, if any, outside of marriage, children and raising a family) and you will see the men line up for them.
Whenever you see some traditional religion gaining steam (Islam, Church of Latter Day Saints, etc) it is almost always young men who jump on the bandwagon.
All of this is just a long way of saying that Men do not create the mating market, they react to it. This is why, I believe, you see so many male dominated societies that look to prevent women from pursuing their own choices in romance. In those case, they are trying to control and, therefore, make the market.
Let me just wrap this up by saying this: imagine Pam Anderson or Elle MacPherson or Christie Brinkley or Jessica Alba or all of them said, out loud, as young women…she will only have sex within the confines of marriage, what do you think the reaction would be? Do you really think that they would have a hard time getting suitors? To a lesser degree, this will be the same for other attractive women as well.
LikeLike
But, if you need to ask some guy who is simply dragging his feet, or, worse, is uninterested…well, it isn’t the same.
If that is the case, then they shouldn’t be getting married to begin with. Like I said, game is not a solid foundation. If a woman has to goad a man into marrying her with specific games, it’s not exactly a good thing.
Now, we can objectify women and, well, it actually helps you.
Sure, helps you get laid. Unfortunately, human beings do need more than just getting laid, even though it’s a very real need. But there are other needs that aren’t being met. I see a lot of miserable and unhappy people who behave in a certain way because it is the only way they know.
Game is simply a set of tools. What each young man does with that set is up to them. Surprisingly, young men gravitate toward short term, fun and exciting sex with hot girls. It is available, so they grab it.
It is not simply a set of tools, because eventually these become a part of a person. A PUA with game is not the same as men who do not game. The choices one makes define a person, and the gamester is choosing this lifestyle. The way they behave is morally objectionable, yet you still seek to justify it.
All of this is just a long way of saying that Men do not create the mating market, they react to it. This is why, I believe, you see so many male dominated societies that look to prevent women from pursuing their own choices in romance. In those case, they are trying to control and, therefore, make the market.
Actually, a lot of those mating markets are controlled by the elderly in order to achieve structure and order in society. This prevented both men and women from pursuing their own choices in romance, which were often foolish. As has been pointed out previously, human beings are slightly monogamous and slightly polyamorous.
If men had their own choice all the time, they would also cheat and get sex in any way they can. In the book Predictably Irrational, it gives this example: about a quarter of the respondents who are in a sexually excited state would slip a drug to get a woman to increase the chance that at sex.
Sexual liberation was welcomed with open arms by a lot of men. You see plenty of men buying into the “slut” culture, buying up Girls Gone Wild videos, picking up game to get into women’s pants, etc. The older people who are supposed to be wiser and guiding the younger generation are no longer providing any rules or instruction. So we have this situation: we are doing what we want, but male-female relations are falling apart at the seams.
Do you really think that they would have a hard time getting suitors? To a lesser degree, this will be the same for other attractive women as well.
They would have had zero trouble getting suitors, just like the beauties of older days did not. But we’re not talking about those days, because the old structures and traditions are gone. Those virtues are lost in contemporary society.
Today there are plenty of women who will have sex outside of marriage. If those beautiful women would not, there are other beautiful women who would. How many men would, in this society, marry a woman who refuses to have sex with him before marriage?
That’s pretty much why I said what I said. You can read between the lines and see why I referred to “virtuous men and women” and needing their help. I don’t necessarily think we need a total return to virginity before marriage, but the current state of affairs is rather bleak.
LikeLike
DA 153
“That makes absolutely no sense. If I choose to cheat on my wife, it’s obviously because she has a defect in her sexuality that has forced me to look for a superior alternative.”
The dimensions of your cluelessness never cease to amaze me. I don’t actually consider you worth responding to per se, you’re that hopeless. It’s more that I’m talking to other people who may read this.
(As for yourself I suspect the only thing that might work is testosterone or other androgen shots. Seriously.)
Believe it or not being with a hot woman who really loves you, esp. when combined with other successes in your life, tends to make high sex drive men MORE rather than less interested in sex with other women. Now he’s also gonna be real afraid of losing his really good thing and so often won’t act on these increased desires, but I’m talking about what he’ll feel.
Women simply cannot understand this. Or anyway, it’s difficult for them and it takes lots of convincing, but it’s absolutely true. Men are simply polygamous in their desires to the the extent they have a high sex drive, or circumstances and their experiences increase their sex drive.
Let’s say a married guy fucks a hot slut at a party on the sneak tip or meets her there and hooks up with her a day or two later. By your lights he’s not gonna want to have sex with is wife after that for awhile, right. I guaran-fucking-tee you he’ll be hot as hell to fuck his wife afterwards.
I don’t recommend cheating, I just giving an illustration that’s within more people’s direct or at least indirect or cultural experience.
LikeLike
If that is the case, then they shouldn’t be getting married to begin with.
Right, but that is part of the point. She can help judge his interest with some simply “games”. She does not need to show her hand and possibly leave herself vulnerable or devastated. Here, a few simple games can be harmless and effective. And, in that example, you are right, they should not get married.
Sure, helps you get laid.
Which is extremely important to young men, A Simple, Primal, Soul-Possessing Need.
Unfortunately, human beings do need more than just getting laid
Except for those lonely, frustrated men. Getting laid is the first step to wellness for them.
It is not simply a set of tools, because eventually these become a part of a person. A PUA with game is not the same as men who do not game.
It is no more, or less, a part of a person who learns to dress with some style as an adult. It is no more, or less, a part of a person that gains confidence in adulthood. Or gains confidences because of his newly successful career.
The way they behave is morally objectionable, yet you still seek to justify it.
Just because YOU say it is objectionable does not make it so. Let’s go back to those three examples given earlier: Mystery, Neil Strauss and Lance Mason.
Mystery was still a virgin at 25. Neil said that he was constanly around musicians and groupies and said that his ability to get a girl was basically zero. Lance, I believe, also expressed that he had basically no idea how to approach or talk to girls. I used to listen to these set of podcasts that were interviews with PUAs and their stories are almost always the same: Cluelessness.
Men must do the approaching (and that is only the first step). You fail at this (and most men do) and you are likely to either be lonely and frustrated or resentful. The problem for many girls is that the knowledge that is spread by PUAs is so good. It works. And the young men take advantage of this. It is perfectly natural for a young man to pursue exciting sex with hot girls. Throughout human history, women were the gatekeepers of their sexuality. Now, they watch MTV, drink beer at frat parties and give it up so freely. And the guys who partake are not morally objectionable.
Also, most PUAs are really honest about it. One of the reasons for this is that honesty in this area HELPS you get laid. Most girls are intrigued by a true “player”.
Actually, a lot of those mating markets are controlled by the elderly in order to achieve structure and order in society. This prevented both men and women from pursuing their own choices in romance, which were often foolish.
Right. And, in most cases, these elders that controlled things were men. Either way, young women were allowed few choices.
If men had their own choice all the time, they would also cheat and get sex in any way they can. In the book Predictably Irrational, it gives this example: about a quarter of the respondents who are in a sexually excited state would slip a drug to get a woman to increase the chance that at sex.
Except for all the men that had sisters and daughters. In te past, they did not react so kindly to cads and philanderers. Remember, Casanova lived his life on the run. Men love to inflict order and justice.
Sexual liberation was welcomed with open arms by a lot of men.
For anyone who is old enough to remember the height of the culture war, or willing to look back on who was screaming during the 60’s and 70’s, it was men who were crticizing the sexual liberation. Yes, I know that many hipster guys thought it was groovy, but almost all examples in real life and pop culture show men yelling about these new loose morals. Now, young men were quite different. Young men absolutely love sluts. Women of all ages still hate them…but they championed feminism.
…because the old structures and traditions are gone. Those virtues are lost in contemporary society.
We get the traditions and structures that we ask for.
How many men would, in this society, marry a woman who refuses to have sex with him before marriage?
Pam Anderson (or any of the other examples) didn’t need many, she just needed one. And she would have had plenty. I think about my High School class (which actually did not have that many pretty girls) and any of those cute girls could have easily gone down the traditional path and have done just fine. But, few, if any, did. We get the culture we ask for. Right now, we are living in the culture given to us by the boomers. And, in my opinion, they have a lot to answer for. Once the Boomer culture took over (mid to late 60’s) absolutely everything went to shit.
I don’t necessarily think we need a total return to virginity before marriage…
Neither do I. But, until society in general starts speaking honestly about what is blatantly obvious, the games will be much worse than they need to be.
LikeLike
Just because YOU say it is objectionable does not make it so.
I know a lot of other people, men and women included, who find that kind of thing objectionable. Anyway, it’s clear that we won’t see eye-to-eye on the game issue, so I’ll chalk that up to my and my husband being out of the loop.
LikeLike
Hope 162–
“The women who respond well to game are seen as unsuitable long-term partners”
That’s not true at all. It is true that girls who are too slutty are (absolutely correctly, contrary to feminist dogma) seen as being unsuitable long term partners.
Game is basically a way that guys who would otherwise be lower alpha or higher beta can get a lot more girls and/or have a lot wider choice and excite that choice more.
When you are distressed about game not answering all that’s wrong between the sexes in America Hope, you are of course right. But it’s not a negative there, it’s a positive.
Look the real problem is what girls tend to find most attractive in guys. Most people DON’T think it’s a problem that male looks turns out to be a lot less important than girls themselves say it is — most think that’s rather a good thing. Most don’t think it’s a problem that girls tend to be drawn to leaders, or guys with power, or high status or money. The money thing is a cliche it’s so well known, and is actually over emphasized. Celebrity and status are really much bigger pullers of the hottest chics.
The problem comes when it turns out the biker or minor gansta guy pulls in hotties like flies. The problem comes when a guy with an only somewhat above average job who’s really rather a bastard to women, a whole succession of them, out pulls say a lawyer or a doctor who makes three times as much scratch, has lots more (if not really exalted) status, and is a nice guy to boot.
Think of game as helping that doctor or yeah lawyer guy seems a lot edgier and sexier to the hotties Hope. That in large part is what it is about — being able to compete with the bad asses not just at ring time, but during playtime dating game as well (which can also help keep marital heat up – she knows she’s got a live one, not just a “good catch”.)
LikeLike
Hope, men must do the approaching, therefore, they learn game. The fact that they can esily get sex from many different women is NOT their fault. They are simply following their innate biology.
Celebrity and status are really much bigger pullers of the hottest chics.
Right on. All anyone needs to do is simply look at any list of the Forbes or Fortune 500 and see that it is a small minority of wealthy men that have trophy wives. Most of those guys, who are basically hated by feminists as being red-blooded, soul-crushing capitalist pigs, actually do exactly what the feminists want: they go for intelligent, high achieving women.
Doug, you are absolutely right about the doctor and lawyer, but, the problem that Hope has is that Doctor continues to date, and date and date instead of marry…because he can.
Again, I will reiterate, let’s leave marriage and family for those that really want it.
LikeLike
@David wrote
“< < > >
I would also add that child support should be issued as debit cards that are itemized every 6 months until the children are no longer eligible for such support with high price restrictions built-in unless agreed upon by both couples.”
Debit cards wouldn’t work well in the cases of women who don’t shop at supermarkets and malls and such, unless they have to. We’re not all suburbanite slaves of “The Beast”.
I think that a guy should however, be able to have his ex audited if he feels the money isn’t being spent properly.
If I was sending my *parents* money for a sick or disabled relative, I’d want to make sure the money was being spent properly. If I suspected they wouldn’t, I’d ask to see receipts.
LikeLike
@Lurking, I agree, but with an addition…
Here in Israel we have a problem that people are very ethnically divided. They will all, from their respective groups of Jews and Arabs say that they are not racist…that it is just more suitable and less of a hassle to marry/date within one’s ethnic group.
However, what gives them away is that almost any and all of them are willing to *shag* someone of a different ethnicity. Given the chance, they’d easily and without remorse, manipulate and lie to a woman of a different ethnicity, to get sex, with the idea that these women want to be exploited, by virtue of being different.
“They should know better.”
So whenever I’m confronted with this kind of mentality, I don’t fight it, because after a few times with guys from different ethnicities, I do know better. So I have no problem with guys who believe that they should only commit to someone within their own ethnicity…so long as they stay away from me.
People who don’t want to marry or don’t want commitment should not exploit people who do. To do so is the psychological/emotional equivalent of date rape. Though you’re not beating them senseless first, you’re basically drugging them with their own PEA.
So players should stick with other players, and leave love and possible family life to those capable of it.
LikeLike
let’s leave marriage and family for those that really want it.
IOW, not really too different from what is happening right now.
When you are distressed about game not answering all that’s wrong between the sexes in America Hope, you are of course right. But it’s not a negative there, it’s a positive.
I don’t have the answers. Still, I think game is just the fuel that adds to the already burning house of cards.
Think of game as helping that doctor or yeah lawyer guy seems a lot edgier and sexier to the hotties Hope.
People are strongly attracted to the negative which has “sexy” connotations, I don’t deny this. I don’t think of a guy doing that as using “game,” and that’s probably a semantic thing.
For example, guy being more dominant, or kinky into the BDSM scene, or approaches women and flirts with them, is not the same as a serial seducer or pick-up artist. My boss flirts with women, and he’s even married. But he’s not a PUA. The pick-up artist I dislike is one who picks the way of the “game” to get laid — that’s his only goal.
I have no problem with guys being sexual, confident and exciting. Not every guy wants to just have short-term sex as his end goal. Even my husband who did sleep around a lot in his younger days did not intend to have sex with women, use then discard them. The difference is intention.
I don’t hate all aspects of “game,” just that particular aspect.
LikeLike
Nicole–
Why not just end state coerced child support entirely?
In the case of pregnancies outside of marriage, the woman could always have an abortion (which I advocate for almost all unplanned pregnancies) or give the child up for adoption. All of the eight or nine common methods of birth control but one are within the woman’s sole control, and the one that isn’t is a huge pleasure killer, yea appropriate in the beginning but after that if the relationship continues at all …
In the case of a woman with young children leaving the marriage, if she isn’t going to continue being a sex partner and otherwise wife to him, why the hell should she be able to FORCE him to pay a HUGE portion of his after tax income to her as combined child support and unnamed alimony? It’s outrageous. Those kids will never fully be his, and some other man is likely to really become more important in their life — their real or primary daddy no matter what he does. He’s far better off having kids with a new woman, kids that can really be his. Now if the kids are say 14 and 16 when she splits, it’s different and I’d feel differently as I said above, but I still think it should be up to him.
Maybe women would just have to marry more wisely, and stick around, if they want men to be a big part of paying for children. Either that or find a substitute husband right away.
Incentives matter and the current incentives are WAY to titled towards absolute female sovereignty in and after marriage.
LikeLike
“People who don’t want to marry or don’t want commitment should not exploit people who do. To do so is the psychological/emotional equivalent of date rape. Though you’re not beating them senseless first, you’re basically drugging them with their own PEA.”
Too damn bad Nicole. Tell your girlfriends to avoid smooth edgie guys who really know how to flirt and banter. Good luck.
Another way of putting this is it’s actually all the girls’ fault Nicole. Yeah. I mean the competitive field and range of girls and girl behavior in a time and place, aka culture.
Bring back effective shaming of sluts into not being sluts or doing it in deep clandestine ways and in much smaller amounts. Then work on the quasi sluts or girls you’ll get an argument about. And so on.
If you succeed Nicole you’ll have solved your problem.
That’s the only thing that will solve it though. I don’t think even in America you could get a law passed that PUArtistry=date rape. Well, I wouldn’t bet my life savings on that, unfortunately. I do know it would never be enforced enough to make any difference in what you want whatsoever, it would just ruin the lives of a lot more men or an essentially entirely arbitrary basis.
LikeLike
IOW, not really too different from what is happening right now.
No, I still see WAY too many people (guys) getting married because they feel like they need to. They absolutely do not look forward to marriage.
The pick-up artist I dislike is one who picks the way of the “game” to get laid — that’s his only goal.
There are very, very few guys who have “getting laid” as there only goal. And they are little different that those people who simply smoke weed all the time.
…did not intend to have sex with women, use then discard them
How the fuck are they discarding them? First off, if some guy, even a PUA, has an amazing night with some girl, you better believe he will be going back for more. And, if they did not have amazing chemistry, well, should he go back for more?
We are here once again: guys need sex like women will never, absolutely never, understand.
Nobody says that he should have unlimited access, but with todays girls, that is what we basically get.
Lastly, Hope, this is Victim Speak. There is no way that a girl, today, in America, is unaware of what a guy might ultimately be interested in. And, if some guy is playing the game, you better believe that he has not sold some girl on the idea of long term monogamy, only to pull a fast one on her.
If anything, he is more like a rockstar, selling her the idea that he is an exciting guy looking for an exciting time. Now, if those groupies are being “used”, well, that is news to me.
LikeLike
@Doug, I think that state coerced child support is a good thing because it makes it more likely that deadbeats (male and female) will have a paper trail.
If people make their own separation agreements, they can have more flexible terms already. Men need to be careful what kind of women they marry just as much as woman need to be careful.
I wonder how guys managed to fall in love with, or even shag, much less marry these women who end up taking them to the cleaners. Honestly, I could see if it was occasional, but it’s like the norm now…and it’s not like this is new.
Though I don’t like to blame the victim, both men and women are exploiting each other these days, and making stupid choices in partners.
…and the prime culprit is choosing wives based on whore criteria. I doubt most of our grandfathers were worried about whether or not our grandmothers were “hot”.
Sexual, generous, and attentive maybe even beautiful…but “hot”?
There was soooo much more to think about than “hot” in choosing partners back in the day.
Well, hot women take half.
LikeLike
Lastly, Hope, this is Victim Speak. There is no way that a girl, today, in America, is unaware of what a guy might ultimately be interested in. And, if some guy is playing the game, you better believe that he has not sold some girl on the idea of long term monogamy, only to pull a fast one on her.
If anything, he is more like a rockstar, selling her the idea that he is an exciting guy looking for an exciting time. Now, if those groupies are being “used”, well, that is news to me.
Did I say that she is the victim? No. Using someone for one’s own pleasure is using another person as a means to an end. That person is not an end unto him or herself.
It’s a lot like the women who use men as emotional tampons or piggy banks. The men consented to it, too, but that does not make the situation any more palatable.
That is what I respond to with disgust. I don’ think there is a “victim” or “perpetrator” in the scenario, as everyone participating had a part to play. I think you forget that I hold women responsible for their own behavior, as well.
The PUAs and the sluts embrace each other, but it doesn’t mean I have to like seeing any of it happen. That is of course my personal opinion, and it’s unlikely to affect anything.
LikeLike
Given the chance, they’d easily and without remorse, manipulate and lie to a woman of a different ethnicity, to get sex, with the idea that these women want to be exploited, by virtue of being different.
Well, Nicole, that is outside of Game. That is something else entirely. A subject worth talking about, but, currently, not really addresses in this thread.
So players should stick with other players, and leave love and possible family life to those capable of it.
That is basically what I am saying.
LikeLike
@174 Doug, I’m not proposing legal involvement. I’m just calling a spade a spade.
Using deceit to get sex or associated benefits is ethically wrong. It’s wrong when a guy steals sex he’s not entitled to, and it’s wrong when a woman steals sperm she’s not entitled to.
You can’t have it both ways. If it’s wrong for a woman to use a man’s genetic material without his permission, then it’s wrong for a man to use a woman’s body without her fully informed consent.
So with your attitude, Doug, you really have no place to be complaining about child support. Just shut up and pay up.
You play, you pay.
LikeLike
Nicole,
Are you seeing what I’m seeing? Because while I agree that Arab men will nail Jewish girls–and are free to nail them–Jewish men are not in a position to meet traditional Arab women, nor are they really free to “date” “liberated” young Arab urban-dwelling women of the type who clog Jaffa and Haifa. One still has the problem that she goes back to her village in Galilee and her family each weekend or vacation and the pressure there to date only Arab men, plus the possibility of a Hamas/Jihad honey trap. The only time I dated an Arab woman in Jerusalem (after making damn sure she really WAS Israeli from Haifa) she turned out to be after my money. Non-Jewish women in Israel seem to be looking for Jewish men as stable, non-traditional-non-women-confining, “Western” providers.
I imagine if you’re talking about ethnic boundaries WITHIN religions (like Circassian Muslims dating Arab Muslims or Armenian Christians dating Greek Christians, Catholics, or Ethiopian Christians) your “f*ck but not date and not marry” holds true. But dating “The Enemy” goes only one way, because only one side uses personal ads as a lure to cut a man’s b@lls off and riddle him with bullets.
LikeLike
@Lurking, sorry I didn’t make it clearer…what I’m saying is that sexual exploitation is exploitation whether it’s justified by race or by gender.
Nobody asks to be exploited by existing. Nobody asks to be deceived just because they fell for it. If that’s the case then a woman who shags and/or marries a guy for money, while he thinks it’s for love, is equally justified.
LikeLike
Did I say that she is the victim?
It certainly sounded like Victim Speak to me, but, I will leave it at that.
Using someone for one’s own pleasure is using another person as a means to an end.
If you are having sex with someone and NOT looking to maximize your pleasure, you are doing something wrong. Maximizing your own pleasure need not get in the way of having some, or much, thought for the other.
However, during a night of wild and mindless sex, you should not be doing that much thinking in the first place.
It’s a lot like the women who use men as emotional tampons or piggy banks. The men consented to it, too
They absolutely did not consent to the Alimony and ridiculous Child Support with fucked up Visitation “Rights”, but, for the beta-bitch bf’s, “yeah”.
Remember, the only difference between the PUA and your typical guy going out looking to meet exciting women is the difference in results.
I will say it one last time, the PUAs did not create the environment in LA, Miami, Austin, etc. that young women flock to…they have simply reacted to it.
When you go to Grand Forks, ND you find very few PUAs, and few girls who enable them. The men, there, are simply reacting to there environment.
LikeLike
Eurosabra, I don’t know where you live, but in Haifa in particular, we have a pretty big population of Russian and Ethiopian and American Christian, Bahai, and other foreign non Jewish immigrants and children of mixed marriages.
Jewish guys treat Russian Christian women like the dirt on their shoe, and Ethiopians even worse. As an American, they treat me somewhere between an Ethiopian and a Russian. They’re not scared I have AIDS on sight, but they would mostly never consider a serious relationship with me. My daughter has the same problem if guys find out she’s not Jewish, though she’s still very young and not dating yet.
I actually am considering starting a dating agency for American guys, specializing in non Arab and Liberal Arab Christian woman here.
As long as they live here, they will never get the kind of respect they deserve, no matter how beautiful and no matter how worthy they are.
LikeLike
Heheheh…I wonder if save-a-shiksa.com would be too offensive?
LikeLike
Nicole 176–
“If people make their own separation agreements, they can have more flexible terms already. ”
I’m sorry, but not just this quote but pretty much the whole post it appears in is garbage. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Pre-nups can affect property division in a divorce to a large extent, but they can do very little to affect child support=alimony. Well, if a man agrees to pay MORE than the outrageous after tax percentages which American domestic relations courts following feminist created formulas extract from professional men on up especially (but it’s bad for middle middle class men too) that will, natch, be fully enforced, but if the woman agrees to less and changes her mind come divorce time, the guy is shiite out of luck. Except to some degree in cases where he’s making huge scratch, like a million or more a year, then the percentage can be agreed down, to an absolute number that still really high. But that’s a tiny part of the male pop.
As for the right sort of woman, the loving not so hottie, not in the end using the divorce court system to get all or almost all she can, yeah that sometimes does happen. Women don’t always take it to the absolute max they could (which is obscenely far). For example, if a woman claims on no evidence that her husband has been regularly physically theatening her and she’s deathly afraid, and it’s completely made up, she can get him thrown out of the principal residence often right until the divorce is final and she ends up getting the house. All women could do that but most don’t.
But when it comes to the property settlement, often a period of alimony as well, and child support=alimony, most women do go for the gusto, no matter how nice they are or loving (as opposed to just sexy hot) they once were to him. That’s why lawyers tell their female clients to never talk to their husbands after they start down the divorce road. As in they say it again and again, bolstered with horror stories (rare cases that aren’t explained as being rare). The sisterhood will urge her to get all that’s coming to her, and will do that all the damn time, every time she talks to them. Well, uusually there’s a grace period when she’s brand new to the divorce process before they’ll start up, but after that they well. Oh and to be sure, THEY will all say to do everything, absolutely everything through her lawyer and nothing directly as agreed with her husband.
Only exception might be child custody, child care sharing arrangements (NOT child support money.)
But hey, if there are no kids and the guy either made little money during the marriage, or she made about as much, then yeah divorce might not be a rape at all. But most of the time especially in marriages that last more than a couple of years and that occur when the guys in his thrities or 40s he will be making a lot more than her (women marry up and if they can, often want to emphasis job fullfillment and rewards and balance job and life, rather than making the most they can, while he’s expected to pretty much max out his earnings potential among the range of options near at hand to what he’s been doing.
LikeLike
Of course that’s true about the Russians. They are, however, stereotyped as harsh, money-grubbing social climbers, so my experience is that Israeli-Jewish men outside arsim and Alpha Males are TERRIFIED of Russian women. The mistreatment tends to be class-based, i.e. poorer, less-assimilated Russian women are poorly treated by poorer Israeli-Jewish men. I don’t know ANY office-job, 10-years-in-the-country, Hebrew-fluent Russian woman who takes ANY lip (never mind $#^!) from Jewish men, relationship-wise. So I think stringing someone along does take place, but I can’t see it as “ethnic-specific”. It occurs within the context of a society traditional enough that there is an unspoken implication of marriage if you date long enough. So no one is going to date a “stranger” long enough, and very few (5% intermarriage rate) are going to intermarry, and mainly that is Jewish women who are willing to marry into Arab society.
I don’t know if we can separate the ethos of Israeli men from the effects of the abuse, trafficking, and prostitution carried out by Israeli men on Israeli and foreign (Russian, Rumanian, Ukranian, mainly) women. I read your blog entry about being propositioned, and the part about “high” and “low” priced sex work is definitely true. It seems that Israel (like Brazil?) is a “Women = sex class” culture, meaning that paid sex is considered a male right, and attitudes about that bleed into the treatment of foreign women as such.
There is always conversion or Cyprus, I suppose.
LikeLike
Nicole–
“So with your attitude, Doug, you really have no place to be complaining about child support. Just shut up and pay up.”
Rubbish. She’s playing and doesn’t have to pay if she doesn’t want to.
(Also while accidents happen, a lot more non accidents happen than feminists or the Americvan media ever remotely acknowledge. Do you really think that Edwards gf, Reilly Hunter, had an accidental pregnancy. At 43? Just one or two slip ups did the trick at her age no matter how hot she is, did they? I don’t think so.)
I want abortion rights for men too. Why the hell isn’t that obviously fair and right??? Why should only women get them?
Well, I’ll give up the right to order her to abort. I’ll take instead the right to tell her in a timely manner that I elect to forgo the honor of being the bambino’s daddy, including paying for him/her, and she might want to take that into account when she decides whether to abort or “bravely” become a single mom.
Of course if she doesn’t tell me in time for me to tell her in time, well then that’s on her, as it should be and would have to be to avoid massive female manipulation here too.
LikeLike
Doug, I’ve been divorced twice, and have one child from the first marriage.
Neither had or needed a prenup with me.
I declined alimony.
Child support/visitation/custody are flexible and at will. We made up a number, just because we had to, that is equivalent to what the monthly cost of daycare was at the time, and guess what? During periods where he’s have our daughter more than a month, we arranged it so I’d pay him. 🙂
See, I never believed in paper marriage. We only made it legal because otherwise, we wouldn’t have been allowed by the government to live together in peace.
I’m not the enemy, and I’m not talking out of my ass. Get yourself a quality woman, and you don’t have to worry about getting screwed.
LikeLike
Let’s say a married guy fucks a hot slut at a party on the sneak tip or meets her there and hooks up with her a day or two later.
Again, your scenario makes absolutely no sense. Once you’ve had sex with a hot woman, why do I have any incentive to go return to the ugly woman sitting at home? At that point, I’d go out and look for more hot women.
Debit cards wouldn’t work well in the cases of women who don’t shop at supermarkets and malls and such, unless they have to. We’re not all suburbanite slaves of “The Beast”.
Back here in the US, the only way to get Food Stamps is with special debit cards given out by the local municipal or state government, so it’s not unprecedented.
Sexual, generous, and attentive maybe even beautiful…but “hot”?
People were stupid and had lower standards back then. Secondly, since sex was after marriage, sex was a surprise for the couples, and if it sucked, there was no recourse, unless you consider cheating to b a recourse.
Regardless, without being hot, there’s no need to lock her in with a marriage. Instead, you keep the generousness and attentiveness for a platonic friendship.
LikeLike
@Eurosabra, read a bit farther back in my blog.
About 3 years ago, after my last marriage went bust, I met a very “nice Jewish guy” who lived in Jerusalem online.
He’s from a fairly well established family but they’re fairly liberal. Nobody had a problem with me being there when I visited the one time…no yelling and screaming and such after his little nephew wandered into his flat the morning after.
Anyway, we’d talked for a year online. I asked him repeatedly whether or not my not being Jewish would affect any aspect of our relationship. He said no, not at all.
So we started seeing each other after a year. I’d visit him, and he’d visit me…and one day at about the end of Shabbat, when it was time to leave the hotel, he reveals that although this was all very nice, he can’t have a serious relationship with me because I’m not Jewish.
Immediately, I went cold…I felt like I’d just shagged the Grand Wizard. After that, I walked him to the bus stop, but I couldn’t look at him or touch him. I just sent him off and continued home.
The next morning I began to bleed profusely…
It was the first time in my life I’d ever considered having an abortion. I’m not sure if you can understand how I felt, that I’d not only been exploited by a guy who thought he was a good person, but to be pregnant with his kid. Fortunately, God made the decision so I wouldn’t have to.
…and I think God made the right decision. Fertile as I am, that I managed to get pregnant through a diaphragm and careful reapplication of spermicide, the shock of that moment stopped a baby’s breath.
I’m a webmaster and online instructor. He’s a programmer. We’re both from strong, well established families. Neither of us would have to worry about what to eat or where to live, even if we were lazy cocaine addicts like one of my aunts.
So class-wise, we’re about the same. We also both have reasonably religious parents, and just as much flack to take for dating interculturally.
This is what most Israeli guys seem to miss, and this is why it’s racism and not just separatism.
Other people have a culture too…and other people have feelings.
Now, you can deny all you like, but I’ve seen this played out in similar ways with subsequent partners, and with other women who’ve had similar experiences…not poor women or domestic workers…university students and visiting professionals…women who work for the embassy and semiconductor, Google and Intel. Jewish guys aren’t the only ones like this. Arabs are just as bad and maybe worse.
In a business suit, with a laptop, in the eyes of most men here, I’m a whore by virtue of not fitting into their ethnicity, and the probability that the father, brother, or uncle who would beat them to a pulp for disrespecting me is more than 10 km away.
There are a couple of guys here who had better never visit my hometown…but the sweet thing that keeps me warm at night is that they are too stupid and closed minded to get to do that.
I’m happy to let the sheeple stay contented in their pasture.
LikeLike
The best thing society could do for a beta male is to give him a nice 15 year old teen wife.
LikeLike
“I can’t have a serious relationship with you because I have a serious relationship with you.”
This is the way sexual dynamics skew selectivity–women get to be selective at the start, men get to decide to whom they want to commit.
I don’t see how that alters the dynamic much–this blog is, after all, about changing your behavior, and the people you pursue, to get what you want. So you fit in better here than you suspect.
Except that like DA, you seem to be giving up on real live relationships. For the time being, anyway.
LikeLike
@David says
“Back here in the US, the only way to get Food Stamps is with special debit cards given out by the local municipal or state government, so it’s not unprecedented.”
So you’d rather your ex buy stuff for retail at a place that accepts debit cars than to maybe save the both of you some money and go to a thrift store, farmer’s market, or buy somehow else off the grid?
I prefer deposit to a bank account. Then there’s some flexibility at least.
Maybe a full feature debit card that he/she can withdraw cash with, and they can account for it with receipts.
I don’t know…It just seems so much simpler not to marry or make babies with shady women.
LikeLike
@Eurosabra, I think I do fit in pretty well here…much better than in the poor me women’s communities. Heartless Bitches is one of the few women’s communities I felt okay in, but even there, sometimes they’re a little more misandrist than men in most men’s communities are misogynist.
So for balance of perspective, I often find myself among men…funny that.
I haven’t really given up so much as I’m taking a break. I understand that the kind of guy I’d like to spend time with is in very short supply in Israel…and since they’re not going to change, I have to adapt and survive.
Surviving may well mean that I’ll have to keep it closed until I leave. It’s a much better choice, in my opinion, than continuing to stare into the abyss.
LikeLike
However, during a night of wild and mindless sex, you should not be doing that much thinking in the first place.
You still don’t understand.
It’s not too difficult to understand that men want sex, and lots of it, and with a variety of different women. If you think that I don’t know this, I’ll clarify that I do know and understand sex differences. I studied biology and psychology extensively, as my mother tried to get me to go to med school, and both of my parents were doctors.
For women, mindless, emotionless sex is often subpar. The brain is the biggest sex organ for a woman. Women who can get extremely turned on without any psychological stimulation are the outliers. The best and wildest sex women usually have is with someone they are deeply in love with.
When you go to Grand Forks, ND you find very few PUAs, and few girls who enable them. The men, there, are simply reacting to there environment.
Saying that they are “simply reacting to the environment” is a terrible justification in any moral debate. I had expected better.
The women who divorce their loving supportive husbands act immorally by taking advantage of the no-fault divorce laws, and so are the pick-up artists who act opportunistically in a morally debauched social context.
The moral person with character and integrity would look at the situation and declare, “Just because everyone else is doing it does not mean I want to or should participate.”
Using someone as a means to an end is immoral according to classical ethics. This is a tenet in moral philosophy, Kant’s categorical imperative, second formulation:
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.”
A utilitarian would say that murder is wrong because it does not maximize good for the greatest number of people. But this would be irrelevant to someone who is concerned only with maximizing the positive outcome for himself. The pick-up artist or the shrewd wife is that person who is only concerned in self-pleasure and self-gain.
Regardless of your opinion of game’s usefulness as a general tool, lots of people (read: not everyone) do use it in emotionally and psychologically damaging ways. Sometimes it becomes physically damaging ways if they do not keep up on STD checks and fail to use condoms.
The intentions behind what these particular people do, to maximize profit for themselves and taking advantage of an already degenerate situation, are contemptible. It does exculpate these people to say they are merely being opportunists.
LikeLike
The last sentence should read: It does not exculpate these people to say they are merely being opportunists.
LikeLike
For women, mindless, emotionless sex is often subpar.
Easily understood, and there is also an easy solution to that.
The best and wildest sex women usually have is with someone they are deeply in love with.
Again, fair enough. And, again, there is a very easy solution to this.
Saying that they are “simply reacting to the environment” is a terrible justification in any moral debate.
I am not saying that because something is allowed, it is moral. What I am saying is that it is Men who flock to the Dakotas, Alaska, Idaho, etc. Big Sky country and men doing manly things. And traditional morality reigns supreme in those places.
It is women who flock to LA and Manhattan, the most cosmopolitan places they can find. And it is here that the PUA does best.
Game will help any man talk to any woman almost anywhere. But, it will get him farthest in those cosmo places and in those places he will damn near NEED it.
So, I am not saying that PUAness is the way of the (moral) master, but, again, it is simply a set of tools. Tools which, now, enable him to sleep with many, many women in cosmo places. And, nowadays, almost everywhere is a “cosmo” place.
…and so are the pick-up artists who act opportunistically in a morally debauched social context.
Hope, those newly divorced women are breaking a promise they made before God and Family and then use the State to rape their husbands.
Those PUAs are having consensual sex. These two things are worlds apart. Again, I should probably stop calling them PUAs, but rockstars. That is basically what they are doing. But, they don’t play music.
They are no more or less reprehensible than some rockstar who get with groupies. Now, we might think of the rockstar as childish and the groupie as slutty, but the rockstar is not necessarily immoral.
Using someone as a means to an end is immoral according to classical ethics.
Hope, I met this really cute girl the other day and we started kissing. No date, no marriage, just some talking and kissing. It was just the other day, but, we have not hung since. And I have absolutely no idea where it will go from here. Did either of us use the other? Means to an end?
If so, we should both go to Hell.
The pick-up artist or the shrewd wife is that person who is only concerned in self-pleasure and self-gain.
In your example, the murdered victim did not consent, otherwise it would be some sort of assisted suicide (another debate).
Again, the rockstar put on a show and a girl wanted to play with him. Now, if at any point she said “no”, than we have a different story.
Regardless of your opinion of game’s usefulness as a general tool, lots of people (read: not everyone) do use it in emotionally and psychologically damaging ways. Sometimes it becomes physically damaging ways if they do not keep up on STD checks and fail to use condoms.
But that has nothing to do with being a rockstar. No more than kitchen knives should be blamed for murder.
The intentions behind what these particular people do, to maximize profit for themselves and taking advantage of an already degenerate situation, are contemptible.
No one is maximizing profit. They are trying to lose their virginity before they turn 30 (i.e. Mystery) or improve their lonely, frustrated lives (Neil Strauss, Lance Mason, etc.).
That is not evil. They are using no one.
They saw that the girls they were attracted to (i.e. the prettiest ones) were going to clubs (or the mall, or market, or park, or wherever) and that without Game they were getting nowhere.
So far, I don’t think you have a problem with that. So, they gained some knowledge about what it is that girls want, put their sexuality on display upfront and gained some confidence (i.e. they got Game).
Again, so far, I think that you have no problem with this.
Soon, they got laid. (Again, you, no problem). Then they got laid again (Again, for you, this is not a problem). Then again, and again and again.
This is where you have a problem. The problem is that Game works so well. And it just doesn’t work on “bitches” and “ho’s”, but on almost every girl (at least the grand majority of the Bell Curve).
I could be wrong, but the only recourse I see for girls is to return to some basic traditional views on sex. Men have never changed their view on sex, it was the girls who changed during the last 40-50 years…and that is when all of these problems started.
LikeLike
@Lurking, if nobody was pursuing commitment, and nobody lied to anybody, then it’s all good.
The problem is when the game includes implied or explicit commitment, and one partner or the other had no intention of holding up their end of the deal. That’s when it’s exploitation.
It’s simply wrong to make promises or implied promises that one can’t deliver. If a woman tells you, “I would like to have a serious relationship at some point, so if you’re not feeling that, let’s end this now, while things are still positive,” then you should walk away if you’re not interested in continuing.
If you don’t want a relationship, and you know they do, just walk away. There are plenty of other fish in the sea.
People who play with other people’s emotions are playing with fire, and they don’t know it.
Everyone has limits. People die over this kind of thing every day. Just because someone let you get away with it, doesn’t make it even remotely okay.
In Christian countries all over the world, even though lots of people have premarital sex, players often find themselves at the wrong end of a baseball bat, knife, or gun for behaving with such dishonor.
An old friend of mine got stabbed more than 20 times by someone’s brother.
It’s not just that players who go too far hurt other people. They hurt themselves far more in the long run, and every once in awhile, someone gets their bunny boiled.
LikeLike
Usually Lurking 169
“Doug, you are absolutely right about the doctor and lawyer, but, the problem that Hope has is that Doctor continues to date, and date and date instead of marry…because he can.”
Well as I’ve said again and again, I think the availability of sex and lots of it without having to marry is only part of the reason many men are delaying marriage a long time and some men are delaying it a really long time or maybe won’t.
I think it’s most of why guys in their twenties often don’t want to marry. No too many any kind of alpha guys in their 20s do, at least not before the very end of that decade. After that another reason looms much larger because lots of guys even with the alternative of ready sex with many girls in fairly easy succession would like to knock off the chase and focus more on other things in life. (But those same guys would often like to get A LITTLE just sex on the side once it awhile without it being a marriage and divorce theatening occurrence if they are emotionally loving and loyal to their wives, and sex them good too.)
The other reason is how lousy marriage has become for men. That’s partly because of how common divorce is in America and lousy, truly horrible, divorce laws are for men here. That’s also because all the cultural messages in the media (think sitcoms etc) blame all marital problems as overwhelmingly men’s fault, and wherever they do see sex differences the male tendency is wrong and the female one pure and right. The result is if the guy is working 60 yrs a week and the woman is working 30, he’s either still supposed to do half the housework or his wife is just an absolute saint and needs to be treated as such for not completly insisting on it. And so on, and so forth. “All men are dogs” is how we’re supposed to think about men’s far greater desire for a new sex partner once in awhile no matter how good what they’ve got is, for example.
Meanwhile just what are a woman’s obligations to her husband in marriage today, in circles at all touched by feminism and almost all are to a greater degree than people think. Certainly she’s not obligated to have sex. Hell no. Only when she absolutely wants to before it begins. If she doesn’t that much, then that’s his fault. If he doesn’t want to that much, that’s his fault too.
None of this is nearly as true before marriage even in a live together not gonna get married relationship.
American marriage has become an entirely one way street in both legal and cultural obligation. The wife may be fairer than that and most are to begin with, but it’s all up to her. The law and the culture and the bulk of or all her girlfriends all pull in the one way obligation direction.
LikeLike
And I have absolutely no idea where it will go from here. Did either of us use the other? Means to an end?
If so, we should both go to Hell.
I don’t believe in hell, but when I say “using” a person I do not mean just casual sexual contact. I do not see every person going out there looking for dates and sex as using other people, but that’s not it. The intention matters.
This is where you have a problem. The problem is that Game works so well. And it just doesn’t work on “bitches” and “ho’s”, but on almost every girl (at least the grand majority of the Bell Curve).
I am talking about the people who do it for the sake of sex and pleasure and never consider the girls as individuals (for example seducing young and inexperienced girls), taking her to bed even if they don’t really like the girl all that much. It’s a particular breed of men who glory and revel in the pick-up itself, the process and thrill of it.
By the way, the pick-up seduction itself is a predictably irrational thing for men to engage in, because it is an intermittent reward. It’s a lot like gambling — sometimes you get win, and sometimes you lose.
“The intermittent reward system evokes a deep seated response in humans – to compete, to try to do better next time, to find a solution or a pattern to a seemingly unsolvable ‘puzzle’. We are driven to look for patterns in things and to try to solve unsolvable problems.
Getting sex for men is intermittent reward. They can do the same thing over and over again and get different results all the time. Getting sexual compliance from women becomes a puzzle for men, which is why it becomes an obsession for them.”
So a lot of pick-up artists pick gaming women and bedding them as a lifestyle, because it is enticing and gives them the adrenaline rush and thrill they crave.
Those PUAs are having consensual sex. These two things are worlds apart. Again, I should probably stop calling them PUAs, but rockstars. That is basically what they are doing. But, they don’t play music.
You can repeat that men having sex and serially seducing many different women is “natural,” because men are just biologically built differently from women, but the urge to violently beat on people sometimes naturally occur to people, and they usually stop themselves.
You can say once again that the women consented to it and enjoy it, unlike people who get hit. But treating people in such a cold and mercenary fashion out of some “instinct” still seems wrong — to me and some others, but not to you and people who agree with you.
I could be wrong, but the only recourse I see for girls is to return to some basic traditional views on sex. Men have never changed their view on sex, it was the girls who changed during the last 40-50 years…and that is when all of these problems started.
I think women should take responsibility for their behavior. But do the PUAs take responsibility for theirs? Women can and should repress the worst part of their natures, and men can and should repress the worst part of theirs. Not doing so lands us in our current predicament. We have fundamentally different world views, and you have no problem with men doing this seduction thing — because women are the gatekeepers. But who’s banging at the gates?
What I talk about in terms of morality is all in the realm of the theoretical ideal, of course. Defeatism would be we can never live to the ideal, so we shouldn’t even try, and we should just go on the way we are. But striving toward that ideal is what drives human beings ever forward. I fall pretty short myself, so I’m not saying that it’s an easy task, but the fact that we still record and remember these ancient moral philosophies means some people still do think of them as rather important.
LikeLike
Nicole
“In Christian countries all over the world, even though lots of people have premarital sex, players often find themselves at the wrong end of a baseball bat, knife, or gun for behaving with such dishonor.”
And in other cultures women get stoned to death for adultery and honor killed for slutty behavior, with a very low threshold for slutty.
I suspect, actually I know, that the later method is FAR more effective in making sure that iorn clad male committment of sufficient quality is made before female sex is given up. Far less drastic forms of female control are also if not quite as effective, a whole lot more than beating up lotharios.
See patriarchal culture everywhere in and out of the West before birth control and feminism came along.
LikeLike
if nobody was pursuing commitment, and nobody lied to anybody, then it’s all good.
Right on.
The intention matters.
My intention with the kiss was no different than my intention with anything further. And, if the setting and mood were different, I definitely would have pursued.
It’s a particular breed of men who glory and revel in the pick-up itself, the process and thrill of it.
Hope, these guys are few and far between. And, almost all of us pursue younger women, for obvious reasons. And, by virtue of their age, they are likely to be less experienced, on average, than their older sisters.
It’s a lot like gambling — sometimes you get win, and sometimes you lose.
It’s a lot like Hunting or Fishing — sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose.
And you know how much guys love to Hunt and Fish.
So a lot of pick-up artists pick gaming women and bedding them as a lifestyle, because it is enticing and gives them the adrenaline rush and thrill they crave.
Again, with consenting adults, this is no more evil than bungy jumpers. I understand that bungy jumpers don’t add all that much to society, but, as long as they are not hurting anyone…
If you want to argue that PUAs simply don’t add to society, well, no argument here. But, even their, I might disagree (I will leave that for another time).
You can repeat that men having sex and serially seducing many different women is “natural,” because men are just biologically built differently from women, but the urge to violently beat on people sometimes naturally occur to people, and they usually stop themselves.
This is the third or fourth time you have tried to equate consenting sexual relations amongst adults with something very different and obviously harmful. The victim of that “natural” violence did not consent. Nor did the murderers victim, nor the raped husband.
But treating people in such a cold and mercenary fashion
Jesus, God, who is having cold and mercenary sex? I mean, I guess their must be a few, but, fuck, is that what we are debating? Those few, true sociopaths? Men should not pursue sex because this world has some sociopaths?
But do the PUAs take responsibility for theirs?
What responsibility to I have towards that last girl I kissed?
…and men can and should repress the worst part of theirs
I have…I have not gotten in a fight in many, many years. Now, if pursuing attractive women is the worst part of our nature, then, well, i don’t really have anything to say about that.
…and you have no problem with men doing this seduction thing…
“…and you have no problem with men doing this approach thing…”
I am pretty sure the grand majority of the women in the Western world have no problem with men being the pursuers. And then attempting to make them laugh, and raise their interest, and escalate the sexual tension, and, well, you know, be the men.
But who’s banging at the gates?
We are. And that is what women want. Do you really think that women do NOT want to be pursued? Fuck, the most common complaint from most women is that men should have more confidence.
…but the fact that we still record and remember these ancient moral philosophies means some people still do think of them as rather important.
There is absolutely nothing immoral about men pursuing women, and there is everything right about it. What changed, in the modern western world, is how the girls have responded.
you are going to say that we are going around in circles, but aren’t. You keep trying to equate men pursuing women (and being better at it than they used to be) with something obviously evil like violence or murder or, basically, theft. That is you simply hating these guys for being successful at consensual adult relations.
LikeLike
@Doug, before birth control and feminism came along?
If it wasn’t for birth control and feminism, it would be like back in the day when many men would die virgins were it not for prostitutes.
The U.S. would probably be something like a neo Spartan culture by now.
So most beta males who couldn’t prove their worth as soldiers would just do without.
LikeLike
@Lurking, consent requires full information.
You shouldn’t lie to someone about something that could lead to their death, disability, financial ruin, or bringing someone into the world who did not ask to be here.
There’s a big difference between pursuing something, and scam artistry. That you can’t see where that applies to sexuality is exactly why so many men and women get repeatedly and devastatingly burned.
You refuse to see what’s right in front of your eyes.
I had this talk some time ago with a female friend of mine who’s a jerk magnet with too many babies. She asked me how it is that I find so many nice guys, even though most of the ones here have been too weak. It’s very simple. Open your eyes. Don’t use other people, and you’re less likely to find yourself in a game in which you’d be a loser by default.
When you’re running a scam to get something meaningless, you’re wasting time and energy on the wrong thing. Eventually that sort of thing catches up with you. So you think you’re using someone else, but eventually it’s you who gets screwed with your own cock.
LikeLike
You shouldn’t lie to someone about something that could lead to their death, disability, financial ruin, or bringing someone into the world who did not ask to be here.
Sounds logical to me.
There’s a big difference between pursuing something, and scam artistry.
Look, if someone is scamming someone else, you better believe that I am not defending them, nor their ethics.
Again, Consenting Adults. That is what I am talking about. nothing less.
LikeLike
This is the third or fourth time you have tried to equate consenting sexual relations amongst adults with something very different and obviously harmful. The victim of that “natural” violence did not consent. Nor did the murderers victim, nor the raped husband.
I am making an analogy. The mentality I’m criticizing is one that keeps shifting the responsibility away from the self. In the case of the women who are stealing from their ex-husbands, they blame the ex-husbands for not doing anything. In the case of the PUAs, they never stop to examine their own behavior. They don’t seem to realize that they are doing the mirror equivalent of what the “bad women” are doing.
Are these exactly equal? Obviously not, since they are different situations. But they are wrapped up in the same big giant mess in gender relations. The way you make it sound, it’s as if people should just keep doing what they’ve been doing, because nothing whatsoever is wrong. Why, they consented to having sex together, so everything between men and women must be okay. Honestly, there is so much more to human beings than just consenting to sex.
You keep trying to equate men pursuing women (and being better at it than they used to be) with something obviously evil like violence or murder or, basically, theft. That is you simply hating these guys for being successful at consensual adult relations.
Evil comes in many forms. Consensual sex can involve using someone as a means to an end. Cheating cuts wounds in people’s hearts as real as any inflicted physical wounds. As dougjnn pointed out, some cultures see adultery as punishable by death. You see all consensual adult relations as “normal,” but there are circumstances surrounding these things that can make it wrong and bad.
There are significant ethical underpinnings, intricate complications and tremendous psychic impact in sex. Sex is a very powerful thing. Sexually charged love is especially so, with strong bonds that can lead to broken hearts or worse. Some of the biggest societal taboos are sexual. I could go on, but to carte blanche say that consensual sex has zero consequences is something that this “sexually liberated” society likes to throw out, but it is simply untrue.
LikeLike
Nicole
“So most beta males who couldn’t prove their worth as soldiers would just do without.”
Oh I could have proven my worth as a soldier in Sparta (or the US Special Forces) just fine Nicole, though I would have preferred Athens. Now I’m not saying Delta force necessarily ….
I’m an older alpha Nicole by Roissy’s measure of number and quality of girls (many, many scores) and of longer than 1 year relations and periods of drought – and by some other measures as well. Never had long periods of drought actually.
Monogamy in the Euro West did lead to the great majority of males having wives for life, sometimes from a pretty late start for men (could be as late as 35). A lot of times those wives did go off much wanting sex after a number of years, but it used to be mother’s advice to daughters that any good husband deserved a reasonable amount of sex from his wife and if she was a good woman she’d see that he got it. What was a reasonable amount? Usually not said but I’d guess somewhere between once a week and every couple of weeks when the wife really didn’t want to much was the idea. I’m not just making that up but I can’t site source either.
Just about all sense of a wife’s duty to her husband in marriage is now gone in the Anglosphere, particularly uber feminist America and perticularly in its most uber feminist regions and metropolisis (which includes almost all the big cities).
LikeLike
That is you simply hating these guys for being successful at consensual adult relations.
One more thing. I don’t “hate” those guys for being successful at getting sex. Not at all. Nor do I think those women who are doing it with them are very self-aware about what they are doing. They are answering to the siren calls of their baser natures, blindly, like children.
Their “success” is in consuming others as products, in performing egoistic sex, feeding vampirically off sexual lust and ultimately draining their own reserve of psychic energy, energy that would be better put to use in more meaningful human relations. The human contacts they prefer to cultivate are surface-level, shallow, and fleeting.
They take off their clothes and open themselves physically but still wall themselves in emotionally. They give this gift of trust and spiritual release to someone they do not really know or trust. They refuse to allow themselves to bond from sex due to fear and jadedness.
And that’s in the best case scenario, when no messy entanglements afterwards occur, no STDs are transmitted, and no accidents happen.
I do not envy or hate these people at all. I would not want that for myself. They are welcome to that lifestyle, and I think I am welcome to my opinion that it is a sorry, immoral way to live.
LikeLike
@Doug, well that explains why I enjoy conversing with you, even when we disagree. You have that something I’m not sure how to describe, but my closest attempt is fatal civility.
Anyways…birth control has been around a very long time, and so has feminism. Birth control was just made illegal, and those who knew of it were burned at the stake if they were caught and happened to be poor and/or female. Feminism has been around since religions promoting God as Goddess, which weren’t wrong, but used to bad political ends, much like the perception of God as male did recently.
So old things are repackaged and put to different uses. The problem is, as Hope said, intention. It’s not really the what but the why.
Women’s rights are human rights; this is a well known cliche, but it is true. When one couldn’t control how many children they had, it was bad for both men and women. Not to mention, childbirth was dangerous for many, and is dangerous for everyone above a certain age. Many men lost their beloved, faithful wives due to lack of knowledge about birth control.
I agree that there needs to be more of a sense of duty within relationships, but in order to really make that possible without it becoming all about duty and not at all about respect, love, and bonding, and real joyful commitment, people have to get real and let go of the social mores that made it impossible for people in the west to be in happy relationships.
If it was all good before, then nothing would have changed.
LikeLike
Interestingly enough, I noticed the change within my own family: my father, a 5’5″150lb Ashkenazi Jew was a perfectly adequate soldier, and a member of the Greatest Generation. He could have married quite easily when demobilized, perhaps even as late as ’46 or ’47. Le repos du guerrier. Perhaps that was his greatest mistake.
By postponing marriage, he found himself an under-performing beta middle-management type. Nothing changed in the years between 1947-77 except American women, and “stand-up guys” became “boring nerds.”
LikeLike
Roissy is not a libertarian (hell, he is so not libertarian he thinks that Tyler Cowen could be one), and should be excused for treating the legalities of marriage as necessarily a state-given truth of sorts.
For us libertarians, of course, it doesn’t make sense to talk about “abolishing” the no-fault divorce. We would say, “It’s all up to you”. Marriage, as almost everything else, should be a matter of private contract, perhaps occurring in a communal or religious context, but always negotiated based on the desires of the involved parties. Thus, a couple could opt for an iron-bound marriage, not subject to divorce under any circumstances, and enforced by the strictest religious zealots. Another couple could opt for a marriage to be dissolved at the merest whim. Or anything in between.
Presumably, those predisposed to opt for marriage contracts least likely to result in large numbers of viable offspring would soon breed themselves out of existence… but this is just an aside.
Go Libertarian!
Rafal
LikeLike
@211 You assume that marriage contracts have any bearing on childbirth. That is the whole problem. They don’t.
“Presumably, those predisposed to opt for marriage contracts least likely to result in large numbers of viable offspring would soon breed themselves out of existence…”
The problem is that in nature 10% of the men, those men with alpha tendencies (the complete antithesis to western cooperation and invention) tend to accumulate 90% of the women. Making the only one’s bread out of existence the productive betas.
LikeLike
PA —
“Maybe there is something subjective to attractiveness: I never got the Monica Bellucci thing. I find her a little too fleshy.”
She is a little to fleshy these days and for the last several years. She’s sort of ideologically opposed to worrying about being super thin, as opposed to healthfully thin. She’s also pushing 40.
Netflix Malena and report back. Tell me she isn’t jaw droppingly, achingly beautiful in that flick, which is really a full on ode to her beauty. (Basically the plot is she’s a very young war widow who’s worshipfully stalked by an about to become pubescent teenage boy in a semi innocent, semi lustful way.)
LikeLike
@dougjnn
I DON’T think that’s because men and women have equal internal imperatives to cheat. I still think men far more do, esp. in good on up marriages, but overall too
I’m glad you can see the truth when it looking right at you. Many men are in denial.
I think rather it’s because women feel so empowered today in America (and are) and i) it’s always MASSIVELY easier for women to have sex with quite attractive partners than it is for men everywhere and at all times (consensual sex I mean);
I agree, it’s much easier for women to have their fun.
2) American divorce punishes men VASTLY more than it punishes women, even when it comes about entirely because the woman not only cheated but became emotionally involved, and even when the husband was ready to forgive and move on, but she was the one who felt she “needed” to end the marriage.
Yes,
but a woman becomes emotionally involved with another man when she no longer loves her husband. For some reason, many American women are desperate for attention. Some women need attention every day and some of us only need it for a few hours per week.
If you don’t have the time to invest in a wife please don’t get married unless it’s a contract marriage. Perhaps all women but certainly American women, NEED attention from their boyfriends or husbands. If you don’t spend time with your wife she will think you don’t love her, find her attractive, prefer the company of your friends, or you’re cheating. At this point, she may be open to cheating, and she may become emotionally involved with the other man
hope said:Also, there seems to exist the stereotype that a white man who is not with a white woman has “failed” somehow, or is a loser who couldn’t do any better (e.g. got a mail order bride).
I agree Hope, and I think that way of thinking is more prevalent in countries that have a long history of hate against of people of color or those who are different . Examples include the US and Germany.
There are a number of rich men,goodlooking and/or famous men who choose to marry women of color so the same can’t be said for them.
A quick six
Look up the wives of:
Rupert Murdock
Russian tycoon Vladislav Doronin
Wolfgang Puck
Peter Norton of Norton Antivirus
Prince Maximillian
Ronald Betts
LikeLike
@dougjnn
It’s partly that women are way better at emotional play acting and stealth than men are, and partly that men are taught to believe that any good and decent woman won’t cheat by our culture (way more white than even higher end black American culture here I think),
Actually, I don’t think racial/cultural differences are at play here. American men accross the board would like to think that women don’t have sexual appetites that can be strong as those of men. While most women to crave for the sheer number of different partners that most men do or say they do, women do have an intrest in something different. If you think your wife’s fantasy about Brad Pitt or Geroge Clooney is for the two of them to walk threw a field of flowers holding hands, I have a piece of land I want to sell you.
What keeps most women from throwing caution to the wind is usually a combination of the following :
1. the desire to keep her family intact.
2. a lower seX drive
3. stronger morals- Most of the corporate snitches from a few years ago were women.
4. horrible possible outcomes of cheating-disease, divorce, OWC, laying in a ditch because of pscho husband or lover.
5. You are talented in beD, so why cheat for an okay lay.
and partly because women’s survellance of the possibility of cheating is endlessly supported in American popular culture these days
Women who don’t want to know don’t snoop. Some women have to find a recept for the motel when washing your pants before they catch on.
LikeLike
BTW dougjnn- I’ve read that French people look at cheating differently. I’ve also read&heard about Germans having a different attitude towards cheating-vacations.
LikeLike
Chic noir 216–
I don’t think cheating is the best way Chic. It’s also often not entirely cheating typically in e.g. France because it’s rather expected, if the guy is alpha or sorta alpha and high status. (Most people don’t notice that virtually all French flicks for example are about people in the upper middle class on up. But usually the chattering upper middle. Or they can be about the underworld. That’s pretty much it. American movies may disproportionately feature people in these classes, but not remotely almost exclusively.)
What I have come to believe in is somewhat open marriage but with strong rules. The simplest thing to say is that the rules are intended to allow sex outside of marriage but to firebreak love or intense romantic emotion outside of it. Frankly the main challenge is when women want to play too. Believe me I want to be completely fair. I also KNOW there are different dynamics. The differences both do and do not follow the usual stereotypes.
What kind of rules? Each spouse can call stop to any one person or to the whole thing at any time. Veto power of spouses over lovers, or continuing with lovers, if the spouse thinks it’s getting dangerously emotioally intense. Danger equals = she or he will soone want to leave for that guy, or a guy just like him if he’s tragically unavailable, or instead of wanting to fuck the spouse more as nearly always happens when playing begins, she/he starts towant to fuck the spouse less or not at all — or only want submissive oral, etc.
Having said that much let me say this to you. Let me tell you how to get a HUGE edge.
Ok, you are looking for a reliable, loving, probably pretty high earning, sexy enough but that’s not your highest priority — white guy. I get that. I get why you hang here. I get the challenges for black girls here both because of the dynamics of the black male pool and lack thereof that isn’t incarcerated or completely uninterested in one girl commitment and so on, and the white guy disinclination to date black girls. (That’s mostly not general racial prejudice btw. That wouldn’t stop dating and fucking these days, only marrying — and other things could stand in the marrying way also.)
Let your sexy, aphaish, but reliable and loving (betaish if you want but I don’t really think so) play outside your contemplated marriage to him. Tell him so. Put it in writing with rules like I said.
You won’t lose anything and you are likely to gain a better man. No this isn’t enough to attract a man you want, but it’s a huge plus. It’s enough for example to counteract your negritude (forget PC, we’re talking real here) in the minds of most white men.
Really.
LikeLike
BTW, I’d give the same advice to any woman who has any kind of open mind, that is any woman of any race.
If you’re wise enough, you can go WAY up in the alphaness of the man you can attract to marry you.
It might not help you marry e.g a richer man, but it WILL help you marry a sexier one, within e.g the same earnings range or whatever.
LikeLike
A QUESTION TO ALL MEN READING,COMMENTING AND LURKING
Why do men find it so hard to break things off with a woman, even a woman who is even tempered and level headed?
Please anwser this question.
Please.
LikeLike
They don’t seem to realize that they are doing the mirror equivalent of what the “bad women” are doing.
It isn’t the “mirror equivalent”. What is so frustrating about this, is that you know this. The women are knowingly causing harm to another. Again, with some rockstar we are talking about TWO FUCKING CONSENTING ADULTS!
This is not relational algebra.
Are these exactly equal?
Obviously not. Oh, you already said that. Hope, there must be 5 billion analogies available, but you keep trying ones that aren’t even close. Because you would need to find one that would involve consenting adults who made a conscious decision well aware of the consequences.
The way you make it sound, it’s as if people should just keep doing what they’ve been doing, because nothing whatsoever is wrong
Not everyone, just the ones who are not hurting anyone. Men (and women) have been trying to figure out girls forever. And men have cared about one particular thing in general for a very long time. It is just that lately, we have gotten much better at it. And, if girls were a little more traditional in their choices, we would not be arguing about anything.
The guys would be making the approaches, as they always have had to do, and the girls would be politely declining, saving themselves for something a little more serious and meaningful.
And, the men, looking for some good rollicking, meaningless fucking would be left foiled, once again. Having to walk back to their homes realizing that, yet again, they had met some girls that were simply too virtuous.
Cheating cuts wounds in people’s hearts as real as any inflicted physical wounds. As dougjnn pointed out, some cultures see adultery as punishable by death.
When did this become about cheating and adultery. Do I seem like the kind of guy that apologize for something like that. I have gone on and on for pages about honest displays, not dishonest ones.
And, Hope, here you go again, looking for something nefarious between consenting adults.
I could go on, but to carte blanche say that consensual sex has zero consequences…
I am not saying that these actions are consequence free. I am not sure if any action is. But, we are talking about people knowing what they are getting into.
LikeLike
Why do men find it so hard to break things off with a woman, even a woman who is even tempered and level headed?
Chic, could you be a little more specific?
Like, the guy is no longer interested but he will not say to her, “Sorry, baby, but it is over”.
LikeLike
Ok, you are looking for a reliable, loving, probably pretty high earning, sexy enough but that’s not your highest priority — white guy,/i>
No, I am not like DA or VK. Blk women like DA or VK are rare. Most of us are socialized to only date blk men. Even blk men who only date white women don’t like for blk women to date non blk men esp white men. We are reminded often of how some white men would rape blk women during slavery to keep us from ever going on the other side. Very few blk-American women who date or are married to wHite men worship whiteness in the way that some blk men and other non whites do. If you have a friend who has dated a numberof blk women, he can tell you as well as I can.
I will date any nice guy. I don’t have a preference for white men but if he is a decent white guy approaches me I am open to him. BTW,I think I am most attracted to blk and Asian men.
BTW, I am somewhat well traveled. The way blkW are looked at in this country is not worldwide. I haven’t had a problem here, and I certainly have not had a problem when traveling abroad. I visit Roissy’s blog to get a better understanding of men.
LikeLike
Why do men find it so hard to break things off with a woman, even a woman who is even tempered and level headed?
Chic, could you be a little more specific?
Like, the guy is no longer interested but he will not say to her, “Sorry, baby, but it is over
I mean even a woman who won’t threaten to kill herself or go into hysterics because you no longer want to be with her.
LikeLike
It’s enough for example to counteract your negritude (forget PC, we’re talking real here) in the minds of most white men.
Yes we are, but can you explain this ^^^to me. What is my negritude???
I get the challenges for black girls here both because of the dynamics of the black male pool and lack thereof that isn’t incarcerated or completely uninterested in one girl commitment and so on
I’ve dated African men and Blk West Indian men before. The so called shortage is only what people chose to make of it.
Money is always nice but not the most important when looking for a husband. I’m not looking for a husband. I don’t think I have the temperment for marriage. I will adopt one 4-5 year old child, 20 years for now.
LikeLike
dougjnn
PA –
“Maybe there is something subjective to attractiveness: I never got the Monica Bellucci thing. I find her a little too fleshy.”
Monica is one of the best looking women ever. Even at her advanced age she is still hot in my eyes. Maybe because I am a sucker for blk hair.
LikeLike
If you’re wise enough, you can go WAY up in the alphaness of the man you can attract to marry you.
Women, if they are wise, would pick someone they love first. Of course a lot of times women fall in love with alphas, but if the man loves her passionately in return he is also often beta to her.
Both people have a lot of power over each other when in love. The man has a lot more power in the beginning of love. My husband had so much power over me when I was 15. He made me go sick with love and heartbroken obsession for him, the way I did to him when I was 22.
The tables turn… the power shifts to the woman in a long-term relationship, but not the way it shifts to her dramatically after marriage. Women are generally more excited by someone who holds a lot of explicit power over them, which is why they often go wild for their bosses.
The D/s community knew this long before the mainstream people started talking about spanking the girls and treating girls with a dominant frame of mind. Another thing about “alpha” vs. “beta” — the chivalry traditions often had knights kneeling to the ladies… submissively. Male subs are numerous, and a lot of alphas in public turn out to be bottoms in the bedroom.
By the way, a lot of couples nowadays are choosing to cohabit without marriage. I think this is a decent alternative. I was one of these people initially. Just a few years ago, I had intended to be remain unmarried for a long time. I ended up married at 23, despite having been terrified of marriage.
I do understand why people aren’t marrying. I am still trying to be a better wife, and it’s not always easy, and I certainly didn’t used to be a good girlfriend or wife. I was barely good enough to make passing grade, and he still wanted to marry me. The whole “doing” thing (sex, cooking, being supportive, even household chores) is easier when you love somebody. Still, it’s a choice to do it, and a lot of women don’t choose to do it. I didn’t.
Oh, and I made many other mistakes. But you live and learn, right?
And, Hope, here you go again, looking for something nefarious between consenting adults.
Just call me a cynic.
LikeLike
UL said:Celebrity and status are really much bigger pullers of the hottest chics.
Right on. All anyone needs to do is simply look at any list of the Forbes or Fortune 500 and see that it is a small minority of wealthy men that have trophy wives. Most of those guys, who are basically hated by feminists as being red-blooded, soul-crushing capitalist pigs, actually do exactly what the feminists want: they go for intelligent, high achieving women
Actually, I think many of the fortune 500 men have well kept mistresses. Remember these men move in exalted circles so they must keep it classy.
Eurosaba said Non-Jewish women in Israel seem to be looking for Jewish men as stable, non-traditional-non-women-confining, “Western” providers.
Not to say your point is any less valid but a lot of non-Western women look at Western men this way.
@dougjnn-Don’t believe the hype. Marriage was never a bed of roses for most people. Leave it to Beaver was just a television show
LikeLike
“I will adopt one 4-5 year old child, 20 years for now.”
Why is it that all the attractive chicks don’t want to breed, and instead dream of adopting when they are almost grandmothers?
LikeLike
Hope, I’d like to say one basic thing to you.
You often interest me, and you often madden me. You are clearly very smart and also and more importantly to me (once a smarts threhold is reached anyway) very original.
But you know Hope, more than any other girl on the comments to this blog, I sometimes wish I was married, yeah that’s right me married again despite all, to YOU. So don’t think you’re having no impact. And yeah, really, I was/am a natural alpha, without making that my life priority. With game I could have called it up any damn moment I wanted, which wasn’t entirely the case.
I love your attitude and ideals and efforts towards marital love. Just completely adore them really. You give me hope, in fact.
Yeah I’d go to heaven if you’d let me play if if you had complete monitoring and veto power, but you sometimes make me think you might be devotedly hot enough to a good marriage that I’d be happy without. Sometimes What I really think is for quite awhile but not forever. You would understand that the starting point would be that I’d want to be with you, hope, not some random permissive female, right?
Of course I’d have to meet you to really feel you. And yeah also to see you.
So cudos to you Hope. Really.
Now prove the hell what you said bitch. :-;
LikeLike
Hope–
Been doing it for years and years baby. And very lovingly too. 1-4.5 yrs seems to be how it goes.
LikeLike
Actually, I think many of the fortune 500 men have well kept mistresses. Remember these men move in exalted circles so they must keep it classy.
None of us have any evidence that that may be true. But, either way, they had ample opportunity to marry some “piece of ass” and didn’t.
LikeLike
Just call me a cynic.
Well, at least you have given up on trying to equate consenting sexual relations with something like, uh, murder.
LikeLike
Well, at least you have given up on trying to equate consenting sexual relations with something like, uh, murder.
Love kills.
But seriously now, I don’t like to see others suffer, and emotional pain is real suffering as well. You know this, which is why you point out the loneliness and despair that men who are very shy and aren’t able to approach women feel. I have often thought about what my life might have been like if I was as timid of a man as I am a woman. It is often loathsome being a woman, but it is difficult to be a man, too, especially in this culture.
And it is true. I don’t like a lot of the consequences of consensual sex. I have had consensual sex — in some cases, not even very many times, maybe once or twice — with guys who were in love with me, but whom I did not really love in return… and the pain was all the worse for it. We were unequipped to handle the psychic impact it would have on us.
I still see a lot of the world through this adolescent lens, and I don’t have the same jadedness and nonchalant attitude many have with respect to sex. Sex is a reverent thing for me, something sacred, to be treated carefully and with respect, because it is a powerful thing. You are twisting my words and missing my point when you say that I equate it with murder. The powerful psychological and physical impact of death has been discussed many times, but very few these days discuss the same in regard to sex.
I’ll leave you with these words I found:
LikeLike
I have had consensual sex … and the pain was all the worse for it.
So, what then? You were unhappy so rockstars are evil?
I don’t have the same jadedness and nonchalant attitude many have with respect to sex
Well, if you are referring to me, well, I absolutely do not have a nonchalant attitude towards sex. It is a very important decision that should not be made lightly. Well, at least for girls it is a decision that should not be made lightly.
For guys, not so much.
You are twisting my words and missing my point when you say that I equate it with murder.
I did no such thing. You, on different occasions, tried to equate, or at least compare it to, theft, violence and, yes, murder.
A utilitarian would say that murder is wrong because it does not maximize good for the greatest number of people. But this would be irrelevant to someone who is concerned only with maximizing the positive outcome for himself. The pick-up artist … is that person who is only concerned in self-pleasure and self-gain.
You kept trying to find analogies for consenting adults. And you could not find one.
So, where does the evil begin: kissing? touching? “petting”? fucking? fucking 1 girl? 10 girls?
Oh, and that quote needs a little bit of editing: Sex bonds, and bonds powerfully for girls.
LikeLike
Sex bonds, and bonds powerfully for girls.
And here we come to the crux of the issue: it is more powerful for girls, but who do guys have sex with? Girls.
Yes, double standards. Do girls injure guys with sex? Not as much. Vice versa? Surely.
So that’s the immorality. You understand me now?
LikeLike
So, where does the evil begin: kissing? touching? “petting”? fucking? fucking 1 girl? 10 girls?
I’ve never made out with a guy that I didn’t also become intimate with, and they were not many. I have a lot of respect for sexual touch and acts, which probably makes me a prude. That is my cultural background and indoctrination.
I am very much against the feminist belief in “sexual liberation” and in minimizing sex differences, acting like a man with regard to sex, etc. I think these women are doing immense damage to themselves by putting their bodies out there so frequently, and the PUAs are just taking advantage of it. So yes, the feminists and PUAs probably “deserve” each other, but it does not feel right to me.
Granted, those women probably do not feel nearly the same degree of shame and disgust that I would feel if I were to do those things, but the alcohol or drugs generally involved, at least in the beginning, makes me think that it’s something they also had to become more inebriated to do.
You will probably tell me at this point that they are legally adults, and they can make their own decisions regarding their bodies. Yes, and ironically enough, that’s the postmodern feminist teaching, too! But the biological facts remain, and nature is a harsh mistress to those who do not heed her lessons.
Anyway, I’m sorry to be using so many analogies to try to convey my mental understanding of the world, which is mostly in symbols and similes. Women are not very logical creatures, and I am not always able to convince someone else of a “feeling” I have except through frustrating rounds of “it’s like this.”
LikeLike
You often interest me, and you often madden me. You are clearly very smart and also and more importantly to me (once a smarts threhold is reached anyway) very original.
You flatter me, but that is hardly the case. I am very unoriginal and more traditional. In almost every aspect of my life I emulate someone else or some set precedent. My design works are usually rehashed versions of someone else’s vision. Even my brains can often be a curse, because I can’t turn off my thoughts.
I love your attitude and ideals and efforts towards marital love. Just completely adore them really. You give me hope, in fact.
That is my paradox. I’m also trying to give myself hope, despite my natural inclination toward pragmatism and pessimism. A lot of things I write are really fantastical self-motivators. There are so many other things I could and should give my attention to, but I have chosen this…
I will say that I am glad to have stumbled upon the PUA community, as distasteful as it can be at times. Reading about their self-analytical processes has inspired me to want to be a better person and correct my mistakes. I was already on that path before I came here, but I was just getting into physical exercise, not internal examination.
Their critiques of women are often valid, and I see truth on both sides of the coin. It is also humbling to know that the human basic biological and psychological drives are ever pushing up from the bottom of our lizard brains, leading us often to do illogical and foolish things.
Yeah I’d go to heaven if you’d let me play if if you had complete monitoring and veto power, but you sometimes make me think you might be devotedly hot enough to a good marriage that I’d be happy without.
Thanks. My husband thinks so, and he doesn’t really wanted other women that badly. He’s had his time to play around when he was younger, and he didn’t really like a lot of them, even though there were a lot of lookers (Southern girls are very hot when they are young).
I love to please others, and I have a lot of love for especially men, mostly platonically. Maybe because I couldn’t have my father’s approval, I constantly seek male approval. My husband is very paternal, protective and loving. He has been a replacement father figure to me at times, calling me out on my hypocrisies and immaturities, and alternately spoiling me.
He is what Roissy calls the “beta” type in a relationship, extremely loyal and content with just having his buttons pushed (and I push them often). Funnily, in public, he does all the talking, the “alpha” posturing, the “leading,” and the rebelling. Privately, he gives me a lot of power. And that’s one of the keys. One does not ever take power… it is willingly and freely given (Rousseau’s Social Contract).
By the way, you and he have done the same kind of research on open relationships. I’m open minded when it comes to what other people do, but when it comes to myself, I have a lot of restraint, maybe too much. Still, I think genuinely trying to make others happy is the best way to happiness. In minimizing the egoistic self, I have become happier.
LikeLike
Hope, whether you realize it or not, this is the logic that you are trying to sell to me:
1. Girls bond more from sex than guys do.
2. Therefore, girls are more likely to get hurt.
3. Therefore, guys should not have sex with girls.
OR
3. Therefore, guys should not pursue girls.
Then, you will say, “No, no, that is not what I meant. It is about INTENT!” Then I will say, “So, guys should only intent to have sex with girls they love, or else it is evil?”
This will go back and forth a few more times.
Let me offer a different solution.
1. Guys and Girls are different. Yes, we have more in common than not, but it is the differences that matter. And those differences are very different.
2. GUYS MUST PURSUE GIRLS. Girls, in general, are not going to change this. They want to be and feel pursued.
3. Guys pursue girls for a reason…they find them sexually enticing and exciting. If some guy is bored by some girl (i.e. ugly, fat, weird personality, annoying, whatever), he will not pursue her.
4. When a guy finds a girl sexually exciting, he gets excited.
5. HE THEN WANTS TO FUCK HER. Luckily, this drive is what keeps the human race going.
6. She may or may not want to sleep with him. In today’s society, the choice is hers.
7. Since girls are much more likely to feel hurt, disappointed, unfulfilled, whatever after sex, she may want to hold off; “Be a good girl”. Fortunately, girls have been taught this since time immemorial. [Unfortunately, girls, lately, no longer follow that basic piece of advice. (It is at this point that you find guys to be evil. When they score.)]
8. Girls, as always, are the gatekeepers. The more that follow the traditional route, the more we will see traditional values persist. The converse is also true.
But make no mistake, “Guys must pursue”.
LikeLike
@Lurking, sex is potentially fatal.
It’s a good idea not to put one’s life in another’s hands without trust…and that goes both ways.
Sexual intercourse and oral aren’t the only ways people have to express their attraction to each other. People should make out more often.
I’ll admit to quite a few one night stands of making out. Those are fun, satisfying, and the worst I might get from it is a hickey.
It’s strange to me that people in this age of sexual freedom, didn’t take advantage of the greater opportunities and knowledge to make out more and shag less.
I’m sure you’d see alot more women being alot more free and alot less ashamed about it, if the goal in hooking up was to get rubbed off.
Maybe there needs to be more non intercourse porn.
LikeLike
Then I will say, “So, guys should only intent to have sex with girls they love, or else it is evil?”
In my opinion guys should intend to get to know the girls first as people, not as mere bodies. The body is the siren call that lures men in, and men should be doing the pursuing.
But the human being is more than just a body. Treating a person as a commodity or an object is a lesser evil than killing the person, but it is still wrong. If you pursue only pleasure for yourself, you will probably get it, temporarily, but you have to disregard the damage you are taking part in to get more and more.
No, you don’t have to be passionately in love to have sex. You don’t even have to really love someone before you have sex. That is too unrealistic. I’m not about trying to control others’ behavior, but I do have my opinions. A basic and fundamental respect of other people seems to be lost in modern society.
In my opinion, the PUAs who go out with the intent to “score,” chat up a woman for an hour, bed her, and doing it over and over again, are not doing the “right” thing. Sure, a lot of “wrongs” happen, but I personally try not to take part in them.
Again I’m speaking in the realm of the ideal. The real world is a grimy, nasty place; I realize that. What is going on behind people’s closed doors is really none of my business, but frankly, to see wrongs boldly justified because “men have to do what men have to do” irks me just as much as “women are entitled to XYZ.”
But make no mistake, “Guys must pursue”.
Saying “guys must pursue” seems to me a cop-out. Guys here often say, “Women now blame men for everything.” Yet here you are, on the other side of the coin, putting all the responsibility on the woman. Do you see the irony in this?
LikeLike
Sexual intercourse and oral aren’t the only ways people have to express their attraction to each other. People should make out more often.
Nicole, I am not pushing sex. People should live how they want. But that is not what Hope is talking about.
The body is the siren call that lures men in, and men should be doing the pursuing.
The body and the face. The face is the first thing any guy notices, other than basic body size.
Treating a person as a commodity or an object is a lesser evil than killing the person, but it is still wrong.
Hope, why do you push it that far? Why must it be extreme? Commodity? Object?
Again, I come back to my question: Kissing, is it evil? Has the guy (or girl) objectified the other? Petting, Fondling, Oral? Commodity? Sex?
Is it just Sex, or is it also Kissing? Something in-between where men suddenly become the objectifiers? That thing that makes a guy want to kiss a girl (Beauty, Femininity, Grace, Sexiness, etc) is the same thing that makes him want to go further.
And guys rarely suffer from going further.
…but you have to disregard the damage you are taking part in …
What fucking damage?!?! What damage has she done when she kisses him? When he kisses her? This is where you keep failing. Again, you have tried to compare it to murder, violence and theft.
I love analogies, but, try one that is remotely similar.
What damage has he cause when he kisses her?
A basic and fundamental respect of other people seems to be lost in modern society.
Guys are no different, in this respect, than they have ever been. It is the girls that have changed.
In my opinion, the PUAs who go out with the intent to “score,” chat up a woman for an hour, bed her, and doing it over and over again
Again, some editing:
“In my opinion, the Guys who go out with the intent to “score,” chat up a woman for an hour, then find out that the girl wants to go to bed with them, and doing it over and over again…”
to see wrongs [what “wrongs”, you have still, yet, to explain…unless you are sticking with the theft and violence stuff] boldly justified because “men have to pursue ” irks me just as much as “women are entitled to XYZ.”
But no one is saying that men are entitled to anything here. I am not saying that men are ENTITLED to pursue…I am saying that they HAVE to. And sex is absolutely NOT the ultimate result of that pursuit. The woman’s prerogative is the ultimate result.
Saying “guys must pursue” seems to me like biology.
Yet here you are, on the other side of the coin, putting all the responsibility on the woman.
Men are responsible for pursuing, women are responsible for choosing. I am honestly shocked that this even needs to be debated. If you find irony in something someone else said, I cannot say.
LikeLike
I would say that, even coming from a very extreme religious tradition as I do, Hope’s concept of sex as a sacrament strikes me as a bit off. Of course, the Jewish tradition includes elements of DE-sexualizing life as a couple (no sex two weeks out of the month, in “niddah” or “taharat mishpachah, for example), but all of the traditions that emphasize the sacred element of sex in the modern West also restrain and lower the overall amount of sex. Eastern traditions, like elements of Hinduism that included sex-as-worship, and Near Eastern traditions that did not survive, like Astarte-worship, which also included sex-as-sacrament, do not. This is one reason why the non-West gets labeled as permissive, rutting, unrestrained, when one might argue that Islam and Confucianism, the largest non-Western traditions, are currently the most sexually repressive and (in the case of Islam) still based on physical control of women’s bodies as a means of control of women’s sexuality in very many countries.
LikeLike
If you find irony in something someone else said, I cannot say.
Yes, I find irony in things other people say. That’s precisely what I said. There are men here and elsewhere who write prolifically about their objectification of women, how they are only after the sex and the pleasure it gives, and also write about how they have zero respect for the women they bed.
Every now and then they complain when the women aren’t giving it out so readily. Obviously, you are not one of those people, since you suggest that women do not give it up easily. I am not talking about you, so I am puzzled as to why you are taking up their cause, calling them “rockstars” and basically saying they are worthy of every man’s imitation. Many people don’t find such behavior laudable.
A lot of men out there are not just after sex. This is contrasts to the men who post about how they are only after sex (maybe they want more, and they just don’t after it?). The majority of men want more than just to shag. Yes, there are those men for whom getting laid is a problem, and they want to overcome this hurdle. However, the typical “players” or pick-up gamesters does not fall under this category.
I never said I needed to control these people and their thoughts so they can’t do what they do anymore. I just shake my head and post my opinions on it. Yet somehow you still try to convince me that my opinion is wrong.
I am honestly shocked that this even needs to be debated.
You are the one who always brings up these debates first. It usually goes thusly: I post my thoughts, and you ask me to defend my position. It’s like you are repeatedly nagging me, “Why is your favorite color blue? That makes no sense! My favorite color is red!” You brought up the debate in the first place, and now you are shocked that I am senseless enough to debate you.
Perhaps it is senseless, but I’m just passing the time.
LikeLike
There are men here and elsewhere who write prolifically about their objectification of women, how they are only after the sex and the pleasure it gives, and also write about how they have zero respect for the women they bed.
And there are women who brag about how many drinks they got a guy to buy them…that is really not pertinent unless we are debating the absolute extremes of behavior.
Just because some guys are angry and express, or attempt to express, that anger through sex doesn’t mean that sex, or the pursuit of sex, is evil.
It can not be evil. Again, men MUST pursue it.
since you suggest that women do not give it up easily
Some do, some don’t.
calling them “rockstars”
I started calling them rockstars because that is basically what we do. We attempt to display ourselves in the best light possible. For today’s girls, that basically means acting like a rockstar. I used that term to see if you found their behaviour (rockstars behavior) evil as well.
Empty? Possibly.
Evil? No way.
Again, the rockstar does not make anyone do anything…the girls basically line up in hopes of fucking him. Most do not look down on him, they look down on the girls that give it up so easily…again, gatekeepers.
This is contrasts to the men who post about how they are only after sex (maybe they want more, and they just don’t after it?). The majority of men want more than just to shag.
Yes, very few men are solely after sex, regardless of what they might say.
However, the typical “players” or pick-up gamesters does not fall under this category.
Do I need to repeat the histories of Myster, Neil Strauss and Lance Mason…many guys enter the Game for a reason. They were doing horribly without it. You don’t find baseball players and rockstars buying the Mystery method in hopes of improving their game. Most of the guys who want and need to learn game are those guys that needed. For any guy that was only interested in sex in the first place, well, game didn’t change him…just his numbers.
I just shake my head and post my opinions on it. Yet somehow you still try to convince me that my opinion is wrong.
Saying that you don’t like something and saying that something is wrong/evil are two very different things.
“I don’t like cauliflower” is very different than “Massive immigration is wrong” are very different things.
“Why is your favorite color blue? That makes no sense! My favorite color is red!” You brought up the debate in the first place, and now you are shocked that I am senseless enough to debate you.
We are not talking about what you like, but what is right. Again, huge difference.
Let me make it somewhat personal for you. I do not want to talk about your personal life, but their is a big difference between you saying, “I do not like my father” and “What my father did was wrong.” The first statement (regardless of whether or not it is actually true) would not matter, that much, to society in general…the second one does.
It is right for a man to be devoted to his wife and children, and it is wrong for him to not be. You may know a police office how does the right thing, and still not like him personally. The far more important thing is that the police officer does what he is supposed to do. We can always work on his likability later.
LikeLike
Stating that guys must pursue doesn’t imply that all pursuit, or all means of pursuing, are morally equivalent.
Beyond the issue of whether the pursuer’s intentions are “honorable/noble” or “consumerist,” which has been addressed, there’s the issue of whether pick up skills are even potentially advantageous for anyone who isn’t looking to merely get his dick wet.
At its core, this approach is deceptive – flashy packaging that’s used to attract the attention of someone who wouldn’t be inclined to give attention to the goods within. As such, it’s similar to countless deceptive devices women use to attain the same goal (and, I’d argue, with the same “undesired” outcome) – makeup, various body shapers and padding, tailor-made personae, etc.
Packaging can conceal a multitude of sins, but it is eventually peeled off. Wise people aren’t fooled, or swayed into an impulse purchase, by it. The only people fooled by it are people who are dishonest [to] themselves. That, however, doesn’t absolve the deciever (who himself/herself is probably engaged in self-deception about the putative purpose of his or her actions) of culpability for their own contribution to the deception. Just because mutual deception is tacitly consensual, it doesn’t mean that it’s not pathetic and hurtful.
How could this approach ever achieve a lasting positive outcome? As a placebo for self-esteem, it fails miserably: self-esteem is expressed in a million ways other than being comfortable with approaching women in a social setting, and anyone who is looking for true confidence will be onto your lack of it before too long. As a means TO self-esteem, it fails miserably: the fact that a bunch of women would sleep with you until they found out who you are or, alternatively, that a bunch of women whom you consider unfit for partnership let you hump them, shouldn’t do much to build a robust ego.
I think it’s telling that a bunch of these pick-up artists and sirens are nihilists at heart: they have no confidence in their ability to build anything that will stand the test of time. THAT’s how good this approach is at building self-esteem. But they project the appearance of confidence… to what end?
It’s the inversion of cause and consequence, the notion that, if you pretend to be something for long enough, you will ultimately become it. The energies expended on maintaining the ruse are taken away from any effort to better oneself in a concrete way, even if that way is not obvious to, or appreciated by, the masses.
Having just finished a grueling kitchen remodel, I find striking similarities between this approach and “flipping” – putting some paint and spackle on it and hoping that nobody will notice until it’s too late. By contrast, I spent countless weeks and an immense amount of effort on doing things that, while they didn’t yield any outward sign of progress except to a keen eye, created a solid and necessary foundation for what was to follow. Why did I do this? Because I expect to enjoy this kitchen for many decades, just like I’m stuck with myself for life.
I think that the analogy between sex and food in Hope’s quotation is very apt. To extend the analogy, lotharios and their female counterparts are the equivalent of morbidly obese gluttonous wretches who seek to fill the gaping hole that is their existence through massive consumption. They’re entropy personified. Most people have the protective impulse telling them when the consumption of something has gone from beneficial to detrimental. A few unfortunate individuals are deprived of that sense by nature, but far more ignore it, to their own detriment and to the detriment of those who cross their paths.
Bottom line, as I see it: if your own integrity and self-respect don’t matter to you, then by all means pursue superficial means to transitory ends, or place your self-esteem at the mercy of those who haven’t been given a chance to demonstrate that they have any mercy. Hope, it is not up to women to save the countless hordes of lost boys from perdition – women are not sole guardians of morality. But it is up to them, and only up to them, to be wise and careful when their own emotional and physical health and well being are on the line.
LikeLike
It is right for a man to be devoted to his wife and children, and it is wrong for him to not be. You may know a police office how does the right thing, and still not like him personally. The far more important thing is that the police officer does what he is supposed to do. We can always work on his likability later.
The rules change. The laws change. A police officer many years ago could not barge into a house without a warrant, but now he can, under many excuses.
Modern rules have made it so that the PUA is not “evil” anymore, but to me and those like me, a more primitive sort, what they do still seems wrong and evil.
And I am using an older kind of philosophy to describe this wrong, which is obviously not persuasive to you. So I wonder why you continue to tell me that it is right, when I see it as clearly wrong.
LikeLike
Modern rules have made it so that the PUA is not “evil” anymore, but to me and those like me, a more primitive sort, what they do still seems wrong and evil.
The rules for the guys did not change, the rules for the girls did…now, at least for you, the GUYS are evil.
That is my whole point. What guys are doing today is no different than what they did back in the day…it is the results that have changed.
And, if the girls went back to their old ways, the results would change once again. And, I am guessing, you would no longer think that the PUAs/Rockstars/Players/etc. were evil because they simply weren’t bedding that many girls. They would be trying, but, they wouldn’t be all that successful.
LikeLike
245 Gordan, you put my murky thoughts into words more eloquently than I could.
Usually Lurking, the rules are more complicated than that.
This lifestyle modern westerners lead is only really possible because of the exaggerated and incredible affluence. No society on earth has ever had such an unbroken run of peace and prosperity as America with the brief exception of under the Roman republic/empire. And they had their occasional barbarian invasions.
The roaring 20s, the revolutionary 60s, and the changes that happened since then brought different behaviors for both men and women. Men certainly did not do this sort of peacocking or game thing back when they had to worry about basic survival, about their place in the tribe or hierarchy, doing military service, learning trades, etc. You are being ahistorical when you say that men have always done “this.” No, they really have not.
LikeLike
You are being ahistorical when you say that men have always done “this.”
I am simply talking about the fact that men have always had to pursue and that they have always been interested in what works and what doesn’t. AFAIK, that has never changed.
If peacocking guaranteed that a guy would NOT get laid, it would stop pronto.
LikeLike
I am simply talking about the fact that men have always had to pursue
Not in a lot of societies where arranged marriages took place. Also, in a small town or village the lothario behavior of going around trying to have sex with every woman was usually frowned upon, and men did not do it.
In some modern places this also happens, as agnostic mentioned in a recent post of his that in more insular college campuses, you still cannot go around even flirting and pursuing every woman, because soon the word will get around and you will be shunned from the community.
As Gordan wrote, not all methods of pursuit are made equal.
LikeLike
Hope, YOU are being ahistorical when you insist that gaming and libertines did not exist in the past–while I cannot cite Greek sources on male/female love, Rome certainly had Pertronius’ “Satyricon” and Ovid’s “Ars Amatoria.” And amour courtois was all over the Middle Ages.
What we have now is an unprecedented field of seduction open to others other than the tippy-top of the inheriting upper-classes. So what you appear to be complaining about is the extension of libertinism to the high, middle, and lower bourgeoisie and the under-classes, and the way in which leisure and sexuality are saturating our society. But that’s a different lament from the moral decline of society as a whole. Unless, of course, you want to restore even poor Americans (among some of the richest people in the world) to subsistence living and sub-Saharan 30-to 40-yr life expectancies.
LikeLike
As such, it’s similar to countless deceptive devices women use to attain the same goal (and, I’d argue, with the same “undesired” outcome) – makeup, various body shapers and padding, tailor-made personae, etc.
Lipstick, eyeliner, Bras, Heels, etc. or (for men) Collared Shirts, Pressed Pants, Leather Shoes, Combed Hair…”Deception”, “Stylish”, “Fashionable” call it whatever you want.
Packaging can conceal a multitude of sins, but it is eventually peeled off. Wise people aren’t fooled, or swayed into an impulse purchase, by it. The only people fooled by it are people who are dishonest [to] themselves. That, however, doesn’t absolve the deciever (who himself/herself is probably engaged in self-deception about the putative purpose of his or her actions) of culpability for their own contribution to the deception. Just because mutual deception is tacitly consensual, it doesn’t mean that it’s not pathetic and hurtful.
Do you not wear a tie on an interview? Leather Shoes? Do you then worry about the “culpability” for your “contribution to the deception”?
How could this approach ever achieve a lasting positive outcome?
People do not go to bars looking for a “lasting positive outcome”. Nor do they go to cocktail parties looking for that either. Nor house parties, playing cards, drinking beers or a dozen other social get-togethers.
the fact that a bunch of women would sleep with you until they found out who you are or, alternatively, that a bunch of women whom you consider unfit for partnership let you hump them, shouldn’t do much to build a robust ego.
What on Earth are you talking about? Honestly, are you talking to me?
I think it’s telling that a bunch of these pick-up artists and sirens are nihilists at heart: they have no confidence in their ability to build anything that will stand the test of time. THAT’s how good this approach is at building self-esteem. But they project the appearance of confidence… to what end?
So, if I am not a nihilist (which I am not), does that then invalidate your blather?
…if your own integrity and self-respect don’t matter to you…
Who the fuck are you talking to?
Well, let me just ask you this: that lonely and frustrated guy, what should he do?
I will tell you my answer: present yourself (though dress, posture, grooming, etc.) in the way that you want to be seen. This will likely be in the form of a confident man. Do not be afraid of your sexuality. if you are interested in some girl, let that sexuality shine through. You should never feel guilty of being sexually interested in some girl. Talk to everyone. Take shit from no one. Learn to tell a story…learn to tell your story. She will be interested. If you are excited, escalate. Don’t be afraid to touch her. No girl wants to go her whole life untouched. If all you can think about is kissing her, and she is just staring at you, go for it. Never be afraid to be a man.
You are a sexual being, never apologize for that.
LikeLike
Gannon
“I will adopt one 4-5 year old child, 20 years for now.”
Why is it that all the attractive chicks don’t want to breed, and instead dream of adopting when they are almost grandmothers
Some of us are vain and others don’t want to bother with marriage. Women lose a lot when they get married.
LikeLike
Sex bonds, and bonds powerfully for girls
only when it’s very good and with a man who likes to lick the natural pelt( like Peter).
LikeLike
Hope, YOU are being ahistorical when you insist that gaming and libertines did not exist in the past–while I cannot cite Greek sources on male/female love, Rome certainly had Pertronius’ “Satyricon” and Ovid’s “Ars Amatoria.” And amour courtois was all over the Middle Ages.
You are again proving my point. I brought up the Roman republic/empire. The conditions that make “game” possible are clear, and the opening of the field of seduction is not a phenomenon that spans all societies across time.
So what you appear to be complaining about is the extension of libertinism to the high, middle, and lower bourgeoisie and the under-classes, and the way in which leisure and sexuality are saturating our society. But that’s a different lament from the moral decline of society as a whole.
They aren’t too different, really. The upper class has always been morally decadent, from the old emperors in East Asia to the old courts in Middle Ages Europe. And the lower classes usually did not imitate them because they could not. Unless you are suggesting to me that anything the upper class does is moral?
Unless, of course, you want to restore even poor Americans (among some of the richest people in the world) to subsistence living and sub-Saharan 30-to 40-yr life expectancies.
Did I say that? I already said I have no good answers or solutions, nor do I want to control and change things for others. I do not want to go back to subsistence living, but just because we have a better quality of life does not mean we have a better mental, psychological and moral profiles.
LikeLike
UL, no, I’m not talking to you. Why on Earth would I do THAT?
LikeLike
The upper class has always been morally decadent…
I thought our Founding Fathers did a pretty good job, esp. when you consider that they would have been hung had they not succeeded.
LikeLike
I thought our Founding Fathers did a pretty good job, esp. when you consider that they would have been hung had they not succeeded.
It’s true though; they did a pretty good job. They tried to set up a system of checks and balances that would attempt to remove immoral leaders from the government. A few of them owned slaves and were wealthy. For the most part they were from middle class backgrounds.
A few of them might have kept mistresses, but for the large part they were not chasing after girls in bars and getting in bed with a bunch of different women night after night. It would have been, as my husband likes to jokingly say with an English accent, undignified.
LikeLike
no, I’m not talking to you. Why on Earth would I do THAT?
Thank god, because I had no idea what you were going on about.
Still, what specific advice would you give to a lonely and frustrated man?
LikeLike
…but for the large part they were not chasing after girls in bars and getting in bed with a bunch of different women night after night…
They all pursued women (my central point), but, those girls, well, you know. They were a little more traditional. Martha Washington and Dolly Madison would never think of living in a manner similar to what we see nowadays. It was basically marriage or nothing.
It would have been, as my husband likes to jokingly say with an English accent, undignified.
Except for Ben Franklin, whom everyone loved.
And the important Founding Fathers were all a part of the upper class, regardless of whether they were born in into it.
LikeLike
And the important Founding Fathers were all a part of the upper class, regardless of whether they were born in into it.
Sure, they were “upper class” among more rugged and manly colonial men, not among old royalty and born into wealth. They had to work hard for it.
As for Ben Franklin, he did advocate these virtues, though he himself fell short of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Virtue
“While Franklin didn’t live completely by his virtues and by his own admission, he fell short of them many times, he believed the attempt made him a better man contributing greatly to his success and happiness.”
LikeLike
They had to work hard for it.
Some were absolutely born into the American Upper Class.
And Franklin is, of all the Founding Fathers, the worst example for your case. He had a LOT of fun when he went to France. Actually, Adams resented him for it.
Again, the two environments were quite different. Those French coquettes gave it up to Franklin much more easily than your average American girl would have.
And Franklin thought that women should stay in “there sphere”. Again, his main chick, Deborah Read, did not have the greatest reputation (though, not the worst either).
Whereas, guys like GW and James Madison though quite highly of women and thought that the women of the revolution deserved as much attention as the men. But, then again, they were married to Martha Washington and Dolly Madison.
Fuck, Madison was the father of our Constitution, our 4th President, the Commander in Chief during the War of 1812 and the last Commander in Chief to actually take to the field of battle and he STILL felt perfectly comfortable letting his lady get all the attention and spotlight. But, then again, she was a lady, through and through.
When men are surrounded by virtuous ladies, they just tend to act differently. Women do not solely create a culture, but, in this context, they play a HUGE part.
LikeLike
I don’t think I would give specific advice. People are lonely and frustrated for all sorts of reasons, and not all of them have the same “cure.”
A bit of introspection always helps. If you actually take the time to examine your choices and their consequences, you should be able to figure out what you need and what you can reasonably offer in return. The rest is self-discipline… and time and effort. Be patient. Don’t overreach. Learn to not care about impressing others. Learn to take pleasure in solitude and enjoy opportunities it offers, rather than viewing it as a sentence. Have actual friendships with women, rather than just ones that result from a chick you wanted to bang putting you in the “friend zone.” If you feel hostility, work on that – it is your enemy. Don’t engage in relationships that are a drain on you. Don’t be a drain on others. Reflect often.
Sometimes it is necessary to question what you instinctively “know,” as it pertains to your sense of self. But if you do, you’re on unfamiliar ground, so watch out for land mines and don’t write checks to others that you can’t cover.
Note that this approach emphasizes working on your substance, rather than your style.
LikeLike
Some were absolutely born into the American Upper Class.
Like I said, some of them were wealthy and owned slaves. They were better than the old English royalty, though.
And Franklin is, of all the Founding Fathers, the worst example for your case.
Yet this “worst of examples” himself advocated virtue. You still think modern men should abandon all of those values, and rely only on women to be virtuous.
When men are surrounded by virtuous ladies, they just tend to act differently. Women do not solely create a culture, but, in this context, they play a HUGE part.
Do you think that if these virtuous women could only choose from cads, that they would still act virtuously?
This brings us back to when I said, “There can’t be virtuous women without virtuous men, and vice versa.”
LikeLike
I don’t think I would give specific advice.
Nothing to give to a man that is suffering. Hope, are you paying attention?
Read the rest of her word-barf and see that “Men Must Pursue”. And Game is simply a set of tools to help with that thing that we MUST do. These tools mostly have to do with confidence, comfort and presentation. It is possible to use them for Evil, but their is nothing inherent evil about game in itself. No more than that Kitchen Knife.
Men are the pursuers, women are the gatekeepers. This has been known, and has worked just fine, for-fucking-ever…until the last 40 years…but, we all know what happened then.
LikeLike
Read the rest of her word-barf
Resorting to overt hostilities is unbecoming, UL.
By the way, manly virtues are different from womanly virtues, but they do share significant overlap.
A virtuous woman would be very hesitant to be with a man that has slept with hundreds of girls.
Keep comparing game to the kitchen knife. And I’ll keep those opinions of mine that you call “word-barf.”
LikeLike
UL, I realize that your lack of attention span, which doesn’t even allow you the benefit of reading comprehension, would also preclude you from even considering anything that doesn’t promise to be a quick fix.
Putting a man out of misery is easy. Making him better… well.
LikeLike
Yet this “worst of examples” himself advocated virtue.
We are defined by our actions, not words. Franklin Fucked France.
You still think modern men should abandon all of those values, and rely only on women to be virtuous.
A Mans virtue is not defined by the women he does not pursue but by the Woman and Children that he provides for and Protects.
But, now, the results of his pursuits are so radically different.
Look, Hope, lets cut to the chase. Women became Whores and you hate that the men are taking advantage of that. That is really harsh language, and does not completely express everything that we are talking about, but it cuts to the heart of the matter.
Do you think that if these virtuous women could only choose from cads, that they would still act virtuously?
Look at how many young men go to church today. Or study Applied Math or Physics. I understand that these things do not automatically sanctify some young man, but, they tend to be straight-shooters. And so many of them are so fucking lonely…not so much for the aspiring rockers and artists. Women were not surrounded by cads, now, they sorta are.
It is the women who choose to give it up to the Thugs (in an extreme example). Women choose, men react.
LikeLike
Once again, Usually Lurking, best of luck.
LikeLike
Hope 237–
Thanks for your thoughtful and rather intimate reply. Lovely.
If I was your husband or otherwise mate for life I would want, badly want, to lead you down a path of sometimes doing sluttier and sluttier things in public. I like that generally, but I’m thinking especially of you and what I know and feel about you.
It would be in anonymous places, where your and his friends don’t hang out.
It would start small, and only slightly exceed your comfort level, and then progress.
You would be doing it for me, to show your love for me, to excite and please me. I’m talking no panties with short or slit skirt. Me fingering you under the table and pushing apart your legs. maybe some man, some cocky guy, would see you doing it. I’m talking about our picking out some guy together, and your then eye flirting with him. I’d go the bar for drinks or something and you’d let him pick you up and take you to the dance area. You’d dance suggestively and let him take liberties while I watched and then was told.
You’d do it all for me. At least to begin with. And maybe to stay with. But it would be thrilling for you as well. You would know you were being ultimately loyal. You would know you had pleased me very, very much.
And we’d fuck like energizer bunnies.
LikeLike
Women became Whores and you hate that the men are taking advantage of that.
Dude, exchanging shitty sex for long-term protection is a transaction between a whore and her client. Women have been whores since the beginning of humanity.
Or study Applied Math or Physics.
I suspect that’s because those subjects are hard and don’t pay enough to compensate for their added difficulty.
badly want, to lead you down a path of sometimes doing sluttier and sluttier things in public
Shudder.
LikeLike
Chic:
Apologies for the insensitive way I put it, but black women do average more partners than white women.
LikeLike
See here.
LikeLike
Gordan, regardless of my attention span, I have little time for someone using overly complex language when simple ones will do, and do better.
But, Gordan, it doesn’t matter. Because you simply do not care about the person who is suffering. So, for whatever intellectual limitations I may have, I feel for that person.
And, remember, if you do not care enough to want to produce actual, real world results, then, you simply don’t care.
LikeLike
UL, doctors, who do care about decreasing suffering, operate according to this overarching principle: first, do no harm.
Peddlers of counterfeit dick pills aren’t similarly constrained.
If you like simple language: shit in a shiny wrapper is still shit. I maintain that the PUA approach is not likely to help anyone get what he truly needs, unless what he truly needs is semi-anonymous ass, in which case he, according to YOU, falls into the “depraved” category that, according to YOU, is a fringe we weren’t discussing here. You’re a victim of your own circular logic (to put it kindly.)
What I am saying is that these means, to the extent that they are pursued, can’t help but lead to the ends that you called depraved.
PUAs measure their worth by an external yardstick – the amount of attention they get – which is a trait they usually associate with (and, to some extent, despise about) hyper-feminine attention whoring. I refer you to just about any post on this blog. Yet they try to peddle themselves as hyper-masculine. How this glaring fact escapes anyone is beyond my comprehension.
The rest is just rationalization for slutting about, regardless of cost to YOU.
LikeLike
I should have said, above, “unless what he truly needs, above all else, is semi-anonymous ass.”
I would advise people to pursue PUA if their goal is to become a full-time skirt chaser, and to avoid dabbling otherwise.
LikeLike
wow, could you guys beat your dicks any more? i am amazed at how much effort you all put into e-arguing
you faggots need to go out and get laid more
LikeLike
Anyone who tells other people that they need to “go out and get laid” is an idiot in desperate need of a brain transplant.
LikeLike
UL, doctors, who do care about decreasing suffering, operate according to this overarching principle: first, do no harm.
Doctors have been consciously and actively doing “first harm” for a long time now. Whether it means drilling into someones skull or giving them anti-biotics (or re-breaking a bone so that it sets properly.
I maintain that the PUA approach is not likely to help anyone get what he truly needs, unless what he truly needs is semi-anonymous ass
Game in no way pre-determines that you must seek out anonymous sex. Again, it is simply a set of tools that helps a guy with things like Confidence and Presentation. That’s it.
according to YOU, falls into the “depraved” category that, according to YOU
Apparently you are quoting me, but, I never said anything about anything being “depraved”.
PUAs measure their worth by an external yardstick…
Do you see me measuring anything? And don’t get angry at me for something Roissy has said. If you have a problem with something he has said, say it to him.
Remember, I am defending a very simple concept here: Men Must Pursue.
LikeLike
No, you’re not defending that simple concept, because nobody is disputing it.
You’re defending a specific way of pursuing.
I am saying that this way is antithetical to the goals of anyone but a perennial skirt chaser, the kind that, although you may have not used the actual word “depraved,” you dismissed as a pathological case by which the rest should not be judged.
You’ve yet to offer an explanation why you think that “Game” is helpful to anyone else, that didn’t rest on creating a certain illusion or on the supposed real confidence boost resulting from successes with getting laid.
I’ve seen these kinds of mind games render otherwise attractive people jaded and vacuous, and incapable of sustaining healthy interpersonal relationships. In essence, they created for themselves a string of interactions and experiences that couldn’t help but make them think less of humanity in general, and themselves in particular.
In contrast, I’ve never seen an “otherwise superior” person whose only tragic flaw was that his style completely obscured his strengths. It would certainly seem to me that everyone else (and not matching the already mentioned “pathological” case) is better off improving their substance (what they have to offer) and their own selection criteria, than they are crafting a veneer that overstates the worth of the contents. It’s not just not helpful, but downright hurtful to its practitioner, for reasons already stated. Being unabashedly and genuinely yourself, and noticing that people still appreciate you, is vastly better, although it may not allow you to cheat your way to things that weren’t meant for YOU. And if people don’t appreciate you, change your setting.
The upshot: any way you slice it, this is just another of those [self-]destructive things that people do because it feeds some fear, and then try to pass off as rational, necessary, or at least helpful, when it’s really none of those. And, as such, best practiced when you’ve already given up on yourself.
LikeLike
280: It would certainly seem to me that everyone else (and not matching the already mentioned “pathological” case) is better off improving their substance (what they have to offer) and their own selection criteria, than they are crafting a veneer that overstates the worth of the contents.
Gordan = awesome.
LikeLike
Most women who divorce men with no apparant fault are either married to a man the cannot accept and then find out they can’t change him or married to have children, often a combination of both.
Most men who mistreat women are either not devoted to her in the first place and were goaded into marriage or know they cannot stimulate a woman emotionally, sexually and romantically and curtail her freedom to prevent her cheating.
Then you have people with unresolved mental and personality disorders. They make up at least 5% of the population and their marriages tend to be bad. You can’t have a good marriage with an untreated sociopath or schizo, so divorce really is the only option.
Men who are married for the money are usually in the 4th group. Though true golddiggers exist, the woman is often not consciously meaning to divorce him later; she was just impressed with his lifestyle when she was 23 and he was 38 and mistook it for love. Ten years later, she found out that money is not the be all and end all, he is getting old and the guy down the hall at the office is showing interest.
I think this kind of woman will cheat sooner than make the marriage work, because she does not love the man. She actually resents him, because she realises she is prostituting herself and all harlots hate their johns. Then he will feel uneasy, snoop and curtail her freedom even if he has not caught her with anything, because he senses the danger. Women who cheat hide it well and he will likely get caught red handed before she does. He knows he should never have married her but she was sooo hot and he really wanted to believe in it. Plus he may have been celibate while young in order to create the lifestyle that he thought would entitle him to a woman. This situation is hopeless unless he does his best to make himself more attractive for non-money reasons. But you know, he expected that a good job would entitle him to not just a good wife, but also a hot wife, preferably young. He just did not want to face that the same instincts that prompted him to marry a younger, hotter woman with his money would promt her to cuckold him. Does he trust her control over her instints more than he trusts his own?
Men who are not devoted rarely ever turn into good husbands.He married for the sex or the food and companionship and because he was under serious pressure. She castrated him be forcing him to propose, he has a lifetime to get even. She expected him to suddenly become devoted after marriage, and thinks she can nag him into submission. In a way this is like situation 1 and 2, except that this guy was quality on paper and may have made a good husband to a woman he truly loved. She should never have married him, but she just did not have the patience to wait for a man who truly wanted to marry her and/or work on her looks and personality to increase the odds, but that was kinda unfair and not what cosmo promised.
Women in the first and second situation are pretty much always motivated by the same lack of patience. Except in this case the poor guy is devoted to her, just lacks some of the qualities she considers essential. Maybe he is unambitious, a bad provider, maybe he has no table manners, maybe he is ugly or a bad kisser(which puts him in group 4 too), in any case, she cant live with him the way he is. Group 2’s are ones who actually know what they are doing. They conciously chose children over the chance at a good husband. A lot of the women in these groups would still do the same thing even if the man is not providing that much money. They just want a family at any cost; and the sperm bank does not suffice. He was happy to marry a woman even if he was not fully marriageable.
In short; unhappy marriages happen a lot more often when people are low on the totem pole and cannot get what they really want. In all these situations, both people have made mistakes. very very few bad marriages contain one party who totally scams the other, and even then, the naivete is often built on unwillingness to accept reality.
I think only 0.1% of people can truly overcome their programming for several decades, so for the rest, it makes sense to just accept human nature and build on their masculinity/femininity, attractiveness and charm. A man who is both a good provider, father, husband and a good lover, a romantic and seductive man is very rarely left. Similarly a lady who is an appreciative wife, a patient mother and a great cook aswell as an enthusiastic seductress and lover is rarely deserted. If two such people come together, and they are to a good extend aware of and in control of their programming, that is true magic.
LikeLike
@Gordan 280
“things that weren’t meant for you”
Why should I ascribe metaphysical meaning and validity to the aggregate effect (my not sleeping with hot chicks) of a series of independent individual decisions by individuals (hot chicks) for reasons still unknown, according to criteria still unknown?
LikeLike
Eurosabra,
Huh? Just because you’ve abdicated your responsibility for making independent individual decisions regarding the selection of worthwhile targets for your advances, and are too unattractive to be a suitable object of their returned affection, now those targets should be subject to fraud while trying to exercise their own responsibility to choose?
Would you wear a George Clooney mask, if you knew that it would get you laid? Or go along with banging a woman who would only let you do it if she could call you by another man’s name?
What’s next? Since hot chicks, by dubious virtue of having been decreed hot, are clearly just there to provide a sexual outlet for you, and the only issue is how to prevent them from standing in the way of their destiny, why not just help a sister out and slip some GHB in her drink? Guaranteed to improve your game! After all, it’s all just chemicals in the brain, and she clearly needs help with getting rid of her inhibitions. As long as she has a good time of it, it’s all good, right?
Do you have any pride? Does not being a parasite, or a conformant suppository, have any metaphysical significance for you? If you didn’t have other men telling you what to chase, would you still exist?
This is what passes for being manly these days?
LikeLike
The above comment is a bit of a jumble, but there are two salient points:
– not engaging in deception for one’s own profit is a matter of integrity, honesty, and morality, and
– not surrendering your own identity by pandering to the very criteria you consider invalid, so that you can get something from the very people you despise, is a matter of pride and self-respect.
But willingly debasing and devaluing your own sexuality, using it as a tool of humiliation against those whom you disdain, and then crying “unfair” when noticing that it’s been rendered worthless or worse, is the peak of ridiculousness.
LikeLike
You’re defending a specific way of pursuing.
I am defending an effective way of pursuing. I am open to all types that are effective
I am saying that this way is antithetical to the goals of anyone but a perennial skirt chaser…
Men have been pursuing women forever. Yet, somehow, someway, we found our way towards marriage and children. Over the last 40 years (or so) that changed.
…you dismissed as a pathological case by which the rest should not be judged.
I don’t know what that means.
You’ve yet to offer an explanation why you think that “Game” is helpful to anyone else…
If you are a lonely man, it will help. I am not sure what there is to explain there.
In essence, they created for themselves a string of interactions and experiences that couldn’t help but make them think less of humanity in general, and themselves in particular.
In all of my time involved in or interested in “Game”, I have never, ever, heard of a guy that felt his life was worse after learning game. Not a single one. It is damn near universal in it’s high praise from those that learn it.
…than they are crafting a veneer that overstates the worth of the contents.
By who’e opinion? If you meet a guy and you think that he has overplayed his hand, well, we know who you won’t be dating. And that is perfectly reasonable.
Granted, this can be phrased a thousand different ways:
“To each his own”
“Different strokes for different folks”
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”
“There is someone out there for everyone”
etc.
It’s not just not helpful, but downright hurtful to its practitioner, for reasons already stated.
But it’s not. And this is not a hard one to figure out. Just ask them. Simply go to any forum that has a fair number of guys who have improved their “game” (social skills, confidence, presentation, whatever you want to call it) and simply ask them: Has Game helped or hurt? (or, are you happier now, or before?)
Gordan, I am not saying that it has had a somewhat positive effect on a few of the people that have attempted it. I am saying that it has had an enormously positive effect on basically everyone that learned how to effectively interact with women.
Being unabashedly and genuinely yourself…
I do not know of a popular approach (Mystery Method, Real Social Dynamics, Pickup 101, etc) that encourage guys to be anything but themselves. In fact, one of the basic tenets of game is to figure out your best (or most attractive) qualities and let them shine through.
…and noticing that people still appreciate you…
When you are alone, you are not being appreciated.
And if people don’t appreciate you, change your setting.
If you have a better mousetrap, then, great. Honestly. But be specific about it. Again, if changing the setting is the way for that lonely and frustrated guy to improve his situation, then give some specific rules/guidelines/pieces-of-advice that are actually applicable. That is what he needs.
LikeLike
Yours truly, you made some interesting points.
LikeLike
I agree that ending alimony and no-fault divorce will not only be better for Beta Males (who are the statistical majority of males), but better for average-looking, good-hearted women as well.
Feminism has robbed average-looking but good-hearted women of a chance to marry and have a white picket fence. More and more Beta males are too afriad to marry under the rigged system, so the average women they would marry are now left with no-one. A lot of good women suffer as collateral damage.
LikeLike
For crying out loud… Stop blaming feminism for everything.
You make women sound so evil. Does every girl dump a beta male and fall into the arms of an alpha male? No. So?
I think men found difficulties in communicating or preserving a relationship with females always try to find a scapegoat for their shortcomings. Feminism being the easiest target.
Sorry for being off-topic. It just bugs me that’s all.
LikeLike
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Send the Betas’ overseas to fight in the corporate wars, there they will quench their sexual frustration with raping & pillaging A’plenty when no decent jobs are left back home
….seriously, Feminism? Do you know who funded this thing from the beginning? Does ANYBODY follow the money anymore?
And you wonder why your kids are shooting up schools
Oh right- i forgot, dont say social programming is conducted with vengeance under Our oh-so-progressive noses….thats crazy talk! money dont make the world go ’round, cause & effect whats that?
….SHhhhhh- dont say bad words, we’re all free & equal & junk
Dont pretend we aren’t dumber from this in more ways than one, keep fledgling families shattered with all time divorce rates & keep taxinging & refereeing private matters for the benefit of all financial concerns, raise those expendable betas & other sharpnel from those households you brought the bright light of McEquality initially, free of charge, courtesy of the State
Everyones equal
But No ones on the same level Anymore
-see how it works?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Divide & Conquer
The Great god M0ney demands it
LikeLike
Yup, im going with ranty above
you’ve all got your heads in the sky with
this La-Di-Da about all the wonderful progress
were making; in the beginning, Ok…but now?
Keep the sexues totally confused & sexually messed up, -crack the bedrock: good business for all financial beneficiaries (but not alas, the thinning social fabric)
its called war of the sexes for a reason people
you know, like war on terror or war on drugs etc.
Its a finely lubed conveyer belt
LikeLike
What is this Alpha & Beta crap, where did those terms come from is what i wanna know,
What is this Brave new world
everyone classified to a seperate class as a person,
alpha betal gamma whatever?
you want equality?
boy youd better pay up
LikeLike
Why are so many commercials these days with some dolt of a husband getting berated or otherwise demeaned in the same way women used to complain about bad signals decades ago?
why is it ok to blame guys for all the worlds Ills, hate them
but hate women & you have ‘issues’ & aren’t a good person/man?
just TRY reversing those roles on prime time TV and see how many people will flip the hell out
….this has NOT made us ‘equal’
The cycle is Unending
were not going to fix it
by Legislating ‘progress’
LikeLike
OR breaking Up families
LikeLike
Simple. With the advent of Fem 101, this opened up a whole
new class to market to.
Women, with disposable income & taxed salaries,
we’re brought into a growing workforce on behalf of equality among the sexes,a new Voice to contend with in a thriving capitalist democracy
I know women & minorities in particular like to focus almost soley on the great strides made with such system wide changes to honor responsible citizens with right to their person above any outside authority and True, i have to agree, these are fantastic strides
but there is ALWAYS a flip side to consider and that is there was more than just ideals being considered come liberation time; any new social initiative of size is a whole buisness unto itself & as we all are learniong constantly these fractured days, businesses can grow to become all encompassing in their appetites
LikeLike
Cracked capitalism,
its eating families
for a tasty mid day snack
next comes health care,
mmmmmm
LikeLike
Welcome to the Machine
LikeLike
Its Un-american to stand in the way of good business
LikeLike