I was sitting with a girlfriend in a small group of people that included one cute girl who had a history of mild flirting with me that never amounted to anything more. But this night, her flirtations were stronger. Much stronger. Seeing me in the company of another attractive woman revved her engine, as preselection does with any woman. It’s as if a switch turned on powering up a new, hungrier, hornier woman who would stop at nothing to get a bite of the juicy, prized meat just barely out of her reach.
Occasionally, when the gf was in the bathroom or otherwise distracted, we would have moments alone when she spoke freely, consumptively.
“I give GREAT blowjobs.”
“I see.”
“I’m really good at using my tongue.”
“Nice.”
*Hungry stare*
“Ok, then.”
Did the fact that I was with female company dissuade her? Ha, it is to laugh! Just the opposite. She threw all moral consideration to the wind and would have followed her feelings straight into Sodom if I had allowed it.
Later:
SUCCUBUS: “Promise time.”
“Ok.”
“If you’re not married next time we meet, we’re having sex.”
“Cool.”
What are the most powerful game techniques? Social proof/preselection has got to be at or near the top.
Who extracted the promise?
If it was you, Chateau, then how do you know she’s not going to get cold feet and back off when you get that far – women are teases, and she probably desperately wants you to like her.
If it was her… well, we gotta love people for who they are.
Sorta like the way I love sluts.
LikeLike
Consumptively?
My experience is that girls who act this way will tend to withdraw in mock surprise as soon as you reciprocate her prurience. Whenever that doesn’t happen, my instinct is to assume she has some raging venereal disease and run for the hills.
Anyway, the punch line here — that preselection is among the most effective attraction switches — seems dead on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is interesting….when I was married and then separated, I met a younger girl who I soon began banging a lot.
When I told her I was still married, she’d rationalize and say “You’re separated”…when I asked other girls I was trying bang whether my having been married was a problem the response was most often: “No, that’s cool, it means you have life experience….” Pre-selection indeed.
LikeLike
She is not nice.
LikeLike
322 THE JOYFUL WISDOM, V
WE FEARLESS ONES
363.
How each Sex has its Prejudice about Love.
Notwithstanding all the concessions which I am
inclined to make to the monogamic prejudice, I
will never admit that we should speak of equal
rights in the love of man and woman: there are
no such equal rights. The reason is that man and
woman understand something different by the
term love, and it belongs to the conditions of love
in both sexes that the one sex does not presuppose
the same feeling, the same conception of ” love,” in
the other sex. What woman understands by love
is clear enough: complete surrender (not merely
devotion) of soul and body, without any motive,
without any reservation, rather with shame and
terror at the thought of a devotion restricted by
clauses or associated with conditions. In this
absence of conditions her love is precisely a faith:
woman has no other. Man, when he loves a
woman, wants precisely this love from her; he
is consequently, as regards himself, furthest
removed from the prerequisites of feminine love;
granted, however, that there should also be men
to whom on their side the demand for complete
devotion is not unfamiliar, well, they are really
not men. A man who loves like a woman becomes
thereby a slave; a woman, however, who loves like
a woman becomes thereby a more perfect woman.
. . . The passion of woman in its unconditional
renunciation of its own rights presupposes in fact
that there does not exist on the other side an equal
pathos, an equal desire for renunciation: for if both
renounced themselves out of love, there would
result well, I don t know what, perhaps a horror
vacui? Woman wants to be taken and accepted
as a possession, she wishes to be merged in the
conceptions of ” possession ” and ” possessed;”
consequently she wants one who takes, who does
not offer and give himself away, but who reversely
is rather to be made richer in “himself” by the
increase of power, happiness and faith which the
woman herself gives to him. Woman gives herself,
man takes her. I do not think one will get
over this natural contrast by any social contract,
or with the very best will to do justice, however
desirable it may be to avoid bringing the severe,
frightful, enigmatical, and unmoral elements of this
antagonism constantly before our eyes. For love,
regarded as complete, great, and full, is nature, and
as nature, is to all eternity something “unmoral.”
Fidelity is accordingly included in womans love,
it follows from the definition thereof; with man
fidelity may readily result in consequence of his
love, perhaps as gratitude or idiosyncrasy of taste,
and so-called elective affinity, but it does not
belong to the essence of his love and indeed so
little, that one might almost be entitled to speak
of a natural opposition between love and fidelity
in man, whose love is just a desire to possess, and
not a renunciation and giving away; the desire to
possess, however, comes to an end every time with
the possession. … As a matter of fact it is the
more subtle and jealous thirst for possession in a
man (who is rarely and tardily convinced of having
this “possession”), which makes his love continue;
in that case it is even possible that his love may
increase after the surrender, he does not readily
own that a woman has nothing more to ” surrender ”
to him.
Nietzsche, 1887
LikeLike
There are many articles about this finding already. Women want what they “can’t” have. Men who have a gf or wife already show value to women, because another women has chosen to be with you. There are articles on yahoo shine about this! Women know that this and that’s why they try to keep you alway from “those” friends.
Apparently something about me says amoral enough that I always get those looks by men with their significant others. Maybe I am hot and letting the hamster get too much exercise.
I really don’t know anymore.
LikeLike
New Alpha:
A succubus (plural succubi) is a female demonic legendary creature[1] who seduces men in their sleep.
LikeLike
Just how amoral are women? They can kill their unborn babies, not tell anyone about it, and still act as if nothing had happened. As far as I can tell, the only moral imperatives women know are ‘I want this’ or ‘I don’t want this.’
LikeLike
I grew up in a feminist household, combine that with the girls are better than boys school system and till this day of 34 years on this planet I still want to believe in the decency of women.
The new rule of thumb for the feminized American beta male should be, fool me once, shame on you; fool me 5,106 times shame on me!
LikeLike
“What are the most powerful game techniques? Social proof/preselection has got to be at or near the top.”
Undoubtedly. Only yesterday, my ex gf/friend with benefits found out that a girl-friend of mine – who likes me – is coming to my city for a week and wants to stay in my place.
My ex was revved up, texting “hey do you wanna do something tomorrow? xxx”, being extra fawning, and demonstrating in so many ways that my “value” had just jumped up.
Preselection is incredibly powerful.
LikeLike
Or how about, fool me once, shame on you; fool me a couple hundred times, and well, (stammers,) I just would appreciate if you would stop fooling me.
LikeLike
Coleridge,
You have indicated the essence of the problem — the only reason they can “act as if nothing had happened” is because mainstream society no longer shames women about anything. Few women (and not so many men either nowadays) will attempt to follow any principled code; if society is OK with a behavior, then most will never see anything wrong with it.
Manipulating this propensity is a standard game tactic — take your girl to a movie in which the characters behave as you would like her to behave and that frame will influence her. On the other hand, because shame is dependent on public exposure, when this tactic doesn’t work the complementary appeal “no one will ever know” or “it’s our little secret” will be powerful, because it is really the social consequences that motivate them rather than an abstract judgment that the socially unacceptable behavior is wrong.
There are exceptions, of course; and note that I have not endorsed any specific immoral behavior here. This is a general tactic to work with a woman’s conformist instincts rather than against them, which can be applied for good (when society is wrong about something) or evil (when society is right). For the record, I agree with you about abortion.
LikeLike
NewAlpha
Of course the promise isn’t enforceable.
That’s not the point. Her having given it is further confirmation to her own conscious mind that she really wanted to sleep with you badly before. Big bridge crossed there in a girl’s mind. You fully qualify.
It makes it a lot more likely that you’ll be able to ramp back up with quickly at a later juncture, if you want to. For sure it does.
LikeLike
Pupu
But methinks you are.
You’re adorable sometimes.
LikeLike
NewAlpha
Actually rereading the last bit, from the “Succubus” and Roissy’s habit of alternating lines of dialog, I’m quite sure she’s the one who extracted it from Roissy.
Even better.
LikeLike
Yeah social proof/preselection is #1!
LikeLike
Preselection is the most powerful trigger by a factor of 100.
Another key is that the woman with you is hot over you. You sitting with your legs spread at a bar stool, her standing between your knees with her arms around your neck giving you puppy eyes while you rub her lower back and ass. Throw in some gentle, tender kisses for max effect. There is a difference in percepetion between “he must be on an awkward first date” to “his game has rendered this girl into total submission.”
A trick I like to use is to violently fukk a girl before we go out. ex. pin hands over her head and face fuck her hard; over the end of the couch; deliver giant facial, etc. Then take her out where there are other chicks you are interested in. She’ll give off that “This man just ravaged my body and I’ve got jelly legs” vibe as evidenced by the her flushed collar area and eye sparkle.”
Last weekend I was at a bar where there are three hotties who toy with me; one of them outright rejected me. So I brought in a freshly fukked chick to drape all over me and when I went back a couple days later alone, all three were overtly trying to have sex with me.
I always thought of roissy as more on a theory nerd with great writing skills, but he has really grown over the past 3 months. I’m even starting to learn some things from him. Props and keep up the good work.
LikeLike
I think the term “sexual proof” is a little misleading, it indicates that the man goes up in the predatory woman’s estimation because another woman is interested in him.
This is not necessarily the case. For many predatory women, the prey is incidental, it is the tooth & claw ego-boost involved in one-upmanship over another woman that counts.
The “sexual proof” involved is proof to oneself of one’s superior female attractiveness. Whether or not the man is attractive or not does not really matter, he is a nominal prize only, a pawn in the game of intra-female competition.
This is why the man is often dumped unceremoniously when the defeated woman withdraws or transfers her interest to somebody else.
LikeLike
psycho
For maximum effect, I think the last is much more accurate than your advice to “Throw in some gentle, tender kisses for max effect.”
If you two seem fully in tender early love to the target girl, in most cases she’ll in fact lose interest thinking you’re truly unwinable for even casual sex. It’s when you act more aloof and the girl is puppy eyes chasing you that you get the true max effect on the target girl.
Note any long relationship/marriage will tend to lead the sluttier / less principled / hornier sorts of girls to think you might be winable.
LikeLike
Women are possibly the most self-centered creatures in existence. So much so in fact that I believe they can only bond with their children out of the fact that they see them simply as prized accessories designed to match their lifestyle aesthetic all the way down to the DNA level. Simply put, babies are of little more value than a favorite couture purse that goes with almost any outfit, or an exorbiantly expensive pair of heels perfect for almost any occasion. The fact that children are but a distorted mirror of their own beauty only adds to their constant obsession with these personified reflections of their youth and fertility. For women, existence truely revolves around them, and serves no useful purpose but to coddle and entertain their Id, while at the same time being unreasonably expected to hold the center of their self perceived reality stable and true in a swaddling gyroscopic spin of hedonism and decadence that distracts them from their own insignificance and prevents them from observing their true environment free from blur, distortion or an unbalanced equilibrium. They are senseless creatures to be pitied and condescended to, and ultimately like many forces of nature, simply either contained or avoided.
LikeLike
so the obvious question is, is there a threesome angle?
LikeLike
The pre-selection issue is so powerful that it borders on dangerous. The highest female fantasy is to steal the man from the more attractive and younger woman. Guile triumphs over beauty. Even made it to the ultimate female delusional fantasy show sex and the city where the neurotic and hideous sarah jessica parker steals mr. big from Bridget Moynahan.
Women will chase you with manic urgency and threaten your relationship including terrorizing your GF. If you do fool around with the seductress, your GF will be the first to know. I view threesomes with your GF as dangerous because who knows what schemes the single girl you invite into your bedroom will hatch.
From a game perspective, what is stolen is more appealing that what is earned. Let her think she stole you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It occurs to me that I don’t really understand the title of this post. Unless it’s posed as a challenge to the fading shibboleth that women are paragons of virtue, it seems bizarre to ask about the moral integrity of an entire sex, as distinct from that of the other. While differing psychological tendencies probably predispose women qua women to commit some particular moral infractions more than men, I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to put the question the opposite way, and then ask whether any reasonable empirical claims can be made about the relative immorality (I think “amorality” is an all-or-nothing concept, although I might be wrong about that) of the sexes. And even that would assume a certain fixed definition of morality with a corresponding set of values, rules, or principles. And now I’m starting to get a headache thinking about this.
Also, Psycho wrote,
A trick I like to use is to violently fukk a girl before we go out. ex. pin hands over her head and face fuck her hard; over the end of the couch; deliver giant facial, etc. Then take her out where there are other chicks you are interested in. She’ll give off that “This man just ravaged my body and I’ve got jelly legs” vibe as evidenced by the her flushed collar area and eye sparkle.”
I’ll give Psycho the benefit of the doubt on whether he has ever actually achieved positive results with this “trick,” but I’m going to strongly advise against assuming that “violently…face fuck[ing]” your girl will make her act more into you when you go out afterward.
LikeLike
Never underestimate the power of girl+gay guy cliques. They will make or break you in high school and college. There was an article long ago about secret society, so true for guys like me that have access.
If I hookup and sleep around no one condemns me… if a beta does it he will get punished. Funny how girls and gays never use “nice” to describe me, but instead substitute sweet.
LikeLike
Hope you at least got it in writing, signed and notarized.
A Woman’s Inalienable Right to Change Her Mind at Anytime is part of the amorality, shamelessness, and dishonorableness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had never held a credit card until I was 28. I’d applied for a few during my 20s, but even though I had a job and was a relatively low credit risk I simply couldn’t get approved because I had no prior credit. All that changed when I was approved for my first home loan and started making mortgage payments. THEN the credit card companies were relentless with their advertisements and pre-approvals for high limit credit accounts.
Women work in exactly the same way. The ones who were put off by you when you lacked appreciable credit will hound you once you are bona fide. You are pre-qualified for pussy now that your credit default risk has been assumed by another party.
Take that as you will, but I should also add that while we can bemoan the amorality of women, the proper Alpha will use the preselection dynamic to his advantage. Nothing inspires / reignites greater passion in a current LTR than a proven external threat of competition anxiety.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Will, the problem isn’t that women are way more amoral than men, but that boys are being taught in schools, in single mother homes, and in the media that women are to be deified and given special treatment and get cool laws that benefit only them. And that is why sites like these exist. They shed some on light on the lies we are sold in the media, and everywhere else about the so-called superior morality of women.
It’s interesting to me at least, because I’m a pretty slow learner, and I think a lot of guys from my generation have no idea about the true nature of women.
LikeLike
If you can stomach it (and it ain’t easy), watch this tit try to exploit preselection (over and over again):
*Cringe*
LikeLike
Will–
If you knew Roissy’s blog better you’d know it’s posed as a challenge to the still strong shibboleth that women if not always paragons of virtue are for the most part far more virtuous than men.
“Men are such dogs” is a throwaway line on American sitcoms and romantic comedies for example. There is no comparable widely agreed phrase expressing the frequent amoral nature of women.
Pedestalling of women and white knighting, bequeathed to us by our former colonial overlords, remain very much alive in America as well as Britain.
I’ll give you another example, a very consequently one. It’s commonly said in Anglosphere cultures that while men are naturally polygamous if they can be without too much adverse consequence, women are monogamous. The later is untrue. Women are naturally hypergamous (for somewhat different things depending on the culture and their own economics, but always for high status and edgie males) and serially monogamous.
Her natural continuing exclusive attraction for any man she falls deeply hypergamously in love with has a natural sell by date, from time of first deep attraction sealed w/intercourse, to a lot less intense or necessarily exclusive attraction. That sell by date varies with a number of things but is estimated by evo psych researchers to generally be between 18 months and 4 years.
After that time a woman doesn’t necessarily feel completely non pair bonded. But she is naturally succeptible to being seduced by another male she’s newly and hypergamously attracted to, even if he’s not really more attractive than she found her husband to begin with.
However because the myth in our culture is that women are naturally monogamous, meaning forever if the man is and remains good enough, a myth that’s hammered home in romantic comedy after comedy, and other love stories eagerly consumed by women, American women believe that if they are seriously attracted to another man after the marriage has gone on for awhile that it must be faults or inadequancies of her husband, not some failing on her part to not be temped to act like a dog and restrain herself, for the good of the pair bond remaining (a more mellow kind of companionate love with agape more than sharp eros usually) and the family remaining intact.
In fact she’s likely giving all the feminist entertainment media encouraging her, to believe that if she’s feeling pulled more strongly to another man than her husband that she just might and probably does owe it to herself to at least explore a love affair with that other man. “Because she just isn’t feeling loved anymore much by her husband” she’s partly project. Because she’s naturally monogamous she believes and not a dog like men, this isn’t something she’s just honor bound to not do if she’s really tempted to stray, a great many feminism influenced and traditional “partriarchal” morality shunning American now believe.
Unlike men, if she does stray with a new man that sufficiently pushes her hypergamous buttons, she’s highly likely to quite quickly feel exclusive love feeling for this new man in her life, and now even disgust at the idea of continuing to sleep with her husband. She’s not polyagmous by nature but she is serially monogamous. Even if this new guy is married and won’t leave his wife, or is otherwise unsuitable to marry, she’s still likely to go completely off her husband and realize after a tortured while — and long talks with her sympathetic, been their themselves often girlfriends, that she should stay in a marriage that makes her “feel trapped” just due to a “false sense of old fashioned duty”. Besides “it isn’t even best for the children if their mother is miserable” and inevitably picking fights with her husband. (But women rarely acknowledge picking fights, esp. when they’re self justifying moving on to search for their next serial monogamy — on the back of divorce theft of her husband.
(See e.g. Michelle Langley’s “Women’s Infidelity” and Roger Devlin’s articles.)
Do you think these sorts of things are widely known by men or women in the Anglosphere cultures, or that the shibbolith’s about women supporting them are truly greatly fading?
LikeLike
that she shouldn’t stay in a marriage
LikeLike
What are the most powerful game techniques? Social proof/preselection has got to be at or near the top.
Would starting a band count?
A DHV lifestyle!
speaking on music/amoral bitch-es.
Have you heard about this chick Neil Strauss is promoting?
Her name is Roxana Shirazi and she has a book set for release about banging rockstars, having abortions and her thoughts on sexual liberation (for women.)
I already know it’s going to be a good read.
Peep it:
The Last Living Slut is the salaciously literary and sexually liberated account of one young woman’s transition from traditionally-raised Iranian to rock and roll groupie for Guns N Roses, Motley Crew, and many others. Paired with a powerful introduction by New York Times bestselling authors Neil Strauss and Anthony Bozza, Roxana Shirazi’s The Last Living Slut is a passionate tale of jilted love, brutal revenge, and backstage encounters that make Pamela Des Barres’s I’m With The Band read like the diary of a nun.
http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061992490/The_Last_Living_Slut/index.aspx
LikeLike
A common time for marriages which started out really strong post vows to break apart into the woman initiating divorce is 6 or 7 years.
That’s because she’ll usually “try to make it work” after the time when she “isn’t feeling it”. As I said if she has had an affair that pushes her hypergamous buttons, it is going to take a whole lot of willpower and belief that she must make the marriage work for her to in fact not give up after awhile. Despite how hard her husband tries to make it work for her and to address the smokescreen complaints she has about his failings which will generally be way off from what he could infact do to help her feel more attracted again. (Which is relationship game.)
I believe that a large majority of cases where a wife divorces because of “we grew apart” or “I just don’t feel he loves me as he used to” or “he doesn’t pay enough attention to me”, or today increasingly “emotional abuse” (where she’s really referring to the increasing arguments she in fact is mostly picking through her endless criticism of him for things that didn’t used to bother her), she’s in fact had an affair which may or may not be continuing.
Divorce attorneys report that in the majorty of cases in which a woman admits having had an affair to her attorney, the husband never knew about it or finds out. Women cover up affairs much better than men do on average. They are however far more genuinely likely to be consequently to the spouse’s own desire to continue the marriage and make it work, when women do it.
Men are naturally hypergamous. Women are naturally, without restraining culture or strong economic consequence, hypergamous and serially monogamous.
LikeLike
This philosopher—
That passage from Nietzsche is of course directly at odds the percepts and fundamental teaching or ideals of Anglosphere romantic love. In many or most ways the ideal of romantic love endlessly portrayed in the entertainment stories of the modern Anglosphere world approaches the opposite of this, where it’s then man who must be most deeply and truly first in love, for the romance to be as it “should be”. (Which completely violates game principles.) The purpose of this is so that the guy will be more readily betaized in marriage and hence less likely to stray, in his beta pedestalling cage. Instead these days she’ll in truth be more likely to stray, before or after the divorce which she’ll want.
Nietzsche there announces a complete dichotomy between male and female love. A strong mutual romantic love won’t obey his complete dichotomy, but he’s certainly right about the proper direction, if the man is not to be a beta girly man his wife will soon grow romantically tired of.
LikeLike
This female hypergamous and serially monogamous natural cycle, if she’s not strongly culturally / economically constrained in following it as she isn’t in mainstream America today, is part of why it’s really unwise men to get married and live in this country if you don’t want kids right away.
Marriages in which the couple remains strongly romantically attracted to each other for decades seem to make up only about 10% of marriages (mostly due to the woman I think w/male game). That’s also as self reported and I image is higher than the reality. That is I imagine a good percentage of that 10% simply mutually are ok with not having sex very often together after awhile, while they do still feel affectionately bonded to each other.
Game can certainly help but I’m not sure in what percentage of cases it can work as well or as long a marriage as it has for Athol Kay and Dave from Hawaii.
LikeLike
So many typos doug, I can’t understand you.
LikeLike
Doug1–“Unlike men, if she does stray with a new man that sufficiently pushes her hypergamous buttons, she’s highly likely to quite quickly feel exclusive love feeling for this new man in her life, and now even disgust at the idea of continuing to sleep with her husband.”
What if a married woman is very strongly attracted to another man, thinks obsessively about having an affair but doesn’t actually do it (or anything physical with the new guy). In that case, would you still expect her to feel sexual repulsion for her husband?
LikeLike
As for the wannabe’s questions the psychological power of rough fukking and sexual degradation, let me give you an example.
Now please note that I am the real deal after years of hard work and practice.
Chick, hb7, 28, married three years, does knitting etc, sings in the church choir, etc. I go out with some friends and she is friends with a friend and comes with. Long story short, she ends up at my house and immediately sucks diick. She says that she couldn’t help herself… she says it was so weird, “you acted like you didn’t have any agenda… it was like you weren’t even effected by my presence…. almost every guy I’m near gives off the agenda vibe.” I tear her up with brutal pounding on the couch, take her to bed, face fuck her, and grab her fimly by the hair and deliver a facial which glued her eyes shut.
OK, now this was the reaction. “oh my god, i’ve never felt so wonderful in my life… I love how you behave like a man and allowed me to be just be a woman…. cumming on my face was the hottest thing I’ve ever done…. I love that you are rough with me… a week later she is telling mutual friends that she is in love with me (stfu!)
She sneaks away from home about once a month for more brutal fukking…she has said on numerous occasions that she is addicted to it.
The whole point here is to get rid of the shame and hesitation and start treating women like your personal porn star. Hesitation is the ultimate killer in bed. Just assume and do and don’t be afraid of hurting her.
LikeLike
Daniel–
No. I think it would be much less likely.
I’m not saying every time any woman has an affair it has that effect. There’s just a very high danger it will. Ironically especially in the previously relatively good girl sort.
The “reformed” slut is a lot more likely to become unreformed and in fact stray and do so a good bit, but she’s not nearly so likely to have truly fallen adoringly in love with her husband in the first place, as opposed to pretending she was.
In her case she may be able to continue sex with her husband but after awhile be a lot less interested in it, and if she can get away with it, want to avoid it out of boredom more than revulsion. She’s less of a one man woman. Calculations of what she has to lose by divorcing will matter a lot to her. If her husband doesn’t discover all this and just get fed up that is. If she’s forced to truly reform or divorce — don’t lay odds on the former.
LikeLike
psycho–
Ever ask her how often she’s having penetrative sex w/her husband these days?
LikeLike
Doug1 rulez. And great to see that Pupu is back.
LikeLike
@ Jay, yeah, the dude in the video wasn’t a complete douchebag or anything.
LikeLike
Doug 1,
Is English your second language?
If so, Bravo, Well Done, Impressive.
If not, sheesh, your epics are riddled with errors of grammar and syntax, which really weaken your presentation (the reader must pause to decipher what it was you meant to say).
It’s like having a movie interrupted with loud, blaring commmercials every two minutes, really undermining the intended effect of the movie.
Catching those errors and fixing them is worth the extra time & effort (if you want others to get maximum value from reading what you post).
LikeLike
Doug
And yet no matter how many times this statistic is reported, people still go on and on about love being a permanent condition that they have control over.
You may as well prey to Mount Vesuvius as prey for a stable marriage. Hidden changes and time overpower even the strongest of bonds. Often. Most often. Overwhelmingly most often.
LikeLike
“The Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind” is the best starting point for understanding women.
Women have no morality at all. They don’t try to hurt you. It’s just that they need to “find themselves,” “take some me-time,” or “stop letting others define them.”
Thus, they’ll falsely accuse men of rape, trick them into impregnating them, cuckold them, and rape them in divorce court. It’s not malicious. It’s just their nature – which is to fulfilling their will.
Even when a woman loves you, she is oppressive. When in a love, a woman’s nature is to fulfill her will – which means, by definition, subjugating yours.
LikeLike
Steve M, get a life. Your attention to detail is gay. Obvious lawyer one-upmanship bs. Get over yourself. You have a terrible personality.
Re marriage and female infidelity (Steve M, I’m going to use some shorthand and abbreviations if that’s okay with you):
Women are much more susceptible to “falling in love” than men, on average. That is their biggest failing in LTR and marriage. They have a very difficult time separating their gina tingles from emotional love. When the first relationship gets old, and the right guy comes along who hits all the right notes (status, game, height, looks), they get the tingle, and then passively submit to the feeling (shrugging shoulders…I just fell in love. Didn’t mean to…)
Being in the lucky 10% that maintain mutual attraction for decades is not your best bet at having a healthy marriage. xsplat’s post about time and change is spot on. How can a couple survive? Shared priorities and ongoing communication regarding shared objectives. Whether its building financial wealth, raising your children and getting them through college, or maintaining a commitment to a stable family for children and grandchildren to come home to…it can be anything, but the key is that it has to be something beyond the other person. No person on earth is interesting enough on their own to maintain attraction for life, and you aren’t that interesting either.
LikeLike
The only thing that can reverse this perversion is to decriminalize the ol’ beatdown.
LikeLike
Another philosopher:
The reason an ordinary prostitute can never seem beautiful is because it is naturally impossible to endow her with the projection of value; she can satisfy only the taste of vulgar minds. She is the mate of the worst sort of men.
In this we have the explanation of a relation utterly opposed to morality: woman in general is simply indifferent to ethics, she is non- moral, and, therefore, unlike the anti-moral criminal, who is instinctively disliked, or the devil who is hideous in every one’s imagination, serves as a receptacle for projected worthiness; as she neither does good nor evil, she neither resists nor resents this imposition of the ideal on her personality.
It is patent that woman’s morality is acquired; but this morality is man’s, which he in an access of supreme love and devotion has conveyed to her.
LikeLike
Mike
Ding ding ding ding ding ding! Give that man a prize!
Now, there is an obvious conclusion that follows from this. In order for a man to maximize his happiness, he must…?
Oh, wait. I forgot to insert axiom B, which states that a woman is most happy when her will is subjugated.
Damn, I gave the answer away.
LikeLike
Sidewinder
I’ll agree with this, but would like to point out that it does not follow from the fact that romantic interest is fickle that the solution to this state of affairs is to maintain the bond with the same partner.
I wonder why serial monogamy for men doesn’t seem to be a goal for many men. I haven’t heard that talked about here much. It’s all casual dating or marriage – no middle ground.
LikeLike
xsplat, as I’ve posted before, I don’t judge a guy who doesn’t want to do the family thing (and that is the ONLY reason for getting married). Too many guys probably do it because they don’t know what else to do, or do it for religious or traditional reasons.
But if you honestly do want to do the family thing, then you have to do it 100%, to the grave. You have to be there for your kids, forever. And if you really take this duty seriously, you realize that “being there” means being there in the same home as your children’s mother. My wife comes from a broken family. From a purely practical standpoint, multiple grandparents is a disaster. It makes me sad for my kids to have to expose them to the mess that is my wife’s side of the family. The silver lining to this is that this mess has made it crystal clear to my wife how important it is to keep the family together, no matter what.
LikeLike
Sidewinder, don’t you think it’s an extreme point of view to think that you owe a duty to your children to remain married after they have grown up and left the house?
LikeLike
Steve M–
Not to me it usually isn’t on comment threads. Most people manage to follow just fine. I’ve been commenting here a long time.
I type comments here quickly and while multitasking. As well I’m slightly dyslexic. I can edit them all out readily enough, especially after a bit of a pause, but I sometimes/quite a few times can’t easily see them all initially and/or it’s really distasteful to try immediately. After a pause sure. But I’m in a hurry and moving quickly.
If you don’t find it worth it, skip over them.
LikeLike
@ xsplat,
No. I come from an unbroken line of undivorced ancestors. I have inherited many advantages as a result of this, both material and mental/emotional.
If my old parents went through a costly divorce right now, and squandered hundreds of thousands of dollars in the divorce and splitting up the family assets, and then probably remarrying and dividing the family estate again with their new partners…it would be stupid and selfish, to say the least. And then to have to explain to my little children what the hell is going on with grandma and grandpa and why they have to sell the farm with the swimming pool that they look forward to playing in every summer??? Not to mention the emotional impact of inevitably seeing each grandparent less. No thank you. I look forward to my grandchildren coming to see my wife and I when we’re old and rich.
Plus, I did pledge “til death do us part” and all that other stuff.
LikeLike
But have you forgotten the intense thrill and immense joy de vivre that comes from fresh lustful romance?
I’m a hedonist on a different route to fulfillment than you. I’ve found life’s most intense pleasure, and have heard of no substitute that comes close.
I guess some of us are just born with a higher need for stimulation.
LikeLike
Oh, and one sad, pessimistic, and cynical flat note to add to my refrain about family life.
Children continue to follow the trend of not visiting their parents and grandparents much after they leave home. Usually the move to a new city. Usually they rarely call or write.
LikeLike
Doug1:
“Women naturally stray after 7 years blah blah blah..”
What is the divorce rate for men who have learned Game?
LikeLike
Sidewinder–
The old solution in a situation like yours would often be that the husband would take a lover or mistress that his wife turns a blind eye to – so long as it doesn’t feel like he might leave her.
Well that was mostly before 1st wave feminism when it was quite common in longer marriages involving affluent men.
LikeLike
@Psycho
As for the wannabe’s questions the psychological power of rough fukking and sexual degradation, let me give you an example.
Well, now that I’ve read your typo-ridden, unverifiable anecdote that involves a married woman gushing to “mutual friends” that she is having an affair with you, my mind is changed completely.
Now please note that I am the real deal after years of hard work and practice.
lol
The whole point here is to get rid of the shame and hesitation and start treating women like your personal porn star. Hesitation is the ultimate killer in bed. Just assume and do and don’t be afraid of hurting her.
It’s as if, for a moment, Catharine MacKinnon was right about everything.
@Mike
Women have no morality at all…Thus, they’ll falsely accuse men of rape, trick them into impregnating them, cuckold them, and rape them in divorce court. It’s not malicious.
Does the fact that some men rape women, coercively impregnate unwilling women, force women into domestic servitude, or abandon their wives/families indicate to you that “men have no morality at all”?
Even when a woman loves you, she is oppressive. When in a love, a woman’s nature is to fulfill her will – which means, by definition, subjugating yours.
Dude, I’m sorry you had an overbearing mother, but it’s time to get over it.
Anyway, isn’t one of the main premises of pick-up/game discourse that women are attracted to powerful men and will resent males who are weak enough to be manipulated? There’s a line from Nietzsche that seems instructive here,
“The happiness of man is: ‘I will.’ The happiness of woman is: ‘he wills.’ ‘Behold, just now the world became perfect!’—thus thinks every woman when she obeys out of total love.”
LikeLike
Hmmm…fifty-odd comments and no one has pointed out that every girl claims to give great head, but few actually do.
LikeLike
xsplat–
I’ve combined it with fling/causal between LTRs.
Roissy has too to a lesser extent he says. (Seems not often much longer than a year.)
Serial marriage is of course financially extremely difficult for men these days w/out a prenup. There’s still kids. Which men who wanted them and had them are gonna lose w/serial marriage and have to pay indentured servitude for, as the alimony component of way jacked up child support.
LikeLike
Totally agree — preselection is huge.
Most women want what another woman has
or another woman wants.
sdaedalus – Do you agree?
LikeLike
Hesitation is the ultimate killer in bed.
This is true.
LikeLike
Wow Sidewinder,
You really distinguished yourself with your childish attack of me, simultaneously showing pathetic, hostile intolerance of anything you can’t appreciate, presuming to pronounce judgment and stoop to puerile name-calling, and, best of all, somehow managing to miss the very simple point I had made so clearly:
Sloppy writing obscures the meaning which the writer intended (attempted) to communicate.
This degrades the value of the offering to readers, so they do not find it worthwhile to strain to comprehend the muddled language used by that writer.
So readers start paying less and less attention to the sloppy offerings of that writer.
Here, I’ll state this so simply that even you can understand it, Sidewinder: writing which is full of mistakes defeats the purpose & efforts of the one who wrote it. Sloppy writing is self-defeating.
Of course Doug 1 is free to choose to maintain low standards for the quality of his writing here, just as the rest of us are free to start ignoring what he posts here, and Sidewinder is free to make silly, angry defenses of sloppy writing and failure to communicate clearly.
Hmm, interesting that Sidewinder, who posts here so very much, told a guy who rarely posts here to “Get a life”.
Projecting much, Sidewinder?
Guess you know all about having “a terrible personality”, since you presume to be qualified to lable me that way.
Damn, I feel sorry for you.
LikeLike
“On the other hand, because shame is dependent on public exposure, when this tactic doesn’t work the complementary appeal “no one will ever know” or “it’s our little secret” will be powerful, because it is really the social consequences that motivate them rather than an abstract judgment that the socially unacceptable behavior is wrong.”
I stumbled upon the power of this a couple decades ago as a hapless beta virgin. Much to my shock it got me laid. It was just a little spiel about “societal sins” versus real harm that an uber-Alpha friend of mine had taught me.
Clearly I would have benefited from paying closer attention to him…
LikeLike
“Even when a woman loves you, she is oppressive. ”
I have also had the problem of “overgaming” and thus picking up stalkers.
I have found this to be the fastest / most pain free way of Hitting the “eject” button on any chic within 13.4 minutes
Me) Meet me at xyz bar
She -on turning up) .. I didn’t know you smoked
Me) Only when I’m drunk
She ) .. I didn’t know you got drunk alone
Me) Only when I’m depressed
She ) .. Why are you depressed
Me) I just lost $500 on Horses (cards/ poker machine etc)
Me) Pull out Asthma* inhaler and have a few shots.. complain about having an Asthma attack
She will walk and you’ll never hear from her again.
* just buy one from the chemist for $8 and use it when in this situation
LikeLike
Nietzsche presents the theory perfectly and Roissy confirms it via his real world experience. More truth about human nature in this post than an entire psychology degree can teach.
LikeLike
A few more passages from Nietzsche on womyn,
65.
Devotedness.
There are noble women with a certain poverty of spirit, who, in order to express their profoundest devotedness, have no other alternative but to offer their virtue and modesty: it is the highest thing they have. And this present is often accepted without putting the recipient under such deep obligation as the giver supposed, a very melancholy story!
66.
The Strength of the Weak.
Women are all skilflul in exaggerating their weaknesses, indeed they are inventive in weaknesses, so as to seem quite fragile ornaments to which even a grain of dust does
harm; their existence is meant to bring home to man’s mind his coarseness, and to appeal to his conscience. They thus defend themselves against the strong and all “rights of might.”
68.
Will and Willingness.
Someone brought a youth to a wise man, and said, “See, this is one who is being corrupted by women!”
The wise man shook his head and smiled. “It is men,” he
called out, “who corrupt women; and everything
that women lack should be atoned for and improved
in men, for man creates for himself the ideal of
woman, and woman moulds herself according to this ideal.”
“You are too tender-hearted towards women,” said one of the bystanders, “you do not know them!
“The wise man answered: “Man’s attribute is will, woman’s attribute is willingness-such is the law of the sexes, verily! a hard law for woman! All human beings are innocent of their existence, women, however, are doubly innocent; who could have enough of salve and gentleness for them!”
“What about salve! What about gentleness!” called out another person in the crowd, “we must educate women better!”
“We must educate men better,” said the wise man, and made a sign to the youth to follow him. The youth, however, did not follow him.
…
On Female Chastity.
There is something quite astonishing and extraordinary in the education of women of the higher class; indeed, there is perhaps nothing more paradoxical.
All the world is agreed to educate them with as much ignorance as possible in erotics, and to inspire their soul with a profound shame of such things, and the extremest impatience and horror at the suggestion of them.
It is really here only that all the “honour” of woman is at
stake; what would one not forgive them in other respects! But here they are intended to remain ignorant to the very backbone: they are intended to have neither eyes, ears, words, nor thoughts for this, their “wickedness;” indeed knowledge here is already evil.
And then! To be hurled as with an awful thunderbolt into reality and knowledge with marriage and indeed by him whom they most love and esteem: to have to encounter love and shame in contradiction, yea, to have to feel
rapture, abandonment, duty, sympathy, and fright at the unexpected proximity of God and animal, and whatever else besides! all at once!
There, in fact, a psychic entanglement has been effected
which is quite unequalled! Even the sympathetic curiosity of the wisest discerner of men does not suffice to divine how this or that woman gets along with the solution of this enigma and the enigma of this solution; what dreadful, far-reaching suspicions must awaken thereby in the poor unhinged soul; and forsooth, how the ultimate philosophy and scepticism of the woman casts anchor at this point! Afterwards the same profound silence as before: and often even a silence to herself, a shutting of her eyes to herself. Young wives on that account make great efforts to appear superficial and thoughtless; the most ingenious of them simulate a kind of impudence. Wives easily feel their husbands as a question-mark to their honour, and their children as an apology or atonement, they require children, and wish for them in quite another spirit than a husband wishes for them. In short, one cannot be gentle enough towards women!
LikeLike
Heh. re: Max from Australia, although I have a feeling that might actually make some of these nutty broads more interested I’m going to try that.
Southern Man: I always chuckle to myself when I hear the line.
LikeLike
Hmmm…fifty-odd comments and no one has pointed out that every girl claims to give great head, but few actually do.
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!
LikeLike
-Mike
“The Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind”
That’s as good a summary for the fairer sex as I ever heard.
Even the kindly, decent ones are capable of staggering egotism.
In fact, I think the main reason that friendship between men and women is impossible is not (the inevitable) sexual tension, but rather the inability of women to see a man as an equal. They’ll agree to the dominion of a lover or a husband; and they’ll care for their family; but everyone else, they perceive as pawns or emotional crutches. This is inimical to true friendship.
A man with many female friends better be using them as pivots.
LikeLike
“cheshirecat
Hmmm…fifty-odd comments and no one has pointed out that every girl claims to give great head, but few actually do.
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!”
Surprisingly my first lay was excellent at giving head. It does make those come after seem a little disappointing…
But worse than the girls who suck at head are those who think they are excellent roots just because they are women and think impersonating a starfish is excellent technique.
LikeLike
Managing to see reality from a self-serving perspective is not an exclusive moral flaw, limited only to “bad people.” It’s a common human foible and is part of being human.
LikeLike
What’s your advice if your social proof is the fact that your gf is now your wife?
LikeLike
“Managing to see reality from a self-serving perspective is not an exclusive moral flaw, limited only to “bad people.” It’s a common human foible and is part of being human.”
That’s correct. Everyone is self-centered. But solipsism is a lot more extreme than mere self-centeredness: It refers to the belief that the only certainty is the existence of your mind.
What’s crazy is that this belief becoming more and more common, among men and women: See the popularity of monstrous bilge such as The Secret among the followers of Oprah, or Eckhart Tolle (chillingly popular with some PUAs).
Anyway, Roissy’s points on social proof are painfully true. If I go out with my girlfriend, I receive, on average, around twice the female attention I would when out with my friends. Very strange, and a maddening fact for single males (a friend of mine jokes about hiring a 10 to accompany him on nights out to boost his status).
LikeLike
Well, sure, but Piaget and other developmental theorists would tell you that perspective increases in direct proportion to mental maturity. The ability to take on the view of other should start at a young age, and continually refine.
LikeLike
Roissy: “Social proof/preselection has got to be at or near the top.”
You proved this in your post about the Oscars. Social proof is the #1 thing women are attracted to. Women are instantly attracted to the famous. Nothing else is as universally and uniformly attractive. Humor, good looks, game, wealth, etc. don’t work uniformly.
LikeLike
@will,
smacking them a few times good on the ass when you’re doing them from behind will also get them in that subservient euphoric mood too. Psycho knows of what he speaks. If women have that sexually satisfied, orgasmic glow about them, other women definitely sense it and will see it as powerful social proofing as well as know you’re a good lover. It makes a big difference if the hot chick you’re with shows she values you with affection.
LikeLike
@ Will
It’s as if, for a moment, Catharine MacKinnon was right about everything.
And she’s secretly pissed that she never met a guy like psycho who gave ehr waht she wants, a man who treats her like a sex object. Deep down, every feminist is pissed about this. You must be a post modernist peenie ween.
LikeLike
“What are the most powerful game techniques? Social proof/preselection has got to be at or near the top.”
I assumed this was common knowledge.
There are a small degree of women (maybe 5%- 25%) that find this repellant though. However most respond. On A Massive Scale
LikeLike
I am not surprised by the women in the original post. Most women are sluts.
LikeLike
“Does the fact that some men rape women, coercively impregnate unwilling women, force women into domestic servitude, or abandon their wives/families indicate to you that “men have no morality at all”?”
That’s the difference, those men are immoral for men have a morality.Hence those men are assumed responsible for their actions.
The women are not assumed so, hence so many buy into the default victim mentality and the many justifications to explain a woman’s errant behavior.Stupidity being one of them; stupidity in a man is immoral as well.
Women aren’t assumed amoral because society teaches us that, it’s because that’s the nature of women.
When a man loses himself in love, he is a fool.When a woman loses herself in love, she is a lovely woman.
““The happiness of man is: ‘I will.’ The happiness of woman is: ‘he wills.’ ‘Behold, just now the world became perfect!’—thus thinks every woman when she obeys out of total love.””
But then she performs a shit test and her fantasy crumbles.
Or the man in love likes to will to her well-being, however that turns out to be the ultimate attraction killer.
The feminine is amoral.Adherence to morality as a set of rules is a measure of feminine in a man and a woman.
A thought out action for or against morality is a prerogative of masculine.
Today we live in the “morality” of women, where sins are not only pardonable but not sins anymore, punishment not only humane but reduced to a namesake.In their stead we have “sins” that are based on the emotions of the woman feeling them.Catharine MacKinnon should be proud.
LikeLike
Knack, the women who too much social proof would repel are not the kind of women guys here, and I’d venture most PUA’s, are looking for. They are also so extremely rare that nobody should count on meeting one in their lifetime.
LikeLike
“social proof”, “preselection”
You talk as if these things matter at all.
Balderdash.
Anything that goes on in a female mind is by definition divorced from reality, thus of no importance.
It´s only when you slaves to your gonads arbitrary assign value to female delusions, when shit goes south.
Oh well, good luck.
LikeLike
more wisdom from jessica valenti:
Twelve things the world should toss out
LikeLike
@Tyrone
I don’t disagree you. My point is that violently gagging and otherwise violating a woman with no hesitation and no regard to whether or not you’re hurting her does not make you “a good lover” (although it might make you a rapist). And that I’m 90% sure Pyscho is a sixth grader who watches too much pornography.
@namae nanka
You wrote,
That’s the difference, those men are immoral for men have a morality.Hence those men are assumed responsible for their actions.
The women are not assumed so, hence so many buy into the default victim mentality and the many justifications to explain a woman’s errant behavior.Stupidity being one of them; stupidity in a man is immoral as well.
Women aren’t assumed amoral because society teaches us that, it’s because that’s the nature of women.
Uh huh. And when a frat boy sleeps around and breaks girls’ hearts he’s a hero, but when a sorority girl is promiscuous she’s ostracized for being a slut. Men must be amoral, they don‘t even care, it‘s just what guys do!
Seriously, it’s almost as though you think morality only concerns sexual conduct, or that the moral content of one’s actions or intentions can be measured purely by how they’re sometimes judged by the dominant culture. In any case, women are held accountable for all kinds of immoral behavior (stealing, lying, embezzling company funds, slandering friends, selling prescription drugs to school children, etc.) Women abstain from immoral behavior all the time for morally relevant reasons (each of you knows at least one girl who won‘t eat meat because she doesn’t want animals to suffer).* The fact that some women do immoral things without being judged negatively doesn’t demonstrate that women don’t have any moral compunction at all any more than the fact that men unrepentantly do reprehensible things would prove the amorality of all men. It wouldn’t even prove the amorality of the people who did those bad things — people are complicated, and that they sometimes do bad things without taking responsibility for their actions does not indicate that they never refrain from doing bad things because they know they are bad, or that they never have and never will take responsibility for any bad thing they’ve ever done. And you fucking know it. Women have morals. QED
*PLEASE don’t point out to me the hypocrisy of vegetarians who care about suffering sometimes, and don’t care about suffering other times. The incoherence of one’s moral considerations presupposes that one is making moral choices in the first place and only reinforces my point.
LikeLike
Cap’n Bob:
There’s a lot of truth to social proof, but in general men seem more approachable when they’re with women. A man who’s out with a group of his bros is more interested in keeping up appearances for them as opposed to the woman who’s trying to talk to him. If the man thinks the woman may not meet his friends’ criteria of worthiness, he’ll be more dismissive of her than he might be if he were alone or with a female friend or girlfriend. Plus, men in groups often give off an air of “boys club,” which no woman can infiltrate and is usually riddled with a lot of inside jokes and jargon.
LikeLike
My bad, I should have specified that women as an embodiment of the feminine are assumed to be amoral.Men as the embodiment of masculine can be moral or immoral.I forgot to add that below.
“Seriously, it’s almost as though you think morality only concerns sexual conduct,”
No, it was a response to what you wrote.Though sexual conduct is the best viewpoint to observe the workings of morality.
“In any case, women are held accountable for all kinds of immoral behavior (stealing, lying, embezzling company funds, slandering friends, selling prescription drugs to school children, etc.)”
I think the word you are looking for is “illegal” for some, and social conformity for others.And even legally, women are/were let off easily.
“Women abstain from immoral behavior all the time for morally relevant reasons (each of you knows at least one girl who won‘t eat meat because she doesn’t want animals to suffer).”
That’s the best example?
It’s simple vanity.She will give it up, if she was told that it will make her fat.
“The fact that some women do immoral things without being judged negatively doesn’t demonstrate that women don’t have any moral compunction at all any more than the fact that men unrepentantly do reprehensible things would prove the amorality of all men.”
Of course, but the generalizations didn’t materialise from thin air.
The amorality of women is vividly displayed in their ability to hold two contradicting thoughts in their mind and still be happy to live with them.
” It wouldn’t even prove the amorality of the people who did those bad things — people are complicated, ”
We are a simple sum of our actions, no one is complicated, that’s a cliche thrown around by the weak.
“and that they sometimes do bad things without taking responsibility for their actions does not indicate that they never refrain from doing bad things because they know they are bad, or that they never have and never will take responsibility for any bad thing they’ve ever done. ”
Opportunistic we have to be, yes.
Responsibility comes later, it’s the distinctness in motivation for their actions.One borne out of passion, the other out of reason.
“And you fucking know it.”
🙂
“Women have morals. QED”
When it suits them or when it’s in fashion to do so.
“Uh huh. And when a frat boy sleeps around and breaks girls’ hearts he’s a hero, but when a sorority girl is promiscuous she’s ostracized for being a slut. Men must be amoral, they don‘t even care, it‘s just what guys do!”
They would care if those girls would stop fucking them.
And if those girls would stop breaking the hearts of their LJBFed guy friends who don’t possess the assholery of the assholes that they “love”.
LikeLike
“Women have morals. QED”
When it suits them or when it’s in fashion to do so.
—
As does everybody.
LikeLike
“As does everybody.”
Not everyone is a pretender.
LikeLike
“As does everybody.”
Is that the only world you are intellectually and emotinally comfortable living in?
Or do you believe that based on observable reality.
Because the consensus here is that there is a measurable and real difference in moral outlook between men and women.
So, is your view a pretty lie to keep you snug at night, or reality based?
LikeLike
Let me put it another way. Men have big picture ideas that guide their decision making. We call some of those ideas morals. We try to have our big picture ideas be as refined and accurate as posible, so that we may use them as a compass to steer our lives.
Women do not do that. Women have feelings, and then they talk about these feelings using ideas. They rationalize their feelings.
It’s a wholly different approach to values.
LikeLike
Steve M: Pray tell, who is this fictional ‘we’ that is collectively not reading?
Speaking of unsolicited tips on communication: Next time you want someone to take your opinion with ease seriously and without hostility, speak with respect. As it is, that was quite the outburst.
LikeLike
Hmm, looks like some people interpret the question “Is English your second language?” as a disrespectful or insulting question. Actually it is a neutral question. It reveals a lack of presumption on the part of the person asking it. Regarding that neutral question as an insult reveals an outlook that those for whom English is a second language are to be condescended to by those for whom English is their first language.
Actually Bhetti, I don’t see where I used the word “we” in my previous two posts. “Fictional”? No, more like hypothetical, as in, people in general are known to stop bothering with an option in which the tedium or irritations (such as, deciphering garbled language) outweigh the rewards.
Could it be that this blog has several readers who never post comments? If so, then a lack of comment on something does not indicate that all readers find it perfectly acceptable.
Anyway Bhetti, I appreciate your advice on communication.
Unlike Sidewinder, apparently you perceived that my message to Doug 1 could be seen as an attempt to be helpful (by pointing out a self-defeating pattern and the possible consequences).
LikeLike
I think the word you are looking for is “illegal” for some, and social conformity for others.And even legally, women are/were let off easily.
No. Each of the actions I listed are immoral and women (just like men) are judged to be immoral for committing them. Women abstain from immoral activity they could get away with all the time beause they know it’s wrong. If this weren’t the case, all women would be diagnosable sociopaths. Unless you live on the moon, you should already know these things.
It’s simple vanity.She will give it up, if she was told that it will make her fat.
Who is “she”? You speak for all of the millions of vegetarian and vegan women, including authors of philosophical treatises on the subject, when you claim they’ve made this decision on the basis of vanity? Please, it takes effort to be this ignorant.
The amorality of women is vividly displayed in their ability to hold two contradicting thoughts in their mind and still be happy to live with them.
I have no idea what that means.
We are a simple sum of our actions, no one is complicated
I hate to tell you this, but the fact that you can apparently hold these two contradictory thoughts at the same time means…well…you’re probably amoral. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, introduced the concept of human rights as a legitimizing principle for an existing political order, owned slaves, and had a 38 year long love affair with one of them. Gandhi beat his wife. HP Lovecraft was an anti-Semite who married a Jewish woman. Ted Haggard dedicated his life to Evangelical Christianity and, it turns out, was also secretly having meth-fueled sex with gay prostitutes. There are libraries filled with novels, psychological studies, philosophical reflections, and sociological analyses dedicated to capturing the elusive subtleties of the human condition. If you honestly think “no one is complicated,” it might just be a sign that you’re an exceptional simpleton.
One borne out of passion, the other out of reason.
Sorry, but very few people ever sit down and work out their moral commitments based on reason. And I’m inclined to agree with David Hume, who pointed out that reason is the slave of the passions. Some of those who have tried to formulate rational ethical frameworks include Rosa Luxemburg, Hannah Arendt, Christine Korsgaard, Annette Baier, Philippa Foot, and Martha Nussbaum.
Men everywhere were morally offended that some football player was making dogs fight each other, and they discussed that moral indignation over dinner, eating cheeseburgers produced under unspeakably inhumane conditions. American liberals get weepy about Tibet but don’t give a shit that billions of their tax dollars are donated every year to the cause of grinding the Palestinians into the dirt. Republicans get hysterical when Barack Obama commits to excessive government spending on health care but didn’t seem to mind when Bush sank billions into decimating and rebuilding a harmless country in the Middle East. People are impulsive, inconsistent, emotional, irrational, and tend to make decisions based on locally contingent and half-baked considerations. If people were simple and reasonable, the world wouldn’t be such a fucking mess and life would not be nearly as interesting.
LikeLike
” Women abstain from immoral activity they could get away with all the time beause they know it’s wrong.”
Infidelity and cuckoldery rates would like to disagree with you.Perhaps an exemption could be made in the case where TV didn’t impart them this knowledge.
“If this weren’t the case, all women would be diagnosable sociopaths. ”
Unless of course, they were cheating on the tests.
“Who is “she”? You speak for all of the millions of vegetarian and vegan women, including authors of philosophical treatises on the subject, when you claim they’ve made this decision on the basis of vanity? Please, it takes effort to be this ignorant.”
“” Women abstain from immoral activity they could get away with all the time beause they know it’s wrong.””
Back at ya sister.
Philosophy of vegetarianism…hahaha, and what do these women think of abortion as a woman’s right to choose?
“I have no idea what that means.”
That if two thoughts are contradictory, one must be wrong.To be in error in your thoughts is immoral.It’s uneases men, women pirouette gleefully.
“I hate to tell you this, but the fact that you can apparently hold these two contradictory thoughts at the same time means”
Haha you got me. Fair enough.
LikeLike
“Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, introduced the concept of human rights as a legitimizing principle for an existing political order, owned slaves, and had a 38 year long love affair with one of them. Gandhi beat his wife. HP Lovecraft was an anti-Semite who married a Jewish woman. Ted Haggard dedicated his life to Evangelical Christianity and, it turns out, was also secretly having meth-fueled sex with gay prostitutes.”
So called great men had bouts of immorality, what of it?
They make for good novels, they give those who are not infallible a hope.Celebrities today accomplish the same.
“There are libraries filled with novels, psychological studies, philosophical reflections, and sociological analyses dedicated to capturing the elusive subtleties of the human condition. If you honestly think “no one is complicated,” it might just be a sign that you’re an exceptional simpleton.”
It simply tells me that the complicated has to be broken down into simple parts to be understood.Some of those “complicated” things are mere rationlizations, some others mere devices to move the story forward.
Complexity like beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.
And their thoughts.
“Sorry, but very few people ever sit down and work out their moral commitments based on reason. ”
Yes, we all are too busy, not to mention too much idiot box morals and too much femininity and feminine morals.Love the God, God loves you, do whatever makes you happy…what a load of BS.
LikeLike
“And I’m inclined to agree with David Hume, who pointed out that reason is the slave of the passions.”
Reason is the slave of passions like man is the slave of woman.Hume was an idiot.
“People are impulsive, inconsistent, emotional, irrational, and tend to make decisions based on locally contingent and half-baked considerations. If people were simple and reasonable, the world wouldn’t be such a fucking mess and life would not be nearly as interesting.”
I agree, we are not perfect.But men have a internal strife to tend to this perfection.Some find this calling early in their lives, some find it later; though in today’s society many will never do so unless something external rekindles it.
Women don’t have this compulsion, neither do they need one.All but a very few follow the rules and are happy to do so.
Only a handful of them think of them and try to rise above the mindlessness of it.Sadly we end up with the likes of Ayn Rands who liked rape and raise her mediocrity to greatness.
LikeLike
Steve M—
Bhetti—
Steve M—
Listen you pettifogging little twerp, who has zero presence or credibility here, I will now treat you with the thorough disrespect you richly deserve. Bhetti was, in an entirely grammatically correct fashion, referring to your “rest of us”, as even a pedantic tight assed lower beta should easily comprehend.
She’s referring more broadly, obviously, to the fact that I’ve been commenting here regularly for a long time, while you’ve just arrived (or have contributed nothing at all of note so you might as well have), and that I’ve had tons of others here not ignore my comments but appreciate many/some of them. She’s obviously referring to the fact that the “rest of us” you warn will soon start ignoring me, have been mighty slow in fulfilling your supposedly “helpful” warning to me.
You have the social intelligence of a log.
You in contrast haven’t made a single interesting or worthwhile contribution to comment threads here, nor has a single person appreciated a single insight you’ve deigned to gift us with, in your oh so careful worthless prose.
Stick a broom up you butt, tight assed can’t get laid pedant.
LikeLike
Hmm, it’s interesting to see my calm, polite, civil comments getting viciously attacked in furious, crude, anal-fixation terms, clawing at my “social intelligence”, “terrible personality”, etc.
Perhaps those attackers would give their approval of my social intelligence and personality if I expressed myself on the hysterical mud-slinging level on which they express themselves.
Wow Doug, your life here on this blog is obviously extremely important to your sense of self and your notion of having a place in society. This indicates that you rarely get much satsifaction elsewhere, in the real world. That seems kinda sad. I don’t see how your history of writing tons of tedious, pontificating material (marred with egregiously garbled syntax, obscuring your intended meaning), demonstrating your deep need to get attention from readers of this one blog, makes you above receiving constructive criticism from anyone (especially one simply advocating for clear, and therefore effective, communication).
You must have impressive psychic powers to know that not “a single person appreciated” anything I ever posted on this blog, given the probability that the blog has many readers who never post a comment at all, and the fact that there’s no way to know that those who post here will always bother to compliment every post which they found worth reading. Can’t you put those awesome psychic powers to better use? Or perhaps you’re just being hysterically presumptuous (about the unspoken thoughts of all other readers), shrieking like one whose fragile sense of precious status feels threatened.
Wow, this blog (and its comments threads) is really your little world, isn’t it?
A world in which you feel powerful and important and appreciated …
That might be pathetic, but there are worse possibilities for a person who cannot find much pleasure or fulfillment elsewhere (despite what a big world it is out there).
Thank you for reminding me (inadvertently)that I have better options for spending my time rewardingly elsewhere. [You make this point persuasively, by negative example, like ‘a cautionary tale’.] You’re so right about that. Perhaps someday you too will have better options than investing so much of yourself into the comments section of someone else’s blog. I sincerely hope so.
LikeLike
“Men everywhere were morally offended that some football player was making dogs fight each other, and they discussed that moral indignation over dinner, eating cheeseburgers produced under unspeakably inhumane conditions.”
No. In all honestly, most men didn’t give a shit about Michael Vick or his dogfighting. Almost all the people I encountered crowing about Vick’s “evilness” were screechy SWPL women.
LikeLike
Steve, while your attention to grammar and punctuation is commendable, your writing style lacks attention rhythm, lacks creative use of metaphor and imagery, is dull, and is emotionally retarded. And the content of what you write is shallow and trite.
Doug not only has something to say, he has flair.
You can’t write for shit. Stick to copy editing.
LikeLike
Unfortunately for me, he has quite the active life. A life where he’s always powerful, appreciated and important, which he finds happy and fulfilling. He even disappeared from the comments for a long, long while.
Sigh. Dark days.
This only seems a venue where he can voice the taboo ideas he cautiously skirts elsewhere. They don’t take up a great portion of his time and he certainly doesn’t want to increase that portion. He thinks very quickly. This is what he said to you earlier. As you can see, he did not lose his patience with you until you irritated him with your response to me.
Your analysis is off. I think this is because you fail to take into account that he’s an extrovert and thinks of interaction in social terms. As you see, he read me easily and correctly thanks to his social skill. Naturally, he values content over style when pressed. You will find there are many who value the content enough to engage with it, even if this is difficult for you or some.
The primarily male commenters on this blog have certain characteristics. One is the male way of communication where insults are freely exchanged in between making points if genuinely annoyed. This doesn’t mean they won’t step down if they earn each other’s respect. Contrast this with the more female method of communication which is passive in its expression of annoyance, allowing it to simmer slowly over time. Another characteristic of this blog’s commentary is the laissez faire treatment of language, to stay faithful to their everyday voice and as a rebellion from restrictive propriety.
It’s certainly been the convention in these parts.
The way you expressed yourself has been rather unfortunate. Forgive the rudeness, but I would be very suspicious of you having better options than him. That would be very, very difficult. Thank you for wishing him well in any case and farewell.
LikeLike
N.N.
This is a level of insight that far surpasses the common – of both sexes.
While both sexes tend towards banality, the strife for moral perfection and a high value for character development is a male concern.
Women, when they strive towards moral perfection, do so in a socialist manner, which winds up being oppressively authoritarian and stupidly lacking in obvious hierarchy, meaning muddled and inneficient. Their version of morals lacks the male capacity for seeing a big, broad, all encompassing picture, and they get stuck in a series of conflicting details. You can’t have a morality without an agile ability for mental maps, and we all know women suck at maps.
LikeLike
“Sadly we end up with the likes of Ayn Rands who liked rape and raise her mediocrity to greatness.”
Nietzsche wanted to usher in the Übermensch; Ayn Rand wanted to fuck the Übermensch. She created an entire philosophy to rationalize the idea that, by golly, the Übermensch should WANT TO fuck her too.
And where are we with that today?
Fiat bankers, fiat schmankers. It’s the philosophy, stupid!
LikeLike
Will:
If you honestly think “no one is complicated,” it might just be a sign that you’re an exceptional simpleton.
People are complicated only in the rationalizations they use to camouflage their core wants and needs — wants and needs which are, at bottom, quite common and banal: greed, sex, power, esteem, comfort, novelty, etc.
LikeLike
Will:
Some of those who have tried to formulate rational ethical frameworks include Rosa Luxemburg, Hannah Arendt, Christine Korsgaard, Annette Baier, Philippa Foot, and Martha Nussbaum.
You forgot George Santayana.
LikeLike
Looks like Roissy urgently needs to upgrade the company he keeps.
Being disgusted later on in the blog is useless, what was needed there and then was a man who is not afraid to waste a teachable moment — not friendly banter that signalled that this behaviour is cool.
[editor: where did i say i thought the behavior was disgusting? amoral, yes. disgusting, no.
the flirty banter is strong in me.]
LikeLike
Have you ever read the Little Chinese Seamstress? You would like the moral the title character extracts: “A woman’s beauty is a treasure beyond price.”
It’s also portrayed ironically.
LikeLike
[…] types have expatiated on the role of preselection in amplifying a man’s attractiveness to women, but, as is so often the case in the dance of […]
LikeLike
[…] them guessing about their intent, come across as distant, aloof, an uninterested,and seem to have other women in their lives. According to him, women will assume that these things reflect good genetic makeup–they are […]
LikeLike
Little story about the power of preselection:
My friend Bruce was really into a blonde girl named Fiona.
The girl is super-hot, and a complete airhead. She’s also got an aura of innocent naivety about her, in matters sexual. She’s more attractive than Bruce by a few points.
This girl wasn’t really interested in Bruce at all, and gave him the let’s just be friends speech.
Bruce was devastated. He went on, anyway doing his thing. About 4 weeks later, he had a house party, and Fiona showed up.
So, the night was going well, and Bruce was in a great mood and starts chatting to everyone, he’s a very social type when it comes to parties.
He began chatting up some girl, and the two of them were getting very cosy on a couch. (I was there, I saw them, and I also saw that Fiona was getting agitated)
Fiona was watching all this and she couldn’t bear it. She texted him “meet me in the hall”.
And so he went out, and they went into his room, and she sucked his cock.
She also – sneakily – made a phone call for a lift home just before she met him, so she went home right after sucking him off, leaving Bruce totally agitated (but, presumably, somewhat happy).
LikeLike
“Social proof/preselection has got to be at or near the top.”
it is near the top! put any average guy with a babe on his arm and see what happens!
LikeLike