…according to this post by Tyler Cowen who contributes to the economics blog [REDACTED] and who refuses to link to me out of concern for the tender sensibilities of his readership — evangelical Bible Belt moms and beta academics I presume:
Should I, if only for didactic purposes, ever link to EVIL websites?
😀 😀 😀
If I come across a girl who reads his blog [REDACTED] I’ll show her this. Nothing gets a girl wetter faster than an evil bad boy. Chicks dig jerks. Chicks really dig evil jerks.
He promotes an aggressively instrumentalist view of the sexes; imagine Larry David as a scoreman plus make the language of the monologues ruder and more offensive. He also thinks like an economist and uses marginalism: “Smells bad. (when a shower isn’t going to help your cause, why bother?)”
My question is which parameter value he incorrectly estimates; after all, he is not just evil he is also imprudent in missing the joys of monogamy and matrimony. I believe that most of all, he underestimates his transparency to his observers in real life. I sometimes call this the endogeneity of face to thought and thus his face must be somewhat evil too. Since his strategies cause him to spend time only with women he can fool, he doesn’t correctly perceive how he is wrecking his broader reputation; the same is probably true for the rest of us as well.
It’s well-known in scientific circles that men with evil faces make the best lovers.
On a serious note: The mistake in his analysis is that a reputation as a ladies’ man makes a man *more* attractive to women, not less. And women aren’t “fooled” — women are complicit in their own seduction.
Can he still be saved by a good woman?
I like to think I’m a cuddly teddy bear whose pursuit of delicious pussy necessitates evil tactics. But maybe that’s just semantics.
Poor guy. Poor, poor guy.
Envy is 100% bad box office. Now excuse me I have to take an evil piss.
What I don’t understand is his insipid need to wrap his thoughts in pseudo-academic terminology and concepts. He could simply have called you an A-hole and been done with it. That would not, of course, change the fact that you use what works in your interactions with women. His screed is no different than the one used by nice guys (who don’t get laid) to criticize jerks (who do get laid).
LikeLike
His tactic of not linking pretty much backfired (as such a tactic is pretty much guaranteed to fail). It sparked my curiosity enough to hunt down your blog (someone helpfully posted a link further down in his comments) and am now a subscriber. It also made me revise my opinion of the guy significantly downward (the fact that he refused to link to something he disagreed with as much as my disagreeing with his opinion).
LikeLike
So is Cowan actually saying that evil people LOOK evil? Boy, that’s scientific thinking for you; but of course, we’re talking about a guy who thinks that we should have unlimited immigration into the United States because he like Brazilian music, so we’re not exactly in Milton Friedman/Thomas Aquinas territory here, logic-wise. Besides, why does he care what you get up to? Isn’t he supposed to be a libertarian, or something?
Good Lord…
LikeLike
Good, very good!
LikeLike
“It is just like the unattractive woman being bitter over being passed over for the 10s, and screaming about how men and the beauty industry are evil blah blah blah”
Yeah, but he gets regularly laid. That difference is not insignificant.
LikeLike
Tyler is no libertarian; but, he is a pretty decent economist and works with a bunch of libertarians.
Anyway, I’m glad he posted about you. Otherwise I never would have found this hilarious and informative site.
LikeLike
I still think he’s a douchebag for his tactics, but they work for him and he feels no remorse or guilt, so my complaints are simply in vain.
People respond to incentives. Tactics evolve to chase incentives. There is no morality. Only outcomes.
LikeLike
“The mistake in his analysis is that a reputation as a ladies’ man makes a man *more* attractive to women, not less. And women aren’t “fooled” – women are complicit in their own seduction.”
One of your most common logical fallacies is equating all women with the women who will let you spend time with them.
Not every woman is attracted to a known player. Women who want a short-term hook up will want a player. Women who don’t will stay away.
Your problem is that you dimly realize that you are in fact very low down on the totem pole in the mating game – if the dating pool were a college football team, you’d be a walk-on who never sees real game time and is basically just a human practice bag for the rest of the players.
And you hate it. So you spout off in a blog and pretend you’re in control and didn’t want them anyway and it’s all just the way nature intended and there’s nothing you can ever do to fix yourself so someone wouldn’t have to be a raging, needy, undiscerning moron to risk allowing your abusive presence into her life.
LikeLike
As usual, an economist thinking out loud proves that he knows jackshit about what he’s talking about — at least relating to people (which is mostly what economists talk about).
It wouldn’t take much effort to uncover the literature on whether or not deceitful people have deceitful-looking faces — but surprise, they don’t. People are incredibly bad at spotting liars, and people with honest-looking faces lie more — because they can.
He and anyone else can read Leslie Zebrowitz’s excellent book *Reading Faces* that summarizes the lit as of 1997 on facial appearance, reading faces, and social psychology. She’s one of the leading researchers in this sub-field, so check out her newer articles too if you’re interested.
A little evolutionary biology would’ve helped Cowen figure this out: if you’re designed to deceive, you will probably also be designed to not stand out as a deceiver. Duh!
LikeLike
To be a bit fairer to economists, when they actually look through a bunch of data tough-mindedly, they can figure things out. But they are almost all autistics or Aspies, and thus have zero intuition about their subject matter (humans). Blogs do not suit them.
LikeLike
Man, I’m taking [REDACTED] off my daily reading list immediately.
LikeLike
“Not every woman is attracted to a known player. Women who want a short-term hook up will want a player. Women who don’t will stay away.”
Women who have a chip on their shoulder about players tend to be easy pickings. Never underestimate the force of a hurt person’s need to believe that everything happens for a reason. They tend to be more vulnerable, not less, to the next one that comes along. What is a known player anyway? We can’t really know a person we just met.
LikeLike
“The mistake in his analysis is that a reputation as a ladies’ man makes a man *more* attractive to women, not less. And women aren’t “fooled” – women are complicit in their own seduction.”
You wrote on the last thread that women who go out in public meeting places like bars should expect to be approached, and you have written repeatedly about insulting women who don’t want to be hit on by you and your supposedly fool proof lines (only the bitches don’t bite, right?). You are singularly opposed to women having a choice in the dating market. I think there’s probably a reason for that.
LikeLike
I was actually trying to quote this from you in the post above, “perfect example of your lying. nowhere do i write women are being horrible and abusive to me if they try not to give me what i want, unless what i want is something that was never theirs to begin with.”
Here’s the whole thing together:
“nowhere do i write women are being horrible and abusive to me if they try not to give me what i want, unless what i want is something that was never theirs to begin with. ”
You wrote on the last thread that women who go out in public meeting places like bars should expect to be approached, and you have written repeatedly about insulting women who don’t want to be hit on by you and your supposedly fool proof lines (only the bitches don’t bite, right?). You are singularly opposed to women having a choice in the dating market. I think there’s probably a reason for that.
LikeLike
Karl, you know ugly women can still “get it”. It takes less work for an ugly woman to find a “partner” than an average looking man.
LikeLike
Seems to me he did you a favor…….you will probably pick up a lot of new readers from his post as he exposed you to a pretty big audience. Also, there is a difference between blogging anonymously and blogging with your name on it. Just sayin’.
LikeLike
Brilliant. Stellar. Awesome. Incredible. Superlative. Genius. Evil. Horrific. Horrendous. Disgusting.
LikeLike
Not every woman is attracted to a known player. Women who want a short-term hook up will want a player. Women who don’t will stay away
I agree and I am glad to know I am not the only one who thinks this way. I just think some of these women that PUA are picking up can be easly talked out of their panties. Any decent looking man with a few smooth words can get a piece if he puts in a little effort with the bar chics.
Maybe it’s because I am a woman but I’ve noticed that the comments on this blog are becoming very nasty between posters. If I have offended anyone, I want to apologize. Although, I know that men bond over violence and tough talk, I am going to reframe from that
LikeLike
“did your labia quiver when you wrote that?
perchance, to cream”
Forgive me for giggling like a school girl at^^^^.
Lisa, men get reputations too. As a result, some men become known players. The saddest type of player is the one that spreads the love but gets low scores for his “activity”.
monohechomierda
Seems to me he did you a favor…….you will probably pick up a lot of new readers from his post as he exposed you to a pretty big audience. Also, there is a difference between blogging anonymously and blogging with your name on it. Just sayin’
I was thinking the same thing.
LikeLike
boring
LikeLike
“And the earnest support he gets from people like the pedophile Gannon, just makes it almost too perfect!”
Can you stop the feminist cliches, please?
One typical one is that when men prefer younger women, they’re “pedophiles.” Thus, we have Billy Joel, who married a 25-year-old, and feminists going around calling him a “pedophile” and her a “25-year-old child.” The same thing happened when Bill Clinton and Christie Brinkley’s husbands went for younger women.
You can’t have it both ways. If consenting age women are “children,” then they should not be allowed in the workplace. They should be kept with their parents, like in India and the Middle East.
Also, by claiming someone who likes women in their late teens is a “pedophile,” you demean the plight of real victims of pedophilia, who are BELOW the age of puberty and show no secondary sex characteristics. Pedophiles molest children; they don’t have relationships with women who would have been considered legal age only a few decades back.
LikeLike
Bookish academics with 140+ IQ’s, sunken chests and social anxiety stand the most to gain from the re-writing of the rules of the sexual marketplace.
You would think so, but these guys tend to be beta by nature. Low testosterone correlates with high IQ. Many of my fellow physicists would rather let women fuck them in the ass with strap-ons than use any of the techniques I do. Some of them are visibly repulsed when I reveal things from this world.
LikeLike
You guys need to stop ripping on economists. It’s not like we have quantum computers to crunch hyper accurate models of the world to verify our theories.
Physicists and observable scientists have it easy to an extent because their phenomenon are static and easily categorizable. You still get your occasional disputes though as is evidenced by the controversy that is string theory.
LikeLike
“Thus, we have Billy Joel, who married a 25-year-old, and feminists going around calling him a “pedophile” and her a “25-year-old child.” The same thing happened when Bill Clinton and Christie Brinkley’s husbands went for younger women.”
Gannon preaches the joys of dating 15 year olds, and has mentioned several times that by all rights he should get the 12 year olds on up to 18. Apparently the barely pubescent don’t talk back and they are easier to control.
That’s pretty different than an older man dating a 25 year old. (Although that is still a pretty big power difference).
LikeLike
Patrick I know this a bit of a rude question, but what is the salary range for finance researchers like yourself?
I’m still a poor grad student. The banks try to keep salary information hazy but starting salaries in quant finance are between 80-150k and bonuses are ~20-100% of that. After 6-7 years, mid 6 figures is normal. I am also considering management consulting. Salaries are a bit less in consulting (~140k total comp first year) but the workload is less and you get to travel.
LikeLike
Oh ok, so it’s typical for people starting out in finance. I was actually thinking you would do something that suits your aggressive people skills like heg fund manager. It sounds like you have a heavy interest in science though and something like this is a compromise between academia and money.
Right now you are a physics grad student though, so when do you actually take the economics courses that integrate the quantum field theory with applications?
LikeLike
Most hedge fund managers actually don’t have aggressive people skills, or at least they certainly don’t need them. Unless you’re doing private equity as well or you’re an activist investor, which most aren’t, people skills are irrelevant.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t you need the people skills to get the hedge fund manager position in the first place. I mean once you have the position sure you just need to do the work.
LikeLike
Not really, no. Hedge fund manager is almost purely performance based. If you’re a good seller, I’m sure you can raise some money from some stupid investors, but to rise in the ranks of a hedge fund it’s 100% about performance. At an investment bank, you’d be right; you need people skills (specifically back-stabbing skills) to get to the top.
LikeLike
But no unprescribed drugs
LikeLike
In the past, many physicists entered finance without any knowledge of finance at all and some still do. The quantitative and computational skills we gain in our programs cover most of what we need to know. Now that more physicists, mathematicians, etc. are choosing finance, the marketplace demands a bit more knowledge but nothing we can’t gain in our spare time. I’ve studied a bit of finance and economics on my own and I plan on taking some finance courses at the business school here. I also plan to take the graduate mathematical finance course offered by the math department.
I plan to enter into finance through a quant type role, but then use my aggression and superior people skills vs. other quants to move into a higher testosterone role. I’m not nerdy enough to be a true hedge fund guy, but private equity or I-banking seem like good fits for my machiavellian tendencies.
LikeLike
Wow — quite a thread. I too was glad to find Rossy’s site from MR — mostly because he writes about douchbaggery (his own), i.e., http://www.hotchickswithdouchebags.com/
….and also because I’m living in DC for a few months and it’s interesting to see how the Adams-Morgan crowd sorts itself for weekend play dates.
Now, as an economist, I am SURE that Rossy’s game works, and I am also sure that he gets what he deserves (garbage in, garbage out). There’s no bad in all that, but — and I think this was Tyler’s point — nightly runting is hardly the recipe for a meaningful relationship. (Even if the girl calls you again, is it just for sex or to be abused?) Does that make you happy? Great. Rock on.
Finally, I have to tell you that not all economists are sexual dolts. (How do I say this without claiming to be Don Juan?) I have put a lot of time and effort into understanding how sex and women work, and I enjoy all the complications in those areas. Check out my (now inactive) blog: http://sexdrugsreligion.com/
LikeLike
DIZZY
“I just realized that I was tired of being watched all the time. After a while, it’s as if every man I saw on the street or met in a coffee shop believed he was owed my time or my smile or my attention. That’s NOT fun, once you realize that the attention is just stupid and one-sided. They had nothing to offer.”
Thank you! You have just made the perfect argument for learning Game. What you just said is the reason the neg was invented.
LikeLike
That’s my story. In 10 years, you’ll probably have a similar one.
So then you agree with the advice that all the guys here have been giving her — that she should find a guy to marry sooner rather than later, lest she (gasp) end up like you, right? I’m glad you’ve come around.
They don’t care about you. They only care about themselves.
We’re trying to use her for our own needs by advising her to get married soon? I’m not gonna lie, reverse psychology is slick like that.
Don’t stop your tirades, though: they provide a valuable “scared straight” message to the young female readers: “don’t let this happen to you!”
I’m going to use you in my PSA campaign for the United American Girliness Fund — “Because a giggly smile is a terrible thing to waste.”
LikeLike
“So then you agree with the advice that all the guys here have been giving her — that she should find a guy to marry sooner rather than later, lest she (gasp) end up like you, right? I’m glad you’ve come around.’
How did you manage to get that out of what I said? I just spent a long time explaining that the idea of marriage you present is a stupid control game. Who needs to commit the rest of their lives to trying to win something like taht?
“Thank you! You have just made the perfect argument for learning Game. What you just said is the reason the neg was invented.”
I won’t talk to guys who give negs – I don’t know any normal girls who would. Doesn’t it seem like a person who will keep talking to you after you have put her down doesn’t have a lot of self-respect? Especially if you’re a stranger? This technique only works on people who want to win over the difficult-to-win-over because they think it will prove something about themselves and their place in the world. In other words, the people with issues.
“We’re trying to use her for our own needs by advising her to get married soon? I’m not gonna lie, reverse psychology is slick like that.”
Girls who choose marriage over a career are dependent on the man they marry. That’s a fact, although not one that means marriage is bad for people, per se. However, the men on this board complain about women who get fat, who get old, who have opinions, who have children and expect support, and so on. Marriage, as described on this board, is completely one-sided (although you seem to believe that having children will make up for everything). So yes, you are encouraging women to accept a deal that serves your needs over hers. We have more needs than the need to procreate, you know. And doing everything for a man, hoping he won’t get sick of us, definitely isn’t the way to fulfill the desire to procreate, anyway.
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree with the “reaction seeking is pathetic” point.
I think your idea that emotional abuse is a two-way street and that somehow makes it legitimate doesn’t make sense, though. Sure people abuse each other. So the world needs a blog to tell men how to do it?
Where is the blog that says, “Men, stay away from the bad girls. Grow a spine and stop chasing them. You’re just displaying your mother issues…” the way women’s magazines do for women. What if the women’s magazines were all, “Hey ladies, here’s how to punish that dog and make them ALL PAY, bwahahhahaaaa!!!!” Everyone would freak, because that’s sick.
The men on here need to find a healthy relationship, instead of trying to either take charge of an unhealthy one, or to find someone so weak she can never be a threat. Neither option is going to be great in the long run.
LikeLike
” In the past women were happy to get married and loved to please their man. Read it: loved. This isn’t some sick condition of servitude.”
Perhaps you’re right. But in the past (and in some backward societies of today), women didn’t eat, and faced incredibly violent repercussions, unless they pleased and served their men. Some people actually might consider that a “sick condition of servitude.”
LikeLike
dizzy,
What would make you happy? It seems like you’ve just described a world where everything makes you miserable.
Don’t like it when average men pay attention to you: “one sided blah blah blah had nothing to offer blah blah blah”.
Don’t like the deal women get out of marriage because you get less attractive over time and the man might complain (of course if he leaves you, you still get to keep his money).
Don’t like that men want you to stay thin and pretty. Easier just to eat donuts than keep up your value to the opposite sex.
Don’t like that men find younger women more attractive than older women. (“PEDOPHILES!”)
Don’t like that the men that you did like wouldn’t commit to you. (“I was tired … of meeting the conflicting expectations – good girl who’s good at sex and wants it all the time and would never cheat but doesn’t get “clingy” when her partner has a wandering eye. … Men walk out on wonder woman, too you know. Nothing you can do will make him stay.”)
Here’s what you said:
I’d never be happy with an average man
I know that my value is declining over time (and it pisses me off)
I wasted my peak value on men who had other equally attractive options
Now that I’m less attractive, my only value to the men I do find attractive is in providing no strings attached sex
“Finally, this is the internet, so we’ll never know, but if you actually are a cute 20-year-old who’s smart and successful and hoping to have a good life, but not desperate to meet a man, then I was you a few years ago. And nothing bad happened to me”
Nothing bad happened to you, in fact, nothing happened to you at all. You just got older and never got that man that you thought you deserved who’d be devoted to you forever even as you got less and less attractive.
If there ever were a post that illustrates the truth of the Gannon world-view more clearly, I haven’t read it.
Women take dizzy as a warning. When you’re in your prime no man is going to tell you he’s out of your league, it’s up to you to figure it out.
LikeLike
Fucking smilies. They should be ) s.
LikeLike
obviously i left in a quoted paragraph: “Finally, this is the internet, so we’ll never know…”. sorry!
LikeLike
“Nothing bad happened to you, in fact, nothing happened to you at all. You just got older and never got that man that you thought you deserved who’d be devoted to you forever even as you got less and less attractive.”
This is the internet, you don’t know that.
Perhaps I got older and became a lesbian. Or got older and found a younger man. And you make finding someone who cares about more than my looks sound like a stupid delusion. Maybe you think that, but it’s what I want. If I dont’ have it, I won’t settle. Because that would be stupid. What if told a man, “Yes my love, we’ll be together through crows feet, but I will let you be free when your beer belly pops out…”
LikeLike
“I don’t excuse the hurt and control freak behaviour these men might have; I want to know why it exists. “
It exists because they think they can protect themselves from being hurt again, and punish some people who are like the people who hurt them. There’s really no big mystery here. Every eight year old with a crush on a super-hero wants the same thing. Some of us grow up. Some don’t.
I agree the men on here are pitiable, but they are using their pain as justification for hurting other people. That’s EXACTLY the line of reasoning followed by Glenn Close’s character in Fatal Attraction. This whole blog is a bunch of bunny boilers. But some people seem to tolerate in men behavior and attitudes which (rightfully) elicit horror when expressed by women.
“You dumped me so I get to key your car and call you stupid and write a blog about how much fun it all is!!!” Whatever. Grow up and get over it.
LikeLike
Reductio ad absurdem. I never said the women were forced into loving to please their men. Sure it was socially acceptable, but we had a decent window of time where women would not have been chastized for wanting to please their man, but were happy to live the traditional life style anyway.
I didn’t say that it went both ways is legitimate, but the fact that you are advocating that men give up their player power which allows them to bypass the abuse in favor of women being the abusers is absurd. Being a victim who has his story is a silly thing to aspire to, which is what you are advising men to do. Think about it: beta male buys women dinner, spoils her in hopes of sex. Is turned down when he tries to establish more than friendship. The abuse has occurred and most likely the woman knew what was happening. In the situation where a man has game at least he doesn’t wind up expending resources in vain. Sometimes he even winds up being the one who gets more out of the relationship. Women still enjoy it though because sex is enjoyable. Just because women are wired to feel more satisfaction from commitment doesn’t mean a player took more than he gave.
What the hell is a bad girl? Most men aren’t complaining because their relationships go down the toilet most men are complaining that they aren’t getting anywhere with a girl. Your assumption that men and women are equal instead of compliments is what is deluding your world view. Men have trouble getting to the sex. Women have trouble keeping the sex around.
People are all greedy by nature, they see other dudes that they view as being thugs and criminals getting lots of girls and feel entitled to a slice of that pie. Most guys though before they learn about game just want that one sweet girlfriend. Who they never get because nice guy tactics like asking out on dates and buying dinners as signs of affection don’t work. This is called the rapport phase and is documented enough that science should conclude that attraction is a whole other subject.
In the past the paradigm was to assume that once you get to know the person better you might like them. Girls still swooned over bad boys, but since it was unacceptable to have one night stands most girls would not risk the pleasure of hooking up with a bad boy if it meant permanently sullying their image. Instead all they could do was go for betas and hope to like them. This worked out reasonably well because even though they didn’t feel the instant gratification of alpha male dominance they got to feel the comfort of after sex intimacy. There was also the benefit of knowing that you have a husband that loves you and will take care of you no matter what. The benefits were all small on the happiness spikes scale, but consistency is what wins out in the end not spikes. Even pick up artists have to accept this rule because being good at picking up is a byproduct of consistency and not the occasional success. That is why pick up artists practice so hard and put themselves on the line. It isn’t as easy as it sounds. You don’t just push a button or say a cocky and funny neg and all of a sudden become James Bond.
Even those that do learn about game want monogamy for the most part. Men aren’t having trouble engaging in unhealthy relationships. Buying dinner does not count as a relationship. A relationship is after sex has occured. Men have trouble starting a relationship to begin with. Not maintaining one.
Oh and since the divorce rate is 50% of which 80% is initiated by women you can’t claim bad girl syndrome because 40% of the US population can’t be bad girls. Simply because bad is taken as a deviance from the norm, which is good. When bad becomes a sizable plurality it ceases to be bad. Remember morality is society’s set standards.
LikeLike
“But people who are nice (eg not sketchy or gross) shouldn’t be punished; a smile brightens the day.’
I don’t have time or desire to smile at every single person, and it’s not my job to figure out which ones are nice and which ones are practicing game. Hell, if you’re talking to a stranger, what are you up to, anyway?
I don’t owe a “day brightener” to anyone. No one expects a man to cheer the world. But every single day six blocks worth of men act offended if I don’t smile and personally greet each and every one of them on their way to the metro. While I’m studying for exams, guy after guy tried to sit down in the coffee shop and have his day cheered by a little “fun and cocky” chat. That’s entitlement. And it does piss me off.
I don’t expect strangers to cheer me up. They have their own lives. I have mine. Stay out of it unless invited. Thank you!
LikeLike
“Oh and since the divorce rate is 50% of which 80% is initiated by women you can’t claim bad girl syndrome because 40% of the US population can’t be bad girls’
It’s a fact that any split is usually initiated by the cheated-on, not the cheater. And your grasp of numbers seems…. shaky… here. I’m not sure this sentence even means what you think it means.
LikeLike
You are a woman so I don’t expect you to understand how hard it is for an average man to get sex without game, but most on here don’t give a rats ass about getting hurt. That is the least of their worries. Usually the hurt comes from knowing that they work so hard in their day to day lives and aren’t able to attract and keep a woman. Actually just attracting a woman would probably be sufficient for most of these guys because most of them are really caring. I must admit though, that there are some jaded attitudes around here. I doubt they would ever be expressed in real life though, since only a fool ends a relationship to grind an ideological ax.
No one is in this for the punishment. The punishment that occurs is gravy on the side, not the main course. The main course still tastes delicous without the gravy.
LikeLike
“Being a victim who has his story is a silly thing to aspire to, which is what you are advising men to do. ”
No. I’m advising men to stay away from controlling relationships, either as the victim or the abuser. It’s not “control or be controlled,” and I do know this for a fact. Only people who haven’t worked through an ugly childhood think life is really like that.
LikeLike
“Usually the hurt comes from knowing that they work so hard in their day to day lives and aren’t able to attract and keep a woman”
A woman who works so hard in her day to day lives and goes home to an empty house is pathetic and has failed, according to this blog. But a man with the same problem is a victim?
Wow. I didn’t expect you to spell it out so clearly. See, that’s why I keep reading this blog.
LikeLike
“And you make finding someone who cares about more than my looks sound like a stupid delusion.”
Ahh, but you don’t want “someone” you want that amazing man you think you’re entitled to just ’cause. That guy who has lots of options (as you wrote about your earlier experience). That guy who isn’t just an average guy who provides you with nothing more than insulation from other average guys. That man who stands out on what ever your particular important scale is. And that guy will never commit to you because you don’t have what he is looking for: a certain minimum of looks.
That’s why you’re pissed off that men and women have different standards for what they want in a mate. You’re so angry that that guy is still that guy even if he gets a beer belly and you’re not up to his standards if you get crow’s feet.
To make things worse, guys can even learn things that make them more attractive to women and you simply watch your value evaporate as you get older and older so of course your reaction is to call anything men can do to improve their success with women “abuse” or try to shame men into not taking advantage of it (“it’s like what men who beat their wives do, you don’t want to be like that do you?” ) .
Good luck with the anti-reality quest.
LikeLike
Steve Johnson….
Huh? I’ve never said men and women should have the same standards in a mate. I said you guys are entitled to want whatever you want. (Except a 12 year old, that’s sick). But if you can only tolerate being with a 25 year old, knock yourself out.
The problem, for you, not me, is that no one stays 25 forever. So you will have to continue to find more and more 25 year olds, which becomes increasingly more difficult as you age (That Guy has always been a joke with my friends). And I can either not date you. Or accept that my relationship shelf life is five years.
I opted out. I can’t not age; I’m clearly not going to win that game. That’s why it’s funny when you guys are all, “Nyah nyah, we don’t want you!!!” You don’t want anyone alive. And it’s not the insult you seem to think it is.
What does bother me about this blog is the punish-all-those-bitches angle. Switch the sexes on some of these posts in your head, “When is it ok to call a man fat (to get him to do what you want)” “Knocking the penis off the pedestal…”
Doesn’t that sound kind of horrible to someone who, presumably, has a penis?
LikeLike
We attract what we are, not what we want. It is that kind of selfishness that is the root of all the problems this site talks about.
FOR THE LAST FREAKIN TIME. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GAME. WHAT MAKES MYSTERY SUCCESSFUL IS NOT THE LINES. I don’t remember if there is scientific evidence or not, but I do know that most pick up artists that switch to natural game report no difference. Subcommunications are everything. So you aren’t discerning between the game haves and have nots. You are discerning between the criminals the hardworking men.
Also if you are out in a coffee shop and dressed pretty then you damn well don’t have any excuse for not wanting to be approached. Women dress pretty for male attention. The common rebuttle to this is that women dress to compete with other women. Well they do it to compete over men. If you want to sup coffee and not be approached then you either go to a small coffee shop or drink your coffee in private. Also you describe this approaching as if its rampant. Very few guys have the balls to approach a woman in a public non sexually charged place. That defaults your argument to the bar and club scene where no argument can be made that it is illegitimate for a guy to approach. You don’t go to a club for quiet time. To a bar maybe, but you deal with the consequence of being a place for socializing.
Why do you care what other people think of you. That’s your inner game problem not the men’s inner game problem. Of course a man is not going to be ecstatic when a beautiful woman doesn’t pay him the time of day. Doesn’t mean he goes out of his way to express his disapproval. Wow I’m surprised you get approached in coffee shops though. I rarely see this happen. Also a simple change of location would have fixed your scenario. I mean a coffee shop is still a social place.
Ok…
What is wrong with my grasp of the numbers? Most of these splits are being initiated by dissatisfied spouses. I don’t see how your statement about cheaters means anything to my statistics especially since there is a second set of statistics which has been quoted on this site that indicates women also cheat more than men.
I believe the statistic for men though, is that 50% cheat on their spouses. You have to account for the 90-10 rule though which would dictate that 10% are doing the majority of the 50% of cheating. In other words there is nothing wrong with the statistical argument I am making.
LikeLike
Your problem is that you are buying the feminist ideal of society. You can’t change 2,000,000 plus years of evolution and lifestyle just because you want to feel equal to men. Egoic delusions as the new agers call it is indeed the root of all human unhappiness.
LikeLike
“Also a simple change of location would have fixed your scenario. I mean a coffee shop is still a social place.”
Ok, you guys really do need some sort of help. If I am in a social place and smiling and making eye contact, then sure, c’mon over. But standing over me while I study, pushing your head between me and my books, or saying, “Law – gonna chase ambulances, har har?” IS NOT OK!
“Social place” DOES NOT EQUAL “anyone in said place is available for conversation.” You have to know that, right?
LikeLike
“Your problem is that you are buying the feminist ideal of society. You can’t change 2,000,000 plus years of evolution and lifestyle just because you want to feel equal to men. ‘
No, I can’t. But I can just not sleep with you. Leaving you the choice: evolve or die.
LikeLike
Like I said buying dinners without getting physical affection is not a relationship. ALTHOUGH, it is the only way most men know how to get women into a relationship. When that tactic falls flat on its face men learn the buttons to attract women. This is something naturals do unconsciously so I don’t know why you are complaining about something that has existed for 10,000 plus years.
LikeLike
Dizzy sez:
“I don’t expect strangers to cheer me up. They have their own lives. I have mine. Stay out of it unless invited. Thank you!”
Holy God that’s depressing… Do you happen to wear an “anti-fun badge” when you go out ?
LikeLike
Holy God that’s depressing…
No, she’s right. It’s not her job nor anybody else’s job to put a smile on your face in order to please you.
LikeLike
The statement you were talking about has absolutely nothing to do with sex. It was about women’s most happy role. Women are wired to be caregivers and nurturers. Sure they might get enjoyment from a career, but if they take it too far then they will miss what their brains are wired to want and when you aren’t able to follow your instincts caused by raging hormones you get pissed.
When a man or woman sees something he or she wants he goes over and takes it, he doesn’t dream about it. That is what being an adult is about. Part of being attractive is being able to overcome your excessively polite upbringing. If you don’t like being around people then study somewhere else. When you are in public you are open to approach. You can complain about it all you want, but that isn’t going to get you not approached.
LikeLike
It’s morally reprehensible for someone who is unsuccessful socially (and by successful I mean that guy that knows how to bring fun into anyone’s life usually characteristic of a natural player) to give out advice on how people should behave to maximize their own pleasure and the pleasure of others.
LikeLike
“Holy God that’s depressing… Do you happen to wear an “anti-fun badge” when you go out ?”
Yes. I do.
You would too if you’d spent your whole life hearing that women should stay sober in public places to avoid being raped (like it’s a natural disaster, rather than something someone chooses to do to you), and not be unfriendly or you’ll be yelled at for your attitude, but not too friendly or you’ll look easy, and not be too loud or no one will want to date you, and not try to have sex too soon or a man will never want to have babies with you, and not to want babies or a man will never stay in the same room with you…
So yeah. I’m a total killjoy. What the hell do you think I’m going to be like with all the things you guys want from me?
LikeLike
“Women are wired to be caregivers and nurturers. Sure they might get enjoyment from a career, but if they take it too far then they will miss what their brains are wired to want and when you aren’t able to follow your instincts caused by raging hormones you get pissed.’
Isn’t it also possible that women were punished for not being caregivers or nurturers? And traded what they wanted for security? It’s like the “voluntary” eunuchs of ancient societies. They gave up their balls for a place in society. Does that somehow prove that they were wired to want to be ball-less? Is that why the men on this board are so rage-filled?
LikeLike
“When you are in public you are open to approach. You can complain about it all you want, but that isn’t going to get you not approached.’
Fuck you. I’m supposed to either live under house arrest, or devote my time in public to helping other people feel better about themselves? What am I, Saint Dizzy of the Dateless?
LikeLike
It’s morally reprehensible for someone who is unsuccessful socially (and by successful I mean that guy that knows how to bring fun into anyone’s life usually characteristic of a natural player) to give out advice on how people should behave to maximize their own pleasure and the pleasure of others.
Why is it my job to smile and make you happy? I am not your anti-depressant, or inspiration or source of joy. I’m simply another human trying to get through my dad without bothering anybody in the process. Go find your own happiness from somebody who is willing to offer it.
LikeLike
Poser:
Dead on.
Here’s the thing, communication is part of the social contract. People are (and I don’t believe that I need to spell this out) , genetically disposed to converse, share ideas and heavens forfend…flirt with each other. To kill that…well you might as well close the book on civilisation.
Dizzy:
Seriously…why the HELL do you care what other people think?
Live your own life.
Ironically, one of the first things that PUAs learn is to stop needing/requiring approval from others.
Have you thought of reading up on the very thing that you criticize…maybe take a Mystery course ?
(I say this only partly in jest..)
LikeLike
Poseur,
Don’t you get it? She hates the attention of average men; she goes out in public and attempts to look her best to get attention from the few super men she finds attractive. If she doesn’t go out in public to study, she can’t meet Mr. Big.
She’s angry when Mr. Average approaches because it reminds her that Mr. Big isn’t knocking down her door.
Try to put yourself in her shoes.
You can’t approach men because you know that any man you approach will then know you’re interested and can just pump and dump you so you can only hope that the guys you are drawn to approach you.
So you go out in public but only average men approach you. You think to yourself “My god! That guy thinks he has a chance with me? THAT GUY!?! That loser? Maybe I’m not attractive. Maybe I’m losing my looks.” Now you’re pissed off. You shoot down the next guy (and the next one) as harshly as possible and you hope that quality guys will laugh it off and weak guys will cower.
But here’s the worst part: no one is persisting through your bitchy front. THIS MAKES YOU SO MAD.
David Alexender:
Grow a fucking pair. Dizzy isn’t going to like you if you kiss her ass. She already said (in so many words) that she hates guys who kiss her ass.
LikeLike
Instead all they could do was go for betas and hope to like them.
So in effect, women got third rate loser partners who bored them to death, and men got shitty sex from whatever ugly female was willing to tolerate them the longest.
Please tell me why that was better than what we have now?
LikeLike
Grow a fucking pair. Dizzy isn’t going to like you if you kiss her ass. She already said (in so many words) that she hates guys who kiss her ass.
I couldn’t be bothered if Dizzy likes me, and I’ve said plenty of things that would definitely offend her sensibilities. I am simply defending my right as an individual to not be turned into the Prozac for some loser who needs to feel happy.
LikeLike
Actually, I think David Alexander has a grasp of contradictions, argues well, and he’s funny. He also manages to describe painful situations he’s faced without fantasies about whose fault it is and how he will get revenge, so he’s mature too. In other words, he has something to offer.
LikeLike
59 “They only complain in the framework of today’s mindsets. In the past women were happy to get married and loved to please their man. Read it: loved.”
Well, come on, there’s a little more to it than that. In the past, women were happy to get married, sure, but that also had at least something to do with the fact that they didn’t have a whole lot of other options.
This is not to knock your point about how important a genuine desire to be demonstrably loving to your partner is, not at all. But the fact that marriage was such a goal for women had as much to do with economic necessity as it did with any innate desire to spoil a spouse.
“We reference the whole not getting fat thing because as it stands if a woman gets fat due to sheer laziness and having no respect for herself…”
I think part of the resistance to your referencing The Fat Thing is that, unless a distinction is being implied that I’m not picking up on, most of the guys here speak as though fat = lazy, 100% of the time, and that every woman who isn’t svelte enough to pique their respective interests is automatically stuffing themselves with doughnuts 24/7.
LikeLike
And now for a musical intermission on putting women in their place:
LikeLike
And yeah, we don’t always agree 🙂 But he has managed not to act like his feelings about my disagreeing give him the right to punish me.
Overall, I don’t know what the hell either one of us are doing on this board. I’ve gotta go.
LikeLike
One more:
“You shoot down the next guy (and the next one) as harshly as possible and you hope that quality guys will laugh it off and weak guys will cower.’
Or, maybe, you figure out that basing your life around a man is always going to be a problem. So you stop wasting your time trying to evaluate men for what they will do for you, and instead try to make the life you want on your own. ]
Wait, that’s how I ended up a lonely crone with a dust-filled womb, right?
Oh well. As far as I’m concerned, it’s better than the alternative.
LikeLike
I love the Glorious Natural Pelt!
LikeLike
Maybe eating some of that shit they give to dogs at the vet might be the best alternative?
LikeLike
David:
“Why is it my job to smile and make you happy? I am not your anti-depressant, or inspiration or source of joy. I’m simply another human trying to get through my dad without bothering anybody in the process. Go find your own happiness from somebody who is willing to offer it.”
I already feel I’m wasting my time, as you have some “inner script” that seems to be talking for you but…
A few words.
Hypnotica : Contract of Confidence.
Hypnotica : Sphinx of Imagination and Attractor Factor.
Paul McKenna: Instant Confidence.
Look em up.
Listen to them.
Love em.
“I’m simply another human trying to get through my dad without bothering anybody in the process.”
This is why you fail.
Socializing is NOT bothering.
LikeLike
“Socializing is NOT bothering.”
It is to someone who doesn’t want to be socialized with.
LikeLike
102 Thank you Peter, for that bit of sanity. And now back to our regularly scheduled Glorious Natural Pelt.
LikeLike
This is why you fail.
Socializing is NOT bothering.
But maybe I’m not in the mood to socialize? Maybe I want to be left alone at certain times? I will socialize when I choose to do so, not when others demand it from me.
LikeLike
“But maybe I’m not in the mood to socialize? Maybe I want to be left alone at certain times? I will socialize when I choose to do so, not when others demand it from me.”
Ok. Well…let me ask you a question:
Do you often walk through your day…hoping that no one will notice you ?
You’re a big boy now…having a seven-year-old kid say “hi” to you on the street, and responding will not kill you. I promise.
Look. I’m going to say this as plainly as possible.
You have a choice…you can either crawl through life hoping for the scraps that others provide…or you can “man-up” and become the man you know you can be.
WILL YOUR LIFE BE FILLED WITH REGRET OR STORIES?
The choice is yours. Either way…I’m done with this.
LikeLike
Do you often walk through your day…hoping that no one will notice you ?
Rather often, primarily so people won’t look for some excuse to either make fun of me or complain about me. I also don’t like being bothered because it can slow me down if I’m in a hurry.
having a seven-year-old kid say “hi” to you on the street, and responding will not kill you
I have no interest in being accused as the Negro child molester.
you can “man-up” and become the man you know you can be
I am the man who I know I can be. A realistic one who has to cautious due to his low ranking position within society.
LikeLike
” Chicks dig jerks. Chicks really dig evil jerks.”
I have a few questions, because this really intrigues me, as I don’t date jerks, but have friends who do and realize that there is this attitude.
I think there is a big difference between digging someone and just being attracted to them physically. If they really dug them then they would be happy with them, but they are not. They end up depressed and pissed and since their friends don’t like the jerk, they don’t want to be around her as long as she’s dating him. I noticed that the jerks are not happy either. Just big headed and arrogant and they don’t give a shit.
Questions!
Do you dig the chicks who dig jerks? Or are you just attracted to them? (same thing to you maybe) Have you learned to become a jerk in order to get chicks who dig jerks? (is this PUA?) If you’re being a jerk, how will you find a woman who does not like jerks, or don’t you care? Do only hot women dig jerks and that’s why you are one? Do you think it would be boring to have sex with a woman who doesn’t dig jerks?
LikeLike
“Or, maybe, you figure out that basing your life around a man is always going to be a problem.
[…]
Wait, that’s how I ended up a lonely crone with a dust-filled womb, right?
Oh well. As far as I’m concerned, it’s better than the alternative.”
You evade the point every time but that speaks volumes. You get approached by Mr. Average and you hate Mr. Average. He can’t you wet. Only Mr. Big gets you wet and he doesn’t approach you. So, lonely beats using the magic pussy on Mr. Average.
You only say that because you really think that you’re just holding out for Mr. Big and that he’ll come along some day. You get angrier and angrier as the cognitive dissonance gets worse and worse as time goes by and he doesn’t come along.
LikeLike
Oh lord. I always get sucked back in.
Steve: I had Mr. Big. He was boring. Because the thing that kept him Mr. Big was worrying at all times about what other people thought.
Despite what is represented on this board, life is not a soulless quest for status, an endless cycle of using other people to increase your standing with the group while trying not to be used in turn. What’s the point of trying to be at the top of that? How would you even know if you were there?
I realized a while ago that I don’t want to live my life as if I’m in the Macy’s display window. This is not for show. This is all I have. I am more than what a man thinks of me. And the boys on here should get some self esteem, too.
LikeLike
ok, i’ve had about enough of this little contretemps about the ethics of cold approaches in public, so i will offer the following resolution.
dizzy, you do indeed have the right not to be harassed, but you must realize that a simple approach, in a public place, does not constitute harassment.
you said:
Fuck you. I’m supposed to either live under house arrest, or devote my time in public to helping other people feel better about themselves?
for all your independent bluster, these words reveal a strangely solicitous underlying sense of obligation – as if you don’t realize that you can simply ignore approaches altogether, without any semblance of personal inconvenience. in other words, you’ve set up a dichotomy of (1) total hermitage vs. (2) total sacrifice of privacy, without regard for the obvious alternative that is (3) selective privacy.
if you politely decline, or simply ignore the approach altogether, then excessive persistence may indeed cross the line into harassment; on that, at least, we agree.
but you cannot reasonably take umbrage at an initial approach.
why not, you say?
well, some men – a select cadre indeed – have such extreme charisma and magnetism that they consistently elicit the indicators you’ve mentioned (welcoming smiles, open body language, and so on). for these men, your rules (i.e., prohibiting cold approaches altogether) would pose no obstacle; indeed, they are probably the optimal rules, as such men can rest assured of a near-zero rejection rate if they restrict their approaches to women who display obvious interest.
BUT
don’t neglect the additional fact that such men will almost invariably choose the most feminine, alluring, agreeable partners available, and, more often than not, will take those partners off the dating market early and will treat them very well (contrary to some of your assertions).
and the main point:
those men who have sufficient presence and confidence to approach a woman and leave a strong impression, yet lack magnetic charisma, and/or aren’t good at detecting initial interest – a category into which the VAST majority of desirable men fall – MUST rely on cold approaches if they are to meet women outside their immediate social and professional orbit. it is irrational and unconscionable to hold this fact against them.
public places are called public places for a reason: namely, they aren’t private places.
this is the western hemisphere, in which the norms of public interaction are, roughly, descended from those of the agora of ancient greece. those norms include relief from harassment, but also a tolerance of, if not an openness to, new social stimuli.
if you would prefer a culturally stratified society in which public dialogue between strangers violates social norms, feel free to move to one of the more traditional east asian countries, where no one will say a word to you unless they are formally connected to you one of the five traditional confucian relationships.
otherwise, deal with it.
that is all.
—
re david alexander: In other words, he has something to offer.
well then, that would explain why so few women have taken up his, ahem, offer, now, wouldn’t it.
the final delicious irony, which is almost certainly lost on you:
he will never successfully find a woman like you (i.e., a woman who actually finds him and/or his worldview desirable) because women like you WON’T ALLOW HIM THE CHANCE.
how anticlimactic is that?
LikeLike
“don’t neglect the additional fact that such men will almost invariably choose the most feminine, alluring, agreeable partners available, and, more often than not, will take those partners off the dating market early and will treat them very well “
Is that why there’s a 50 percent divorce rate? I thought men were biologically hard-wired to want only younger women? What happens when the alluring, agreeable partners age? Or get fat after popping out babies? Or start asking for the guy to help out a little around the house?
LikeLike
“because women like you WON’T ALLOW HIM THE CHANCE.”
DA’s going to get a lot further than you will, with that attitude. He’s also been pretty open about the fact that he has plenty of women he could date, but he doesn’t like them that much. He wants a stripper.
LikeLike
dizzy,
Both your hypothetical response and your actual exchange are indeed examples of harassment. But you seem to be saying they’re also examples of game because you’ve somehow convinced yourself that game is harassment. Game is simply the study of attraction.
LikeLike
“Stay out of it unless invited.”
so does that mean you’re going to ask a guy out?
LikeLike
I didn’t say the guys who approached were all losers, I said that I had other things to do besides talk to them. They frequently take offense. And I’m tired of having to worry about whether or not the third guy who’s walked up to me in the coffee shop is going to be the psycho or not.
Look, this blog promotes punishing people who don’t do what you want them to do, controlling people who owe you nothing, and acting at all times as if the world haas given you a raw deal because you don’t have 16 virgins in your garage. It also attracts some really scary commenters.
So yeah. It’s fricking hilarious. And that’s why an economist called it evil. Lazy, entitled people who try to get an edge by cheating tend not to be favorites of economic theorists. What did you expect?
LikeLike
“He explained a socially tactful way of doing it (calling someone fat).”
No, he bragged that implying an ex had gained weight gave him “hand.”
LikeLike
“And that is exactly why they will stay snively, beta theorists. Because of their inability to overcome their own cognitive dissonance and work with reality.”
From what I’ve read, the men on this board are not particularly successful in the career world, and so they are using game as a substitute for money to get the women they think they “deserve.”
LikeLike
What happens when the alluring, agreeable partners age? Or get fat after popping out babies? Or start asking for the guy to help out a little around the house?
That’s why I’d wish some of the commenters here would be somewhat honest about their aims. They’re the first people to chastise no-fault divorce, yet they don’t realize that sans no-fault, they’re stuck in their marriages with the aging wives that they’re no longer interested in. It’s much easier to simply admit that one wants a revolving door of young women instead faking desire in socially approved long-term relationships.
If I can be honest about my aims, so can you…
He’s also been pretty open about the fact that he has plenty of women he could date, but he doesn’t like them that much. He wants a stripper.
Well, I would never say that plenty of women were potential dates, but there were some women who have flirted with me in some form or another in attempt to get me to date them, and I pretty much brushed off their advances. These girls weren’t the porn stars/stripper types that I find attractive for short-term/medium-term purposes. Some were simply unattractive, others were okay looking, but nothing made me want to desire to chase them. A few ended up in the friend zone because we were able to get along and shared common interests, and others simply moved on to bigger and better things.
So DA if a hotass pornstar approached you on the street you’d be really pissed right.
Since the girl is hot and the primary aim is a sexual fueled relationship, so I wouldn’t mind at all. Of course, this seems to be based on the theory that a pornstar would have sex with any able-bodied male. The benefit isn’t from the exclusivity, but from her high sexualized appearance and demeanor that normal women don’t have. Having sex with a porn star is primarily for the maximization of the sexual experience. As I’ve written before, a woman can be extremely beautiful, but have little sexual attraction and no sexual skills.
I predict DA’s response as follows
You’ve done very well in predicting my response. As I’ve said, I don’t see why any woman with any self-respect would want to have a relationship when they can have a better man. Either the woman hasn’t discovered the real me, or she’s unable to date a better man which means she’s a loser. It’s better to stay alone than to date another loser, especially if you’re not attracted to her since she it reinforces my low pathetic status.
Trust me, people always point out and make fun of loser couples. I’m in no mood to be the whipping post for some bored pretty people.
LikeLike
Judging from her screed above, Dizzy is the woman who dresses sexy to get attention, but then complains about how men don’t “respect” her and can’t stop approaching.
When she’s old, she’ll be like those women who write into magazines and complain they’ve become “invisible” to men, bemoaning the fact that men won’t look anymore.
If you go to the blog Feministing*, you’ll see a lot of these drama-seeking feminist types. One recently went around dressed like a tramp, then posted a blog entry on how ” all men were animals” because they couldn’t stop looking at her. This is what feminist academics do in their spare time. I guess all the homeless don’t need feeding and the kids don’t need shoes.
* – They censor and delete comments, don’t waste your time. Feminism has now become a closed, incestuous cirlc.e It’s rare we’d get a Dizzy here. She’s out of her idiot.
LikeLike
Sorry – jet lagged on the west coast is not a good time for typing. Hopefully the errors in my previous post will not get in the way of the content.
LikeLike
Reading this comment thread reminds that the reason it’s so vicious is because the stakes are so small.
LikeLike
“Dizzy is the woman who dresses sexy to get attention, but then complains about how men don’t “respect” her and can’t stop approaching.”
No, I’m the girl who wears thick black glasses when studying in that coffee shop. And my style is ridiculously preppy. I look like a fifth-generation Republican. Some guys apparently like that.
Is it so hard to believe that what you’re promoting on this board is not going to work in real life? In real life, the nicer women are BOTHERED by this crap.
LikeLike
“Giving into a petty desire for revenge seems like a sign of weakness.”
I totally agree.
LikeLike
“Dizzy is the woman who dresses sexy to get attention, but then complains about how men don’t “respect” her and can’t stop approaching.”
I didn’t catch this on the first read. You had to try to make it my fault that some stranger, pursuing his own “get-laid” agenda, was rude to me? Douche.
That’s what I’m talking about with this board. You guys act like the women are being so rude to you by not sleeping with you even when you try to be all friendly… (Like that’s some huge sacrifice that any girl should appreciate enough for a blow job at least) and you’re the innocent victim.
The fact is, you’re the victim of your feelings. You feel something, and you think that justifies you in punishing other people for that feeling they’ve inspired, and then you blame them and say, “What did they expect?” In fact, they expected you to take responsibility for your own feelings and solve your own problems without blaming half the human race for your own issues.
And it never occurs to you that if every man in the city acted the way this blog recommends, no girl will ever be able to go out in public. My neighborhood is already crap. I swear there’s a player’s support group here.
LikeLike
Dizzy is just another woman whose life is about to be ruined by feminism. When Dizzy was around 15 up to her early twenties I bet a lot of men approached her offering Dizzy their true feelings. But she rejected them all, believing that her beauty would never fade and overstretching her partyyears. Now she is almost 30 and has gained weight, she probably has stretchmark on her belly and a fat ass ridden with celulite. There are still men who approach her who want to ride her big butt, but the quality has lowered and none wants to commit. The marriage offers have dried up. She also has finished now her law degree and starts working. Now Dizzy is finding out another of feminism’s great lies: work is not empowering but a tedious, often boring affair. She thinks law school has cheated on her. But the truth is most work just isn’t empowering or glamous. She looks down at her empty womb and is filled with envy when she looks at the babies of her former college friends. She still could form a family, but doesn’t want to settle for a lesser man. She still could change, but prefers to hang on to the lies of feminism until it will be too late. In five more yearsshe will be a BBW surrounded by cats.
Just another woman whose life was ruined by feminism because she wanted to be like a man.
@DA, Dizzy: What happens when the alluring, agreeable partners age? Or get fat after popping out babies? Or start asking for the guy to help out a little around the house?
That’s why man should marry women 8-12 years younger than them. When men marry women their age, very soon they will have a middleaged women when they are still peaking. That’s why young twentysomething men should date 15 year old girls and marry them when they finish HS. In Gannon’s ideal world, a nubile bride would be around 18-21 (Hello paperdreamer) and the man around 30, so he has enough money to raise a family. Also, women aged 14-22 are in their bonding years and at their prime of fertility, so at that age they can form a lifelasting bond to man, not at 30.
Just look at the character traits of Paperdreamer and Dizzy:
Paper is optimistic, nice, friendly, just like the average 20 year old female, whereas Dizzy is jaded, angry and ballbusting, like a lot of 30 year old females are when they start to realize their prime years are over and invisibility slowly starts.
I also would like to point out that Agnostic’s more cientific approach does have a lot of merits, and a lot of things he says are truth. If you have ever worked with real teens, you know that girls at around 14 when they are in eight grade reach sexual maturity and stop being children, and become interested in older guys. That’s why I advocate age of consent of 14, because girls at that age have enough cognitive, emotional and intelectual maturity.
For people below 21 it should be 12, because I have known a lot of early matured 13 year old girls chasing 19 year old guys.
But adult man over 21 have no business with 12-13 year old girls (transitional years), because the potential for abuse is simply to high, and a lot of girls at that age are still children.
LikeLike
Ganon said “Now Dizzy is finding out another of feminism’s great lies: work is not empowering but a tedious, often boring affair. ”
How effing true this statement is! I nominate this for comment of the month!
LikeLike
You guys haven’t read a word I’ve said. Your idea of punishment for me is not getting the chance to be with you. Do you really think I’m torn up about that?
You do also realize that the whole point of this board is talking a girl like me into being with you, at least for a night? Of the two of us, you’re the one who thinks you’re being punished when I turn you down.
Besides, the world view you’re describing: “A man can only handle having a woman around if she is hot enough to impress his friends, so he has to marry someone who is younger so she will always be hotter than he is,” is no reason to start a family. What would the kids of something like that mess turn out like?
Probably a lot like the guys here, actually. It’s like the loser cycle of life – hate your mother because you don’t see her as a separate person and you believe it’s her job to make you happy, get a cute girl who won’t talk back and try to convince her it’s her job to make you happy and punish her if she doesn’t, raise kids who also hate their mother.
LikeLike
Finally, in Gannon’s world, that cheery, agreeable 20-year-old raising a family will always be dependent on a man. Obviously he hopes that man is himself – the guy who thinks a 12-year-old should be sexually active and a woman is worth nothing more than what she does for a man. Does that sound like a happy family?
LikeLike
the guy who thinks a 12-year-old should be sexually active
I didn’t say that. I live in the real world Dizzy, not in an ideological construct. I would prefer girls under 14 not to be sexualy active. However, in real life some 13 year old girls seduce and fuck guys in their late teens. Do these guys need to go to jail because some 13 year old girl put on make up and faked being older? My answer to that is NO.
LikeLike
Gannon, you seem to do an awful lot of talking on the same old subject, but what about the walking? Have you found your ageless princess yet? Are you in the process of living your happily every after dream life? Do you have that potentially barefoot and pregnant perfect apple cheeked rosebud in your sites yet? You need to move on your dreams and stop yammering about it endlessly. Some of the guys here may be giving up hope.
LikeLike
I have a 17 year old gf, the relationship began when she was a sophmore. (This is legal in Argentina by the way and most countries of the world, except the US). Next year she wants to enter college to become a child sicologist. I hope the relationship will survive that milestone, because as agnostic says, it’s the first college years that ruin a girl, that’s why it’s important to start bonding with girls before they enter University. If the relationships survives that milestone, I would consider forming a family with her when she is around 20.
LikeLike
Dizzy:
These guys are just experiencing exactly what women experienced when the shoe was on the other foot. When we were the lower class citizen, we had to use passive aggressive techniques to get our needs (financial support, emotional support) fulfilled. Now these guys are employing by and large the same manipulative tactics to get what they need; sex. So, eventually things will even out. In the meantime, it’s all pretty amusing. I try to stay out of the whole mess and it’s not that difficult if you just keep your eyes open and look out for yourself. But it is funny; men are whining, complaining, playing victim, exactly the way women used to. It IS unfair, but then we all have to deal with the world as it is and try to make it better at the same time and not take it all so personally. Easier said than done, but the ones who are not playing victim are figuring it out.
LikeLike
“work is not empowering but a tedious, often boring affair. ”
Of *course* work is often a tedious, boring affair! That’s why they call it WORK.
But you know what *is* empowering? Being able to support yourself. Paying a mortgage? Is awesome. Owning your own car? Is awesome. Not having to depend on a man’s fickle sex drive for your livelihood? PRICELESS.
LikeLike
“Not having to depend on a man’s fickle sex drive for your livelihood? PRICELESS.”
And that is the best one-liner of the night folks! Love it!
LikeLike
“When Dizzy was around 15 up to her early twenties I bet a lot of men approached her offering Dizzy their true feelings”
They were truly horny, but I’m not sure what else they could have been feeling for a complete stranger who couldn’t yet drive or vote.
You guys have devoted an entire blog to making the point that these “feelings” are temporary and based on factors largely outside my control. Yet you also say I’m an idiot for not basing my life on someone who is basing my worth on these same feelings?
LikeLike
All this energy spend by dizzy and she still doesn’t have the first clue about men:
“Besides, the world view you’re describing: “A man can only handle having a woman around if she is hot enough to impress his friends, so he has to marry someone who is younger so she will always be hotter than he is,””
Guys don’t want to be with a hot woman to impress their friends. They want to be with a hot woman because fucking a hot woman is better than fucking a woman who isn’t hot. That’s it. Guys don’t get the warm glow that women get from one upping their friends.
LikeLike
No, I got that. I just don’t see how it should be my problem. Go screw whatever you want.
But you should realize there’s no good reason for you to insist on pairing that desire with, ‘Women should be punished for not sleeping with me because that’s not niiiiiiice,” and “Women who don’t get married young to someone like me are losers.”
Your inability to get laid is your problem. Not an opportunity for “Bwahhahaahaha!” revenge fantasies about how everyone who turned you down will become a dried up bitter hag who just wishes she’d slept with you in high school.
LikeLike
Now she is almost 30 and has gained weight, she probably has stretchmark on her belly and a fat ass ridden with celulite.
You do realize that this will happen to your Argentine princess too? Given your rather dramatic description of what an “aged” 30-something female looks like, I think you’ll freak out and start cheating on your girlfriend/future wife.
The marriage offers have dried up.
Actually, it’s highly unlikely that she would have received any marriage offers. Marriage before the age of 25 is generally the reserve of high school (or college) sweethearts or proles who didn’t go to college. Even when they do get married, the kids usually don’t come until 30 anyways…
Now Dizzy is finding out another of feminism’s great lies: work is not empowering but a tedious, often boring affair.
Work is empowering because you’re no longer relying on somebody to support you. Dizzy doesn’t have to go throw herself on some man in order to have her needs met. That’s good for her because it allows her to be content with her life, and it’s good for MEN because Dizzy isn’t using them.
Again, women who work and support themselves are the best things that ever happened for men. No more dealing with women who only want you because they have become “leeches” due to their inability to find work that can provide for their basic needs. Hell, that income that was going to support a woman can go to your PlayStation, car, clothing, or travel budget.
Just another woman whose life was ruined by feminism because she wanted to be like a man.
She doesn’t come across as a woman who wants to be a man. She comes across as a woman who wants to be respected.
the man around 30, so he has enough money to raise a family
Given that many dual income couples in their thirties are complaining about the high cost of children, how do you expect a single income 30 something male to support a wife and kids on so little money and maintain a middle class lifestyle?
As for the age difference, given the stereotype of Latin American men as cheaters and abusers, I would really be hesitant on claiming that such wide age gaps will magically work. As long as men have options, they will continue to cheat on their wives.
Just look at the character traits of Paperdreamer and Dizzy
Wow, I’ve met plenty of bitchy and jaded teenagers and sweet, caring thirty-somethings.
Next year she wants to enter college to become a child sicologist.
Will you allow her to make the most of her college education by working, or will you crush her dreams and turn her into a baby making machine?
that’s why it’s important to start bonding with girls before they enter University
Oh no, evil independent thoughts!
LikeLike
Like so many modern women, Dizzy has bravely chosen an unfulfilling career over an unfulfilling relationship:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/report_women_increasingly_choosing
Why does anyone ever bother to write anything when The Onion has already said it all?
LikeLike
Oh no, evil independent thoughts!
The undergraduate mind — a fortress of independent thought? Dude, you need to get out more. People at this age are more prone to believing ridiculous things because the personality trait Openness to Experience peaks during the college years.
Ever notice how activists and protestors are almost always college students? Or, when was the last time you met a 15 year-old (male or female) who thought that all human beings are bisexual, and that it’s only through socialization that we become heterosexual?
Some experimentation is OK, but at least in the US, college students experiment way too much — believing the garbage their silly professors teach them, becoming alcoholics, sleeping around, etc.
Giving the vote to 15 – 17 year-olds would have been better than giving it to 18 – 20 year-olds. Shit, they should raise the voting age to 24 or 25.
LikeLike
The undergraduate mind — a fortress of independent thought?
Independent thought was probably the wrong phrase, but there’s a whole wealth of ideas that one finds in the undergraduate sphere that can change one’s identity. In my senior year of high school, I never would have suspected that I would have become a crypto-Anglican who would have lost much of his strong religious impulse, and that I would have even entertained the idea of associating with Protestants or Jews.
Like so many modern women, Dizzy has bravely chosen an unfulfilling career over an unfulfilling relationship
You guys seem to be wedded to the idea of a woman not having career. It’s almost as if you want her to be incapable of supporting herself so she’ll have to date you. Of course, you guys will also bitch when she spends *your* money on stuff that she wants.
Ever notice how activists and protestors are almost always college students?
I suspect that it’s much easier to do things like that when you’re away from home and parental units. Besides, much of the protesting is generally limited to a small group of faux-intellectual middle class students at liberal arts programs. My engineering school as devoid of such students, and my prole community college couldn’t be bothered with such sentiments.
becoming alcoholics, sleeping around
I’m not fond of American drinking patterns so I’ll agree with you on the bizzare drinking games, but I don’t see what’s wrong with sleeping around. Monogamy with one boring partner doing the same boring ass things seems rather depressing and stifiling.
LikeLike
The best part about the Glorious Natural Pelt is the way it holds in all sorts of yummy odors and flavors.
LikeLike
155: “You guys seem to be wedded to the idea of a woman not having career. It’s almost as if you want her to be incapable of supporting herself so she’ll have to date you. Of course, you guys will also bitch when she spends *your* money on stuff that she wants.”
Yes! DA, thank you for articulating why it seems like women are damned either way, according to the philosophies espoused here. I can totally see why a guy doesn’t want to be taken to the cleaners by a shrew working the legal system surrounding marriage (and the demon there is the legal system rather than marriage itself,) but there seems to be a marked resentment against women being able to make their own way without entangling any guy at all, which I *don’t* understand.
LikeLike
Wow, the verbal diarrhea coming from these feminazis is a treasure trove of laughs. I don’t see the PUA community being resentful of a woman being able to make her own way, but I do see men in general as being resentful of the legal privileges granted to women.
I want my wife to focus on the children rather than her career, not because I want to keep her dependent on me, but because I want a large traditional family. My girlfriend will have the education necessary to support herself rather comfortably, but she understands that children are the number one priority.
As long as men have options, they will continue to cheat on their wives.
What’s the problem? Many women give their men free reign on such issues. Often, it’s the price of keeping an alpha.
…I don’t see what’s wrong with sleeping around.
It signals high quality in men and low quality in females. Think about it in a paleolithic environment and it will all make sense.
The Paleolithic Player
If a cave man slept around with many women and ended up impregnating one of them, what did he lose? Very little. He could impregnate another women that same day. There weren’t any courts around that were going to force him to pay child support. So if he got some low quality female pregnant, it didn’t matter, he had plenty of seed to spread around. That fact that all these women wanted to sleep with him let high quality females know that he was high quality too. Thus, by sleeping around with the hos he was increasing his chances of attracting a good wife.
The Paleolithic Ho
If a cave woman slept around with many men and ended up pregnant, what did she lose? A significant fraction of her child bearing years. It’s not just those 9.5 months but also the time required for her body to heal enough to safely have another baby. What if the father was low quality? Well then she wasted her womb on some loser who would have a hard time providing for her even if he made the effort and would give her children low quality genes. What kind of women slept around back then? Low quality women. The type of women who knew they couldn’t keep a good husband. Their strategy was to sleep with as many high quality men as possible. She may not be able to keep a good man, but she can at least make sure her children have good genes. For women, sleeping around was a form of negative signaling. It signaled that she was low quality.
Why does this double standard still exist? Because we’re not well adapted to the modern environment. Contraception only became widespread in the 20th century and natural selection has not had time to optimize for these technologies.
LikeLike
Hey PB – Does the phrase: “Ex post facto rationalization” mean anything to you?
You say that men have been able to get away with sleeping around, and, coincidentally, this is explained by some pseudo-scientific theory about quality genes? Rather than by the fact that men could, and did, kill any woman who didn’t do what they wanted because the men were bigger and stronger and that’s the way the world worked?
You’re right that we haven’t completely evolved beyond the past. But I kind of doubt the guys on this board would do as well as they think in some sort of kill-or-be-killed paleolithic society.
We’ve all benefitted from progress.
LikeLike
“men could, and did, kill any woman who didn’t do what they wanted”
Men tend to like women and don’t kill them. Men by nature are inclined to love and protect them. At the most a woman could be forced to sex.
LikeLike
Men by nature are inclined to love and protect them. At the most a woman could be forced to sex.
So who are those women who are violently attacked and raped and sometimes found dead? Or those Scott Petersen-esque cases of the dead wife killed by the husband?
It signals high quality in men and low quality in females.
That’s weird since it implies to me that the girl actually enjoys sex…
What’s the problem? Many women give their men free reign on such issues. Often, it’s the price of keeping an alpha.
If both parties agree and seem content with the arrangement, I won’t interfere, but remember, if he can cheat, she should be able to do the same to allow for a true open marriage. My concern is when the man cheats knowing that wife won’t leave because she’s dependent on him.
Personally, I would never cheat on my spouse, and if things were to come to that point, I would rather divorce than go cheat on her.
but she understands that children are the number one priority
Yes, but it leaves her dependent upon you for her financial resources. In other words, if you decide to cheat on her, she has to tolerate it lest she divorce you and take a hit in her standard of living and ability to care for her children.
LikeLike
dizzy
Clearly, you are well acquainted with rationalization but my explanation was based on first principles. The double standard is an instinct and would come back into existence quickly if our cultures were wiped from memory and we started with a blank slate.
But I kind of doubt the guys on this board would do as well as they think in some sort of kill-or-be-killed paleolithic society.
Machiavellian intelligence goes a long way in human societies.
LikeLike
“Men tend to like women and don’t kill them. Men by nature are inclined to love and protect them. “
Two words:
Honor. Killing.
Still widely practiced in more areas of the globe than you’d think.
LikeLike
“The double standard is an instinct and would come back into existence quickly if our cultures were wiped from memory and we started with a blank slate.”
How do you know this? The only evidence you have is that men slept around and women somehow were less inclined to do so, and that had to be our genes at work, rather than the fact that the women would be killed?
Isn’t it possible that the simpler answer makes more sense,”Men controlled the resources and were physically bigger, so they ran the world in a way that benefitted themselves?”
LikeLike
Honor. Killing.
That’s not natural behaviour, but punishment for breaking social taboos. I don’t agree with honor killings by the way, but they are a cultural and not a natural behaviour.
LikeLike
Want evidence?
About over 60% of our ancestors are female.
The only way for that to be true is if a greater percentage of women reproduced but a smaller number of men reproduced with more than one woman apiece.
Even if women are inseminated by multiple men, their bodies can still weight the odds towards the genes of the highest quality men. Things like changing preferences at different parts of her menstrual cycle, orgasm as a means to increase the odds of conception (makes the cervix more permeable to sperm), masturbation as birth control (makes the cervix less permeable to sperm), spontaneous abortion of fetuses and (especially) concealed ovulation all work toward tilting the odds towards collecting the best genes possible.
Finally, making an argument like “men were horrible toward women back in the days” is kinda pointless since everyone is descended from both men and women. There’s no real incentive for men to rig society in favor of men because they will have children who are both men and women. Why would men do this? Testicular charity? What makes more sense is that women like men who are dominant so guess what, men dominate society. In contrast, men like women who are pretty and pleasant to be around. Guess you’re (not) fucked there, eh dizzy?
LikeLike
SJ said: “Want evidence?
About over 60% of our ancestors are female.
The only way for that to be true is if a greater percentage of women reproduced but a smaller number of men reproduced with more than one woman apiece.”
I know that men slept around. I’m just saying the simpler explanation – men were bigger and women who didn’t cooperate with the men didn’t eat – is as good a rationalization as some unproved mumblygoook about quality genes.
“In contrast, men like women who are pretty and pleasant to be around. Guess you’re (not) fucked there, eh dizzy?”
Yes. You told me off! I cannot sleep with you or one of your mouth breathing friends. Or actually I could if I wanted, but you wouldn’t go so far as to let me have the privilege of raising your babies. I’m not worthy.
Poor me.
LikeLike
So you’re now arguing that women had 0 choice in the mating in the past and that men decided everything about reproduction. I’d like to hear your explanation for all the adaptations that women have that today have the effect of helping to control which sperm impregnates a woman even if she is inseminated by multiple men.
Also, what would be the incentive for men to rig society for the benefit of other men? Humans like to pass privilege on to their children (both men and women) not to competitors (which is what other men are). Here’s what’s much more likely: women like men who are high status. Men don’t care as much if women are high status. Therefore, sexual selection will pick men who strive for status and women who look for signs of high status.
Good job completely ignoring the heart of the argument. Is that something you learn in law school? “If someone makes an argument and you have no response, ignore it”. Doesn’t sound like an effective technique.
I’m well aware that I can’t have everything I’d like sexually; I’m not having daily threesomes with Jessica Biel and [insert other super hot chick here]. I’m pretty content with the women who I am sleeping with.
You, on the other hand, are obviously miserable because you aren’t getting attention from men you think are worthy and you are afraid to think about why. You’re a great cautionary tale for girls who aren’t bitter and jaded.
LikeLike
“So you’re now arguing that women had 0 choice in the mating in the past and that men decided everything about reproduction. I’d like to hear your explanation for all the adaptations that women have that today have the effect of helping to control which sperm impregnates a woman even if she is inseminated by multiple men.”
That’s not exactly what I’m arguing. But either way, wouldn’t the first factor, that women had less choice in the mating process, lead to the second, that women then developed a way to control which sperm gets to stay?
LikeLike
“You, on the other hand, are obviously miserable because you aren’t getting attention from men you think are worthy and you are afraid to think about why. You’re a great cautionary tale for girls who aren’t bitter and jaded.”
Once again, this is the internet. You don’t know what my life is like. You just think, “Nyah! You’re single!” is some sort of clear-the-decks “yo mama” insult.
Either way, I think I’ve made it really clear I’d prefer a vibrator to the choices presented on this board. What’s interesting is that makes you think I’m somehow mean and “jaded.” Why should I want you? You’re not making much of a case for yourself.
LikeLike
dizzy8 said:
know that men slept around. I’m just saying the simpler explanation – men were bigger and women who didn’t cooperate with the men didn’t eat – is as good a rationalization as some unproved mumblygoook about quality genes.
The observed behavior of women is that given the opportunity they will cheat on their nice guy boyfriend and bang the evil bad door player like a dunny door in a high wind. And the more other women the player bangs, and the more brutally he uses them, the more eager they are to bang him behind their boyfriends back.
This observed behavior is as predicted by sociobiology: Men, given half a chance, will sleep with any woman other than their wives. Woman, given half a chance, will sleep with a man provided he is markedly more evil, and successfully evil, than their husbands. In the ancestral environment, this male strategy maximized reproduction for men, and maximized success in reproduction for women.
LikeLike
“Either way, I think I’ve made it really clear I’d prefer a vibrator to the choices presented on this board. ”
I don’t recall you getting any offers from the men on this board. What I do recall is you describing how you see your vibrator as a better alternative than the men who approach you in real life. Hey, if you’re lying and you’re actually happy with your options, great but then what the hell are you complaining about?
LikeLike
The only reason why homo sapiens male invest in the offspring of their sexual partner is because they can be fairly certain that the offspring is his.
A chimpancee female gives birth to a child only every five years, because she has to take care of herself and the child. A female homo sapiens can give birth almost once very year, but she can only do so because a male is feeding her and her offspring. But the male only does it because he has some certainty that the offspring is his. Obviously the male will do everything in his power to control the sexuality of his female. So the human female exchanges her sexual freedom for food.
Dschingis khan is a great example of male and human sexual behaviour. He impregnated thousands of women leaving a genetic mark on the central asian population. But the key is to understand that he impregnated the conquered women, if he had tryed to screw the women of his own Mongolian men he would have ended death pretty fast. So yes, homo sapiens succes is based not only on his intelect but also on the fact that the male helps to raise the offspring (something other primates don’t do and only have offspring every 4-5 years). But this advantage is only gained by controlling and restraining female sexuality. So yes, jealousy (prevents other man from ompregnating own female) and rape (access to women who dey copulation) are normal standard male behaviour. This also explains why unaccompanied females are considered fair game.
LikeLike
“Either way, I think I’ve made it really clear I’d prefer a vibrator to the choices presented on this board”
I think you are lying. I’m sure you would prefer my big cock over a piece of silicone in your fat ass.
LikeLike
Sigh. I missed this.
“I don’t recall you getting any offers from the men on this board. What I do recall is you describing how you see your vibrator as a better alternative than the men who approach you in real life. Hey, if you’re lying and you’re actually happy with your options, great but then what the hell are you complaining about?”
I said that I shouldn’t have to talk to a guy if I don’t want to. As it happens, I talk to none of them because I live with my boyfriend.
I could have said that a while ago and cut all the abuse you guys dished out, but I thought it was funny.
LikeLike
And, because I’m a perfectionist, let me fix the formatting issue on that last post. It should have read:
Sigh. I missed this.
“I don’t recall you getting any offers from the men on this board. What I do recall is you describing how you see your vibrator as a better alternative than the men who approach you in real life. Hey, if you’re lying and you’re actually happy with your options, great but then what the hell are you complaining about?”
What I actually said was that I shouldn’t have to talk to a guy if I don’t want to. As it happens, I talk to none of the guys who approach because I live with my boyfriend.
I could have said that a while ago and cut off all the abuse you guys dished out, but I thought it was funny.
LikeLike
I’m pretty content with the women who I am sleeping with.
That’s what a lot of men tell themselves as a coping mechanism. Most men are generally unwilling to admit that their girlfriends don’t compare to their sexual fantasies and that their sex drive and desire for sex has destroyed their dignity. Hence, they end up having sex with sexually unattractive women, and then bragging about experience.
I think you are lying. I’m sure you would prefer my big cock over a piece of silicone in your fat ass.
Seriously, that has to be the worst comeback ever, and I’ve seen porn scripts with better dialog…
LikeLike
actually, that was hilarious.
No, it was pathetic. It was the ramblings of an Argentine against a woman he’s never met in person. It makes him look like a lecherous loser.
LikeLike
And I thought you liked porn scripts DA.
Title of the possible porn flick:
Argentine stud with big cock screws BBW
LikeLike
156 Peter
And secret ecstatic delights.
LikeLike
I would have posted more comments to this thread but my computer is too unreliable just now. No doubt it senses I’m a woman.
LikeLike
you write like an ugly woman.
You write like a bitter beta male.
LikeLike
>>>You write like a bitter beta male.
Whoa… talk about lack of self-awareness
LikeLike
note to women reading dizzy’s insane ramblings: learn from her bitter, rancid male-hating personality. if you want to snag a good man, don’t be like her.
Why should she modulate her opinions to appear more attractive to men? I don’t feel like defending dizzy’s screeching free-association rants, but is painting her as a bitter and lonely the best you guys can come up with? You’re acting like snagging a good man really is her first priority, and she’s simply going about it the wrong way. She obviously doesn’t care.
Same thing with the anti-career women stuff. Women know men like 23-year-olds. They also know spending their salad years building a career doesn’t make them more attractive to men. It’s not like feminists believe an equal social footing will attract men.
Women pursue careers because they can, not because they think a beefed-up resume will help them in the dating market. Women with more traditional priorities do still marry in their mid-20’s. I think it’s great that they have the choice. Some guys on this board don’t, and their screeds come across less like confident ridicule than insecure beta sandbox-hogging.
Next time you make fun of someone for being a lonely man-hater, first make sure they actually give a fuck.
LikeLike
194: Next time you make fun of someone for being a lonely man-hater, first make sure they actually give a fuck.
Now there’s a lapse in logic. If they didn’t give a fuck, they wouldn’t be on this board. Something brought them here. Then something posessed them to post. My guess is that they cared about the issue somewhat. Just a guess, though!
LikeLike
ps: how’s that approach challenge going, betaboy? you get a number yet?
Nope. Don’t plan on doing so anytime soon. 🙂
talk about lack of self-awareness
David Alexander is not a bitter beta male. He is simply an omega male who is cognizant of the fact that women’s choices in the dating world do not excuse anger or bitterness on the part of men. If girls choose not to date me, then it’s my problem which should be solved by me.
LikeLike
Days of Broken Arrows,
I meant not giving a fuck about lack of male attention. Women do better without men than men without women, in general. Obviously you would need to give some sort of a fuck to post here.
Oh, and you were among those giving dizzy the “lonely and bitter.” Any thoughts on the rest of my comment?
LikeLike
>>>Women do better without men than men without women, in general.
What evidence, apart from your say-so, do you have for this?
In my experience, it’s usually been the opposite.
LikeLike
I look like a fifth-generation Republican. Some guys apparently like that.
the only styles common to fifth-generation republican women at your age:
(1) wedding ring,
(2) trail of young children
so, you have those? i’d never have thought.
on the other hand, i bet they can tell you’re a feminist at 400 yards by the omnipresent scowl on your face.
holla!
LikeLike
futilius:
Women do better without men than men without women, in general.
this is rarely true before the age of 50-60 or so, unless said women’s “doing better” is built upon a bedrock of
(1) financial support from men, or
(2) work for an employer founded and operated by men.
heh heh, i guess (2) is really a form of (1), so let’s re-number it (1a).
—
if you’re referring to postmenopausal women, you may have a point; perhaps evolution has equipped women to outlive their men, as they so often do.
LikeLike
futilius
Women know men like 23-year-olds. They also know spending their salad years building a career doesn’t make them more attractive to men.
no, really, they don’t.
they don’t.
they seriously don’t.
do you know any american girls between the ages of sixteen and twenty?
very few of them have the perspicacity required to see through the shibboleths of feminism and observe obvious truths about male-female interactions.
and even for the ones who do, the battle for the truth is long, arduous, and uphill. both the staff and the curricula of american schools are suffused with feminist ideology, to the point where these girls gradually and unwittingly adopt the notion that not throwing their whole selves into career pursuits is positively deviant.
if any guidance counselor or teacher suggested homemaking as a profession even once, even to the most domestic, nurturing, and family-oriented of girls, do you think that teacher or counselor would still have a job the next day?
LikeLike
if any guidance counselor or teacher suggested homemaking as a profession even once, even to the most domestic, nurturing, and family-oriented of girls, do you think that teacher or counselor would still have a job the next day?
Put it this way, how many parents are suggestion such an option to their own daughters? It’s unlikely that I would have kids at this point, but I would certain suggest to my niece to become career oriented and not to depend on a man for her survival…
LikeLike
david: and not to depend on a man for her survival…
sure, david.
because labor should never be divided according to comparative advantage, right?
if you founded a company, would you structure the company in such a way that each department could ensure its own independent survival? if so, do you think the company could be efficient, competitive, or profitable?
lest you think this analogy frivolous, consider that a marriage isn’t that different from a small business.
also, don’t forget that it’s usually women, not men, who are the first to become fickle enough to leave a marriage.
read this article; it’s long, but informative.
ironically, then, the correct question in today’s West is not whether a woman should depend on a man for survival, but whether a man should depend on a woman for having his children.
finally, don’t forget that women feel neither respect nor attraction for males with your views. doesn’t it bother you inside, even a little bit, that the very women you seek to ‘protect’, and whose ‘interests’ you seek to ‘advance’, shun you from every angle?
time to sack up.
finally, those poor, oppressed, ignorant housewives are happier than your favorite progressive feminists.
who’d have thought?
please read the articles.
LikeLike
and let’s not forget that feminism is the ugly women’s movement.
if you don’t believe that, take a look sometime at pictures of its founders – women who, without a single exception, were too repulsive to succeed as traditional women and who had no choice but to try to upset the proverbial applecart. the only shame is that many genuinely attractive and once-appealing women have sadly fallen in line with an ideology that negates their own instincts and values.
LikeLike
A lot of ad hominems have been slung at dizzy, but I haven’t seen her arguments refuted in a satisfactory manner.
dizzy expresses skepticism to the notion that there is a genetic component to men seeking to sleep around more than women:
The only evidence you have is that men slept around and women somehow were less inclined to do so, and that had to be our genes at work, rather than the fact that the women would be killed?
Isn’t it possible that the simpler answer makes more sense,”Men controlled the resources and were physically bigger, so they ran the world in a way that benefitted themselves?”
[…]
I know that men slept around. I’m just saying the simpler explanation – men were bigger and women who didn’t cooperate with the men didn’t eat – is as good a rationalization as some unproved mumblygoook about quality genes.
This is not an explanation, simple or otherwise, because it doesn’t actually explain anything. The problem becomes clear when we ask: why did men control the resources, and why were men physically bigger? dizzy takes these facts as a given. However, those facts are in need of their own explanation, and sexual selection provides such an explanation.
Why did men control more resources than women? Because men needed to compete more over resources in order to mate. Why were men bigger? Same reason: there is stiffer competition between males than between females. Why is there more competition between males? Because females are more selective, causing heavier sexual selection pressures on men.
Although cultural factors are surely involved in greater female selectiveness, a biological original of such behavior really makes a lot of sense. As others have mentioned, eggs are a more limited resource than sperm, and it takes a lot more work for a woman to have a child than it does for a man. Consequently, we should expect that females who were more selective passed on more copies of their genes. This theory is not hard to understand.
Another problem with dizzy’s theory: she thinks that when women slept around, they would be likely to be killed. Although this applies in certain societies, throughout history, it’s probably way more likely for males to get killed by other males for sleeping with the wrong person. That’s one reason more of our ancestors were female: more men than women get killed in competitive over the opposite sex.
Men did not “run the world in a way that benefitted themselves.” Men competed against each other for mates; apart from gaining mates, this competition did not “benefit” men, unless your idea of “benefit” is Genghis Khan killing you and raping your wife. The competition drove men to strive for political and social power to attract women and hedge out other men; men got more of it than women because they needed more of it to mate. Yes, politically the people who ended up on top were male, but most males were not running the world or being benefitted, they were stuck in the meat grinder of male-male competition over females hardwired to be pickier.
LikeLike
futilius:
Women do better without men than men without women, in general.
This is true — studies bear this out. But it’s women over age 40 or so that do better without men. It’s probably biologically based so they can take care of offspring after their husbands have died.
I’m not sure if older women not needing men is a bad thing. Too many fighting cougars is not good for a society.
LikeLike
women who, without a single exception, were too repulsive to succeed as traditional women
Gloria Steinem was a Playboy bunny! Fair’s fair — give credit where it’s due.
There’s plenty of stuff in her later life to make anti-feminists happy though.
LikeLike
208 Grady
“One thing he should keep in mind is that pussy actually scales extremely well – the time and expense of attracting ten gorgeous women is not ten times the cost of attracting one and keeping her happy and fit.”
Statements like only prove to me that the ‘man’ who all this pussy is for is essentially DEAD. Your soul is dead, your heart is dead. Only your brain survives.
LikeLike
alias_clio wrote:
***
I would have posted more comments to this thread but my computer is too unreliable just now. No doubt it senses I’m a woman.
***
Or maybe you are using Vista?
Go to E-bay and buy another Windows operating system.
Windows 2000 is fine. Windows 98 actually works as well, but support, and programs it works with is becoming steadily less and less.
If you must, and really, your just shooting yourself in the foot, get Windows XP.
Before attempting to install Windows 2000/Windows XP go to the the hardware manufacturer for you computers web site and download the appropriate drivers. You man need to also go to the graphics card makers website. This is very easy, you just need to do it. Take a look:
http://h18000.www1.hp.com/cpq_support.html
Other sites are easier, but this is not hard.
LikeLike
210 Grady
Well, I’m talking too about the pervasive glorification of studies; i.e. pigeon-holing in some kind of herd-like impulse. You’ll never be happy with marginal anything, so why pretend?
LikeLike
Oh, and a professor as well. Just an all around successful guy.
Intellectually and professionally, perhaps you are the beta and he is the alpha?
LikeLike
@Sara
I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say, although “pigeon-holing” looks really dirty with the hyphen there. The term you’re probably looking for is written “pigeonholing,” unless you’re referring to some strange kind of deviant sex.
In any event, the concept of “marginal cost” is central to microeconomic theory and is the source of Tyler Cowen’s blog’s name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost
LikeLike
214 Grady
“I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say,”
Join the club.
“In any event, the concept of “marginal cost” is central to microeconomic theory”
No wonder you guys can’t get laid. Oh, wait. You’re married. Well, hopefully you are getting laid. Personally your study quoting type would be a complete turn off. Is that a little more clear?
LikeLike
One typical one is that when men prefer younger women, they’re “pedophiles.” Thus, we have Billy Joel, who married a 25-year-old, and feminists going around calling him a “pedophile” and her a “25-year-old child.”,
I don’t think Billy Joel is a pedophile for marrying a 25 year old. A twenty five year old woman is an adult. As long as she is legal, I could care less. I think women should accept that most men like younger good looking women.
Men should accept that women like men who are tall and wealthy. I want to add that I’ve seen pictures and videos of the young woman in question and she is incredibly good looking. I wonder how his oldest daughter feels about it?
Not to be a hater but…..
Without his riches, what is the likelihood that a blue collar Billy Joel would marry a woman like his current wife (imported women from third world countries aside)..
LikeLike
Dizzy Said:
Who in the world has done that and not been cheated on or ended up reviled for some heinous crime like aging, or, best of all, spent her life helping other people for the dubious “credit” of being wonder woman? Men walk out on wonder woman, too you know
Preech!
I just realized that I was tired of being watched all the time. After a while, it’s as if every man I saw on the street or met in a coffee shop believed he was owed my time or my smile or my attention
Most women find it annoying to have various men approach them and many more giving “the eye”.
was tired, also, of meeting the conflicting expectations – good girl who’s good at sex and wants it all the time and would never cheat but doesn’t get “clingy” when her partner has a wandering eye. How is anyone supposed to do that
Both sexes have high standards and expectations for their “soul mate”*.
I do not understand or get why people think they are going to find everything in one person. There is a reason that we as human beings have friends and or associates. People should also have a few hobbies as you cannot depend on another human being to prevent boredom or keep you amused.
It is better to marry the person who you can get along with or stand versus the person you love. Romantic love fades after a few years of marriage or shaking up. Romantic love is replaced with familiar love. Familiar love is the type of love you have for your siblings and family members.
* I hate the word soul mate by the way
.
LikeLike
“One typical one is that when men prefer younger women, they’re “pedophiles.” Thus, we have Billy Joel, who married a 25-year-old, and feminists going around calling him a “pedophile” and her a “25-year-old child.”
Whatever feminists were “going around calling” him things, will you PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP ACTING LIKE ANY ONE FEMINIST YOU QUOTE SPEAKS FOR ALL OF US!
Also, a 55-year-old-man marrying a woman a mere 5 years older than his daughter? It’s a little creepy. I don’t think for one second that he’s a sexual predator or any of that bullshit, but when your SO is young enough to be your daughter/old enough to be your father? I also wonder how Alexa Ray actually feels about it.
LikeLike
What women need to understand is thall all men are attracted to highly fertile women, that is around 14-28, independent of their age and will do anything to male love to them as long as they can get away with it. Saying that man are attracted to women is an overgeneralization: what men really are attracted to is women of childbearing age.
LikeLike
Ganon, dude, enough with the fertile. That’s your explanation for why all men should want 14-year-olds? They’re fertile? You sound like a fucking cow. Please, don’t be so Darwinian.
Anyway, it’s self-evident that men are attracted to women of childbearing age. Men attracted to girls too young to bear children are pedophiles. I don’t know what you call men attracted to women too old to bear children, but there’s probably a Wikipedia page for them.
Maybe when you see a hot underage girl on the street, you say to yourself, “Oh, she looks ripe. Boy, I would really like to impregnate her.” I doubt very many men think that.
LikeLike
More like a raging bull.
“Anyway, it’s self-evident that men are attracted to women of childbearing age”
It should be selfevident. But feminism has deluded some women (and men) to such a point that they can’t understand that a never married forty year old man is looking for a 25 year old wife to bear his own children, and not a 40 year old divorceè with two kids. Or that a 27 year old guy who hassex with a 15 year old big breasted female is not a pedophile but a normal warmblooded heterosexual man. A society in which Age of Consent gets higher and higher and girls enter menarchy earlier is programming conflict.
““Oh, she looks ripe. Boy, I would really like to impregnate her.” I doubt very many men think that.”
Men are attracted to ripe second sexual characteristics, and not fertility per se. It is the ripe sexual female body which attracts men, like firm breasts, soft skin, roundes asses and so on. That’s why Hollywood women in their forties can still be attractive if their body appears to be younger and still fertile (at least under the makeup, under certain lighting and at a a safe distance).
Still, men can satisfy their sexual urges with an older withered woman, but that works essentially through analogy (a resemblance of the original desire).
LikeLike
I did not forget you my Filipino colleague…
lest you think this analogy frivolous, consider that a marriage isn’t that different from a small business.
One must remember that a marriage can be compared to a small company, but the dynamics aren’t the same, and the major difference is that the family isn’t designed for the expressed purpose of creating a profit.
but whether a man should depend on a woman for having his children.
Given various what numerous articles have stated on the topic, I would be understandably leery about marriage and children. Given the state of our current world, I would be leery about having children whether married or unmarried.
finally, don’t forget that women feel neither respect nor attraction for males with your views. doesn’t it bother you inside, even a little bit, that the very women you seek to ‘protect’, and whose ‘interests’ you seek to ‘advance’, shun you from every angle?
To be honest not really. Most of the women that I defend aren’t sexually attractive to me in the first place, so they may become friends at various points in my life, but certainly not sexual partners. In turn, the feminine women that you idealize tend to be sexual duds who need “training” to enjoy sex and actually have an orgasm. So either way, most women aren’t sexually attractive or useful to me, so it’s a wash either way.
The main reason that I want my niece to become career oriented so she can make the most of her intelligence and do something useful for herself. I want her to be independent and enjoy her life and not turn 18 looking for some sugar daddy to take care of her. I don’t want her to date third rate loser men in order for her to have her basic needs met either. If she wants to marry and become a stay at home mother, then I want her to do with somebody who will make her happy, not somebody who she chose for the financial benefits.
As a man, I certainly wouldn’t want some woman to throw herself at me and pretend to love me in order for her to have a decent standard of living. I would rather be alone than to demean myself in such a fashion. Besides, a woman who supports herself can pay for her own stuff instead of sucking it from my wallet. Yes, those $500 shoes are beautiful, but I don’t want to pay for it.
BTW, I’ll add that I grew up with a stay at home mother, and she found it particularly isolating, and she was miserable for much of her time. She sits at home rather lonely with few friends, while her friends who went to work are rather content with their husbands and they enjoy their lives and the freedom than their extra income afforded them. Hell, even the single-parent homes managed to churn out kids who did well enough to complete college on time while I languish without a degree.
To this day, I feel guilty that she sacrificed herself for me and stayed at home with my brother and I.
LikeLike
Johnny Five:
do you know any american girls between the ages of sixteen and twenty?
very few of them have the perspicacity required to see through the shibboleths of feminism and observe obvious truths about male-female interactions.
and even for the ones who do, the battle for the truth is long, arduous, and uphill. both the staff and the curricula of american schools are suffused with feminist ideology, to the point where these girls gradually and unwittingly adopt the notion that not throwing their whole selves into career pursuits is positively deviant.
if any guidance counselor or teacher suggested homemaking as a profession even once, even to the most domestic, nurturing, and family-oriented of girls, do you think that teacher or counselor would still have a job the next day?
Do you know any average people? Most people don’t have careers or great aspirations. Most women without careers would probably rather be home with the kids.
LikeLike
225: yeah. I dunno about ages 16 or 20 (I’m not Gannon), but even women in their early twenties give me the creepy hints about kids way too often. Oops, time to run!
Why do people always complain about women not settling while it’s really the same old, same old? I’ve never heard of a young man pressuring his girl to have babies and stay home, but I’ve had scores of young women trying to trap men into that. Young men won’t want babies unless that’s the only way to have access to pussy. To get birth rates up, we need matriarchy, not patriarchy.
Similarily, these guys are always complain about the death of religion erasing patriarchy, but who’s still there in European churches, men or women? A man who wants to start a family only needs to find Jesus and he’ll have more choice than us bar goers could ever hope to have.
LikeLike
224 da
the major difference is that the family isn’t designed for the expressed purpose of creating a profit.
no, of course it isn’t.
what you’re missing, though, is that the strictures of family are also not necessarily meant to maximize the individual happiness of the parents. just as company employees make sacrifices for the company’s profitability, parents make sacrifices for the ‘profit’ that is the rearing of physically and morally healthy children.
today’s women, however, are being sold the lie that motherhood and children should entail essentially zero degree of sacrifice; indeed, even the notion of sacrificing career for SAH motherhood is becoming demonized, unless that SAH motherhood is impossibly lavish, luxurious, and lethargic.
fuck, even childbirth is supposed to come with rewards now.
what’s next?
Most of the women that I defend aren’t sexually attractive to me in the first place, so they may become friends at various points in my life, but certainly not sexual partners.
do they respect you, or do they merely view you as a useful idiot whom they can treat with contempt the moment your back is turned?
and do you think for a minute that these womyn would defend you if you were the target of false DV or rape allegations?
Besides, a woman who supports herself can pay for her own stuff instead of sucking it from my wallet. Yes, those $500 shoes are beautiful, but I don’t want to pay for it.
it IS possible for a man to give his woman occasional gifts, without breaking the bank or letting her control the pursestrings.
whoever is more financially responsible and less spendthrift should control the finances in a marriage, period. if she’s a loving, loyal SAH mom who can’t resist her spendthrift urges, then she should cut up the credit cards and hand the reins over to hubby, and should feel gratitude rather than resentment at the increased financial security thereby derived. and lest you think i’m being ‘sexist’ (a term that has been spread so thin as to be essentially meaningless at this point), the man should do likewise if he can’t go out on weekends without returning with this or that pricey high-tech bauble.
the best solution, though: people should grow up and learn to live within their means.
the feminine women that you idealize tend to be sexual duds who need “training” to enjoy sex and actually have an orgasm.
and you would know this how, exactly? because your 300gb porn archive said so?
david, in any interaction between two people, the one with the stronger reality controls the context. my reality just so happens to be much stronger, and more congruent, than that of most women i meet (and men, for that matter, although they’re irrelevant here). therefore the ‘training’ of which you speak is no problem: in her world she’s a good girl; in my world she’s my little slut; but when we interact, her world is subsumed within mine.
multiorgasmic fulfillment ensues.
and finally, whatever would cause you to conceive of this ‘training’ as … difficult?
you poor misguided soul.
She sits at home rather lonely with few friends
please, please, PLEASE tell me you don’t attribute this to her SAH motherhood.
please.
i know female nurses, doctors, lawyers, secretaries, librarians, insurance v.p.’s, and more who also sit at home rather lonely with few friends. are their professions to blame? should they have chosen to be hairdressers or pornstars instead?
hint: if an anecdote is irrelevant, omit it. thank you.
LikeLike
225 discord
Most people don’t have careers or great aspirations. Most women without careers would probably rather be home with the kids.
that’s exactly my point: our society is currently in the midst of a large-scale experiment with inverting the order of those 2 priorities.
hence the comments about schools and the like, environments that create a distinct pressure against family-oriented young women.
LikeLike
226 jaakkeli:
Why do people always complain about women not settling while it’s really the same old, same old?
uh, because they’re the ones who get pregnant and pop out the babies?
To get birth rates up, we need matriarchy, not patriarchy.
hahahahaha! AHAHAHA! OOOOOOH!
AHAHAHAHA!
ahahahaha.
ha.
::clears throat::
do you do that often?
i mean, make assertions that blatantly contradict ALL available statistical and empirical evidence?
pane nainen asialle, mene itse perästä.
I’ve had scores of young women trying to trap men into that.
today’s women are more likely to be after child support payments, which they can’t collect while under the same roof, than marriage.
who’s still there in European churches, men or women?
what’s still there in european churches, old-time religion with balls or spineless feelgood kum-ba-yah?
LikeLike
“do you know any american girls between the ages of sixteen and twenty?”
Yes, do *you*? Some of the ones I know want careers; some of them want families. One of them is joining the Peace Corps. It’s like they’re…INDIVIDUALS or something!
“very few of them have the perspicacity required to see through the shibboleths of feminism and observe obvious truths about male-female interactions.
and even for the ones who do, the battle for the truth is long, arduous, and uphill. both the staff and the curricula of american schools are suffused with feminist ideology, to the point where these girls gradually and unwittingly adopt the notion that not throwing their whole selves into career pursuits is positively deviant.
if any guidance counselor or teacher suggested homemaking as a profession even once, even to the most domestic, nurturing, and family-oriented of girls, do you think that teacher or counselor would still have a job the next day?”
OK, so either these “women” are fully-formed, complete humans at 15, totally psychologically & emotionally ready to bond with a partner (as advocated by some here,) or else they’re still half-formed adolescents, easily imprinted upon by the feminocracy because they lack the skills to make their own decisions. Which is it? You don’t get to play it both ways.
Also, you’re giving WAAAAY more credit to the influence of things like guidance couselors than they deserve. You’d do better to look at familial situation, which has a LOT more influence on values than any vocational advisor.
What you guys don’t seem to understand is that motherhood is currently REVERED in this country, and it’s the single, professional women who are ostracised for it (and who, in the workplace, are expected to take on the lion’s share of the work left undone by those whose family issues trump getting their work done.)
I don’t know who you think is buying the notion that you can have it all. Of course you can *try*, but as with any other division of time & labor amongst a variety of endeavors, at best, something is going to suffer; at worst, *everything* is. You can’t have it all and do it well.
LikeLike
OK, so either these “women” are fully-formed, complete humans at 15, totally psychologically & emotionally ready to bond with a partner (as advocated by some here,) or else they’re still half-formed adolescents, easily imprinted upon by the feminocracy because they lack the skills to make their own decisions. Which is it? You don’t get to play it both ways.
one: teenagers are exceptionally prone to emotional attachment and pair-bonding precisely because they imprint easily at that stage. for largely the same reasons, most of us imprint for life on the types of music we listen to during our teenage years.
i mean, for whom do you think bonding will be easier: teens prone to imprinting, or adults largely set in their ways?
two: it’s one thing to make your own decisions, and quite another to make your own decisions in the face of immense societal pressure.
—
and it’s the single, professional women who are ostracised for it (and who, in the workplace, are expected to take on the lion’s share of the work left undone by those whose family issues trump getting their work done.)
um, right, i’m sure that single women pick up more of that “lion’s share” than MEN do.
uh-huh.
sure.
i bet you still believe in ‘glass ceilings’, too.
—
Also, you’re giving WAAAAY more credit to the influence of things like guidance couselors than they deserve.
read for comprehension.
i’m not ascribing any influence whatsoever to such counselors; rather, i’m just pointing out that they would be swiftly relieved of their jobs if they dared suggest that the home ec all-stars might think about turning pro.
although i do such counselors wield at least enough influence to be called ‘people’, not ‘things’.
—
What you guys don’t seem to understand is that motherhood is currently REVERED in this country
hahahaha! AHAHAHA!
ahahahaha.
::snort::
ha.
heh.
::clears throat::
one, try the following gedanken experiment:
(a) imagine the reaction of a nation that REVERES motherhood (emphasis yours) to a teenage girl stating that her greatest aspiration is to become a wife and mother of a large family.
(b) now, imagine the reaction of the united states of america (excluding religious communities) to the same stated aspirations.
are (a) and (b) the same, or are they different?
that’s what i thought.
two, i suppose that the irony of your claim, which states that policies encouraging the retention of mothers by EMPLOYERS display ‘reverence for motherhood’, is lost on you.
LikeLike
“one: teenagers are exceptionally prone to emotional attachment and pair-bonding precisely because they imprint easily at that stage. for largely the same reasons, most of us imprint for life on the types of music we listen to during our teenage years.
i mean, for whom do you think bonding will be easier: teens prone to imprinting, or adults largely set in their ways?
“two: it’s one thing to make your own decisions, and quite another to make your own decisions in the face of immense societal pressure.”
So you’re really just mad that some influence besides the one you believe in might imprint upon them first? And this is the basis for healthy relationships? Pardon me if I snicker. Also, I won’t be surprised if you change your tune significantly once *you* have a teenage daughter.
“um, right, i’m sure that single women pick up more of that “lion’s share” than MEN do.
uh-huh.
sure.
i bet you still believe in ‘glass ceilings’, too.”
Yes, because most of the men have families, too. Single women — AND men — carry the brunt of breeder slacking. Go look up the statistics, if you want them; they’re out there.
If you don’t believe in glass ceilings, then you’ve never worked in a corporate environment.
“one, try the following gedanken experiment:
(a) imagine the reaction of a nation that REVERES motherhood (emphasis yours) to a teenage girl stating that her greatest aspiration is to become a wife and mother of a large family.
(b) now, imagine the reaction of the united states of america (excluding religious communities) to the same stated aspirations.
are (a) and (b) the same, or are they different?
that’s what i thought.”
Ooh, German! Scary! You might want to Google up some articles about the opting-out movement, which should make you very happy. Not religion-based, either – sorry. Stay-at-home moms are alive & well; it’s a perfectly valid choice IF THAT’S WHAT A WOMAN WANTS TO DO. Funny thing about actual feminism, supporting a woman’s choice to reproduce — or not. Wow! It’s not about kicking boys & taking their lunch money at all! How about that?
“two, i suppose that the irony of your claim, which states that policies encouraging the retention of mothers by EMPLOYERS display ‘reverence for motherhood’, is lost on you.”
Whether or not the policies encourage it is immaterial: nobody can do everything at once and do it well, which was the point I was making, which you, interestingly, bypassed completely. If anyone is stupid enough to be that susceptible to obviously untrue marketing (although I’d still love to see where & how feminism is marketing this message, as you seem to suggest) then it’s no surprise that this country is also filled with McDonald’s-eating SUV drivers, I guess.
Your antagonistic, condescending tone does nothing to further your agenda, btw. It only makes me glad a guy like you will never date my daughter.
LikeLike
johnny, let me tell you a story from the old days, a possibly slightly exaggarated tale of one of my ancestors. As the charming, handsome town cad, he had few problems gaining the favours of every girl in town, entertaining one after another until he found one with a devious father. He had set up his daughters’ bedrooms in the highest floors to make sneaking out impossible. That would’ve been no problem to our hero, who was certainly resourceful enough to devise a ladder, but unfortunately the girls happened to have brothers. So, one night he found himself in a young woman’s bedchamber without an escape route.
After the attempt to sneak out failed and the epic chase across the fields and the meadows ended in favour of the father, our hero found himself beaten and lying on the ground, helplessly screaming as the father of the girl pulled out his knife. Sticking the tip of the blade in the young man’s flesh, the old man had only one thing to say: he’d either push the knife all the way in or he’d give his daughter at the church.
They lived happily ever after, or at least lived.
Today a young man can fool around with very little social pressure or danger from angry fathers. In the old days, it would’ve been either marry any girl you screw (or, in the best case scenario, any girl you get pregnant), die or skip town. That’s why even cads usually married early.
I’m really surprised that you’d disagree with my view of this. After all, it’s the worst of all feminist delusions that in the old days women’s sexuality was controlled while men were free to do whatever they wished. “Patriarchy” was much about men controlling men; it was brutal on the cads. For most there was no freedom to go without marriage or freedom to not support a wife unless you were willing to live without non-paid pussy.
uh, because they’re the ones who get pregnant and pop out the babies?
So if medical technology was advanced enough, would you get a womb transplant and have babies?
Didn’t think so.
Are you eager to support a wife and take half the burden of pregnancy away, even if it’s only taking the traditional financial support role for a housewife? Maybe you are, but do you think many men are?
To get more babies, we need to either put more pressure on *men* to marry and support women (like there used to be in the old days of “patriarchy”) or somehow support women through other ways (ie. welfare ie. matriarchy).
i mean, make assertions that blatantly contradict ALL available statistical and empirical evidence?
All statistical evidence is that Western women desire much more babies than Western men. BTW women’s desired child count is well above replacement almost everywhere while men’s desired child count is well below replacement.
today’s women are more likely to be after child support payments, which they can’t collect while under the same roof, than marriage.
Well, that’s matriarchy. If we want babies, we need to make men sacrifice for babies (something they won’t do if not forced) and helping women bleed men dry is one way to do it. Another possibility is to simply collectivize the whole issue: I’ve seen many women opting to be single moms, since the welfare here is better than what a not particularily hot woman might extract out of marriage.
Note that the lowest birth rates in Europe are in the more conservative, more patriarchal countries while the highest ones are in the excessively feminist northwest.
what’s still there in european churches, old-time religion with balls or spineless feelgood kum-ba-yah?
Both. There are the people who do feminism and there are the people who get themselves killed traveling to Pakistan to preach that Muhammed was the devil. The church is going to fall apart because of that (I’m already seeing that in my old home region, with people finally dumping the church to pursue their own fire, brimstone and world domination ideas).
LikeLike
217 Sara
No, I still have no idea what you’re saying. I was explaining what the word “marginal” means since it seemed to confuse you earlier. I’m also not sure where you got the idea that I’m married – you’re really not very good at this whole “reading” thing, are you? Don’t worry – it’s never too late to develop a skill. What grade are you going to be in this Fall?
LikeLike
^ anonymous Sara.
LikeLike
I am pretty late to this party, but…
if any guidance counselor or teacher suggested homemaking as a profession even once, even to the most domestic, nurturing, and family-oriented of girls, do you think that teacher or counselor would still have a job the next day?
Absolute fucking truth.
LikeLike
235 Sara
Fair enough – good luck with the brain fog.
LikeLike
oday’s women, however, are being sold the lie that motherhood and children should entail essentially zero degree of sacrifice
Actually it makes some sense. Given how our lives have minimized the dangerous and boring aspects through various new technologies and processes, many are hoping to extend such advances into motherhood to make the process as convient as possible. Especially with our celebrity/nouveau rich aspirant culture than seeks to ape their lifestyles as much as possible, people are going to desire that type of lifestyle and emulate it as much as possible.
do you think for a minute that these womyn would defend you if you were the target of false DV or rape allegations?
I’m black, by default that makes me the stereotypical criminal, and I have no faith in a jury unless I were to be able to afford the best skilled defense possible. Trust me, it’s highly likely that everybody will abandon me whether male or female.
I really don’t care if they respect me or not since I’m only defending my opinions vis à vis the opinions of others who post here.
the best solution, though: people should grow up and learn to live within their means
I’ll give you some credit for admitting that this is something that should apply to both sexes out of simple fairness and financial prudence. Mind you, some people would probably rather have the high-tech baubles and expensive clothing over the children, and as much as I think kids are cute (especially my neice and nephew), I’ll bet on the $3000 camera, $400 radar detector, and $300/month car as providing more long-term enjoyment.
Besides, children have been replaced with long-term care disability insurance. It’s guarenteed to take care of you even if your kids move across the country or to some bizzare part of the globe.
and finally, whatever would cause you to conceive of this ‘training’ as … difficult?
you poor misguided soul.
Yes, it takes far too much time, energy, and effort to get a woman to cope with one’s sexual tastes, especially somebody like myself who is a porn addict. Hell, implants aren’t exactly cheap, nor are hair extensions, acrylic nails, makeup, or slutty clothes. It’s much easier to either find somebody who has been “trained” already or to resort to my old standby of freshly delivered porn that arrives daily.
please, please, PLEASE tell me you don’t attribute this to her SAH motherhood.
please.
Yes I do. When she was working, she actually had friends and intelligent people to meet with on a daily basis. She wasn’t meeting anybody new as a stay at home mother.
LikeLike
240 JQP
I like your style. You are one of the few posters here who knows what the word “responsibility” means. It means literally “the ability to respond”. If a person has the ability to respond they don’t blame others for whatever it is that’s put in front of them to respond TO. Such as the current situation between men and women.
Uhhh,,,,did anyone get that? I have a tendency to go over people’s heads here, or maybe I just don’t express myself well, or maybe what I’m trying to express does not lend itself to words, or maybe I’m full of it? LOL Whatever. If anyone gets it, I’ll be amazed.
LikeLike
@Jim Rockford
You make some excellent points. People believe that homo sapiens became the domiant species only because of his brain are somewhat incorrect. Fatherly investment makes a huge difference. In other primate species, the female carries her offspring around for five years, taking care of herself and her newborn, until the newborn can fend for himself. Primate females have one baby every five years. Homo sapiens females instead can give birth to a child every year, because there is a male around to feed her and her babies. However, male investment only happens if the male has regular sexuall access to the female and there is a good chance he is raising his own genes. Therefore, female monogamy and sexual restrictions on females are essential part of homo sapien behaviour. If a society wants to succeed, it has to marry off it’s nubile 15 year olds to its young, productive males, who will be 10-15 years older. Nowadys women whore around with alphas during their nubile years, expecting to get an alpha (most won’t), destroying their future marriage prospects and the society which needs the betas (and their sexual satisfaction) to function. Excellent post Jim Rockford.
LikeLike
@52 dizzy
“After a while, it’s as if every man I saw on the street or met in a coffee shop believed he was owed my time or my smile or my attention. That’s NOT fun, once you realize that the attention is just stupid and one-sided. They had nothing to offer. They honestly believed, “I’m a man, that’s enough because you should be lucky to have a man to protect you.” But they can only protect me from other men who are assholes. Even then, it’s only as long as they want to. That’s not a smart deal for me”
No one owes anyone anything except whatever agreements are bartered out. But could it be, that You are semi-narcissistic? You really matter that much to every EVERY man you see on the street or coffee shop? Are you a genuine 10 between the ages of 18-28? (rhetorical question)
So be Distant, Aloof, and Cold… and settle for a care bear Beta or a lesbian.
—————————————————————————
“I was tired, also, of meeting the conflicting expectations – good girl who’s good at sex and wants it all the time and would never cheat but doesn’t get “clingy” when her partner has a wandering eye. How is anyone supposed to do that? Who in the world has done that and not been cheated on or ended up reviled for some heinous crime like aging, or, best of all, spent her life helping other people for the dubious “credit” of being wonder woman? Men walk out on wonder woman, too you know. Nothing you can do will make him stay. He’s a separate person. He doesn’t have to. So why set up a system where your whole job in the relationship is to be so wonderful he’ll want to stay? ”
I really wanna give you the benefit of the doubt on this one,
but do you really feel this way in real life?, or is this a sentiment that you have grown into based on feminist training or Your understanding of Game and the pitched battles in the war of sexes.
You really want to meet expectations but you hate a double standard of behaviors (one for men, the other for your sex). You really want someone to love you, and never leave you,
You don’t cater to the Alpha mindset; So accept the lower standard of living that betas provide. Or fall in love with a woman’s studies Prof and go jam to Melissa Ethridge or Indigo Girls.
Please understand, you have spoken out from personal experience. My response is not an attack against you, but a true response of compassion.
but Remember Nothing Ventured, Nothing gained.
I understand losing in love can make you bitter, jaded, and undesirable.
Forgiveness is the most powerful transformational tool that is within you.
LikeLike
p.s. “This is the Captain speaking: Ship’s Orders…
The Beatings will continue until morale improves,
That is all”
LikeLike
Gannon & Jim Rockford
I like my greedy consumerist society and its sexuality. We’re living far better than our relatives did nearly two or three generations ago, and I wouldn’t trade anything to live their lifestyle. Besides, even as a beta, I’d much rather have the current sexual regime where I have the ability to compete for a hot woman than the older system which de facto assigned whatever ugly village female was availible at the time. I like being able to use porn to my heart’s content to avoid real ugly women with no real effective social penalty attached to it. I am not willing to sacrifice my sexual pleasure for some vague goal of having more babies than the Muslims.
Frankly, the reason why we Westerners don’t breed is because we’re either too self-absorbed in enjoying the high-tech world that we live in, or we’re too scared of peak oil, racists, global warming or some other factor to have children. To go back to old reproductive and relationship factors would require Westerners to give up their high standards of living, and for us to get over our fears of the world around us and our future. In effect, for us to breed like Muslims, we have to *become* Muslim-esque, and I don’t think we as a culture are willing to do that.
Besides, where are all these rioting beta males? Crime is at its lowest levels in nearly 50 years, and crime itself has sadly been the province of the low IQ males who are having the most sex, not the least. Hell, I suspect if Europe were to move towards US style criminal justice with heavy enforcement and long sentencing, the Muslim birthrate will probably decline…
it has to marry off it’s nubile 15 year olds to its young, productive males, who will be 10-15 years older
Even if you did that in the US, the birth rate wouldn’t climb. If two thirty year old partners cannot afford a child, the single thirty something male certainly cannot do so either with a fifteen year old unemployable wife. Hell, how can one buy a $600K five bedroom home in a good school district on a salary of $45K and then save enough for retirement and college that may cost $20K/yr for three to five children?
LikeLike
@249 David Alexander
“We’re living far better than our relatives did nearly two or three generations ago”
For the moment, at any rate. But at large, we are too far into debt to sustain that. Both nationally, and at the individual household level. Our Nation’s public debt is in the trillions (RED) so our progeny is already indebted to the 7th generation. {and congress shows no evidence of restraint}
As for the standard US American household, its in credit card and other non-mortgage debt to $18,000.00 and growing.
I guess you haven’t paid attention to how inflation has been reported since 1983-1984. They no longer include food and energy costs. If they did inflation would be above 13%.
{UNSUSTAINABLE}
“To go back to old reproductive and relationship factors would require Westerners to give up their high standards of living”
Economically speaking, that decision is being made for us already. We are killing our Goose, instead of selling its golden eggs. We are loosing the standard soon as the economic depression hits.
Replacement rates are not being maintained currently, the only growth we have right now is illegals and their catholic indoctrinated breeding habits, Plus their anchor babies.
But don’t worry about that… google the phrase “latina feminist” and you will see that evil has been translated and will be warring with the catholic church for the hearts and minds of the Mexican people.
Its interesting to see that Planned Parenthood pulled off a coup. It is now legal to abort an unborn life in Mexico.
LikeLike
@Sovereign male: as a nonamerican I can attest how much value the dollar has lost. A lot of companies haven’t risen their prices yet in the US, but they sonn will have too. Besides peak oil (the US economy is dependent on trucks and cars unlike Europe which has a good train system), the retirement of the entitled babyboomers will create pension and health costs inbearable for the US economy. Expect tax rises and cutting of benefits.
LikeLike
Should say “unbearable”.
LikeLike
250 S.A.M.
“As for the standard US American household, its in credit card and other non-mortgage debt to $18,000.00 and growing.”
On the bright side, the American addiction to spending beyond our wildest dreams or ability to pay, may also indicate a true belief in the old adage “there’s more where that came from”. One reason our country is so comparably rich is our eagerness to spend money “as if” there is no limit to the supply and ability of the economy to expand.
LikeLike
Our Nation’s public debt is in the trillions
Republicans promised us low taxes and an easy ass war to “liberate” the Iraqis.
As for the standard US American household, its in credit card and other non-mortgage debt to $18,000.00 and growing.
Interestingly, the minute that we stopped spending, the economy tanked. We’re in a service economy where the only thing keeping the economy going is the spending capabilities of the US consumer. Nobody else in the world is spending as we do and their economies will suffer somewhat if they have nowhere to dump their excess imports. The only saving grace will be if home consumption increases to compensate for the lost export buisness, or if Europeans begin to spend what they don’t have.
Economically speaking, that decision is being made for us already. We are killing our Goose, instead of selling its golden eggs. We are loosing the standard soon as the economic depression hits.
Then once an economic depression hits, expect birthrates to tank even further. If people see their living standards fall, certainly they will be less likely to have children. The high birthrate populations are either seeing an increase in their living standards compared to their home nations, or they simply don’t care.
Its interesting to see that Planned Parenthood pulled off a coup. It is now legal to abort an unborn life in Mexico.
Less children means more resources can be devoted to less children which will probably improve Mexico’s economic standing in the long term. Sure there will be less maids, but the leftover children can contribute more to Mexico’s GDP.
A lot of companies haven’t risen their prices yet in the US, but they sonn will have too
Most of the increases so far have been limited to essentially food and energy. Otherwise, the stuff that’s imported from Europe has increased in cost considerably (like my mom’s hair care products), and I suspect this Christmas’s products from East Asia will rise in cost to compensate.
the US economy is dependent on trucks and cars unlike Europe which has a good train system
Gannon, the reason the US railway system is lacking in passenger service is because the vast majority of the rail system is designed around moving freight around. Contrary to what most people think, a good chunk of the US products are moved around the interior via freight rail with most trucks being used with in a 500 mile distance from its original home. Even companies like UPS make heavy use of our freight rail system with daily runs from the West Coast to East Coast or from the Northeast to the Southeast. Many of the trucks that cross country do so via intermodal systems where the truck sits on a train for most of its run.
In contrast, the European railway system actually creates heavier use of trucks because its oriented towards moving passengers first and freight second. The only real benefit that the Europeans have is that they’re willing to spend the money on unprofitable rail, and many European lines are electrified.
BTW, the Europeans have an advantage in terms of shipping via water due to easy port access and canals. In the US, we’ve given up on both due to the ease and cheapness of shipping via truck or rail. Besides, US sailors are very, very expensive…
Expect tax rises and cutting of benefits.
It’s happening somewhat at the state and local level where pensions for government employees have increased considerably, and debts to pay off borrowing against the pension funds have created a situation where many states are forced to cut operating and capital costs for many programs when during this current economic period, the increase in spending on programs is needed. A lot of state and local governments were handing out generous retirement benefits and lowered retirement ages as political tools on the basis that the stock market and real estate markets would boom forever. Now that both are tanking and sputtering, governments have been hard pressed to figure out to pay for services, build capital projects, and do so without increasing taxes which people don’t want.
Essentially, blame the American taxpayer for wanting low taxes and high quality government services, and politicians for pandering to these desires.
BTW, I suspect soon, Americans will sadly join the rest of the world and have the addition of a value added tax of some sort.
LikeLike
Dont forget the onus of a Carbon Ration/tax…
It got shut down this year, but It will be on the floor next year.
I wrote a piece about the British one recently, let me see if I can find it.
—————————————————————————
Carbon Tax Failures
10:00 PM on Jun. 2, 2008
The U.S. American problem with the British “carbon ration” / tax:
by Zed A. Wagner
The problem with the carbon ration / tax scheme is that it is inherently unfair and flawed.
1.0
If a rich man like a Bill Gates and a poor woman like a Rosa Parks (Bill Gates doesn’t use public transportation) both exhaust the equal amounts of their “allotmented” carbon credits. Then the time comes to purchase additional carbon credits to continue their energy consuming lifestyles, the Bill Gates is able, and does purchase his credits; But Rosa Parks is not able and will not purchase available credits. (This implies that credits will be equally available to purchase, provided that the consumer has funds to spend)
2.0
It violates the foundational doctrine of the free people plank:
“No Taxation without Representation”
For the proposed ration system to work under its current theory, it must be applied to all humanity of all nations, even those who refuse by withholding consent or object. The scheme requires new organs of State to facilitate its function. As it will be administered globally, it violates national sovereignty and the sovereignty of individual human beings. To be enforced it needs laws and policement of these laws, which means its part of State.
3.0
It by function erodes the middle class, demoting them into the lower poverty group by retributions of their wealth and furthers the polarization of the Poor/Hyper-rich.
4.0
It erects new barriers against the creation of new jobs and business. These barriers are additional costs to entry, and bureaucratic red tape. This will “freeze out” shall effect all sectors by the nature of the energy sector, and because of its pollution.
5.0
It fails to regulate natural supersources of carbon dioxide, such as volcanoes. The only solution to reduce CO2 emissions, after a Mount St. Helen’s event is to massively reduce carbon allotments to all consumers. So the system cannot fix non human sources of Co2, but can only punish humans for their occurrences.
6.0
Carbon Dioxide is critically needed for life, and is not a toxin. All plants need Co2 to live, and produce oxygen as a by product.
(Perhaps we need to give all the plants {trees} ration cards for producing oxygen. Following up with a law to execute an eviction from treeland for non-payment, and give the land to corn plants. And then Oxygen ration the corn plants, and tax their ears off.
But lets feed the energy sector ethanol produced from ears of corn, and let humans starve if they cannot pay 12 dollars a bushel. Because you know… we still have surplus humans.)
7.0
It creates a new system of thought, whereby the idea of human overpopulation reduction is made personally desirable; it is based on game theory, summed up by application of “zero sum” game theory. There are too many people producing carbon dioxide, and if we had fewer people, my ration would be increased.
=——————————————————————————————————————————————-=
LikeLike
3.0
strike retributions , replace with redistributes
LikeLike