At the end of the day….
Let’s keep talking.
No related posts.
-
Subscribe for Updates!
Recent Comments
- Anacaona on A Good Man is Not Hard to Find
- Wondering on Defining the Relationship, the Easy Way
- robenuk on Mapping the Male Mindset
- Richard Aubrey on A Good Man is Not Hard to Find
- Gin Martini on A Good Man is Not Hard to Find
-
Recent Posts
Archives
{ 1417 comments… read them below or add one }
« 1 2 3 4 … 10 »
1) Deeply change yourself and adapt to the market needs.
2) Settle for something that you don’t really feel attracted to.
3)Be forever alone.
AND
1. Adapt and Change (which is impossible)
2. Be settled FOR
3. Forever Alone
___
As an average gal, I faced the same options. In fact, I was “settled for” in one very entangling relationship and I know how it feels and it sucks.
That’s the risk I took when I shot above my weight in looks with this one particular man I did not have a lot in common with.
He was even more unrealistic than I was. At least in the beginning I tried to veer him towards women who were more his type, but he said he was “done” with them. Later I found out he wasn’t “done” with them as much as they were done with him and he felt he couldn’t compete in that market due to a lack of status and money, so he aimed for the average not his type gal whom he had little in common with. He even hinted that I should be “proud” to show him off to my friends. Obviously the women he preferred wouldn’t feel proud to tell their friends what sort of job he had, but he figured since he was better looking than me then at least he’d have a woman who was “proud” of him in some way.
@ Susan
Already do this.
I don’t prefer an Indian gf in particular, but since there’s a higher likelihood that she has matching goals/moral values, I should get involved more with the South Asian scene.
That’s already how I meet people in general (including girls).
Ahh this is stuff that I need to work on. I’m simply not used to subtle non-platonic communication.
Oh I’m perfectly confident in general. It’s just that I find it awkward speaking with a stranger until I get a feel for his/her personality or communication style. It’s not the approach itself actually. I naturally have stuff to talk about for an opening. The problem is keeping the conversation going. I see people who’re naturals at this, and I just can’t do that.
And it’s not that I get tongue-tied around hot girls or something. It happens with all strangers.
Yes. The problem is that Game as espoused on PUA blogs comes with a lot of other stuff I don’t care to learn, and it’s hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
This is the something I need to keep hammering into myself. I’m probably having a hard time giving it up because it is in direct contradiction to what I was told by my mom growing up.
Straightforward enough.
It’s been really helpful. I’ll absorb it and ask for clarifications or addition answers later if I need any.
I’ll try. I know I’m a prize, but it’s hard to maintain that frame when it’s always the man’s job to be proactive.
Let’s play this scenarion a little further if it entertains you’ Mmm What if she says: “Define the “no serious” part.
“To me, being serious is about love and commitment. I haven’t been fortunate enough to find it yet, but I’m not afraid to keep looking. I think it’s worth it, don’t you? [Oh, totally, she interjects and nods.] So, what about you? I have no doubt you’ve got an extensive fan club. How many boyfriends are you keeping on a string these days?”
If she’s already given the orbiter list, this will prompt a denial that she is keeping anyone on a string as well as a discourse concerning her last two or three “serious” boyfriends. And by “serious” she means “nominally exclusive”.
We are playing okay
“To me, being serious is about love and commitment. I haven’t been fortunate enough to find it yet, but I’m not afraid to keep looking. I think it’s worth it, don’t you?
Totally so are this not too serious women also sharing moments like you and I do?
So, what about you? I have no doubt you’ve got an extensive fan club. How many boyfriends are you keeping on a string these days?”
I like to keep my energy in one person at the time. Many people involved can get messy.
For old Star Trek fans, here’s a funny comic that George Takei (aka Sulu) just shared on Facebook. It’s amazing how much insight some kids have into relationships. https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/488250_524334560929335_328301953_n.jpg
And here’s the more cynical manosphere type of comic that he posted: https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/206311_524212187608239_1714909630_n.jpg
@OTC
Seriously, this is music to my ears. I’ve been making this argument all along. The most desirable guy in the world can be a one woman man, and that doesn’t mean he’s not a “winner” in the SMP.
Totally so are this not too serious women also sharing moments like you and I do?
Not at all. Not like this.
I like to keep my energy in one person at the time. Many people involved can get messy.
Energy? Is that what you call it? But let’s not be too quick to reject messy. In fact, I’d go so far as to suggest that if you’re not making a mess that requires a federal hazmat team to clean it up, you’re not really doing it right. I have this friend… [tell funny story, could be about friend or about self using friend as plausible deniability.]
@Anacaona
From your lips to God’s ears. This is where players get away with murder. Women are eager to confirm exclusivity, so in an exchange like that, they feel reassured because to question further is to call the character of the guy into question, and most women are reluctant to do that. That’s why A&A works – it assumes most people won’t play hardball. It’s a way of finding a vulnerability in a woman and exploiting it.
Of course, it’s only exploitation if the guy is banging other women. He might have oneitis and say that to maintain his frame as the least interested party. I don’t categorically reject the tactic.
“The most desirable guy in the world can be a one woman man, and that doesn’t mean he’s not a “winner” in the SMP.”
Mainly because he had to work for it. Getting a woman to agree to go out with him and then seduce her into sex is a job skill that is transferable to other matters that require effort. If he always got it willy nilly by just saying yes over and over for years, well, he would not be so worthy for commitment
Not at all. Not like this.
I hope you don’t think I’m dumb *giggles* but exactly what you mean?
Energy? Is that what you call it? But let’s not be too quick to reject messy. In fact, I’d go so far as to suggest that if you’re not making a mess that requires a federal hazmat team to clean it up, you’re not really doing it right. I have this friend… [tell funny story, could be about friend or about self using friend as plausible deniability.]
Respond with sad story about a messy relationship ending up in suicide and murder preferably both (and you know I have those to spare VD
). “I guess we have different takes on messy being good for the soul…so I’m to think you are making a mess with me or those girls or both?”
From your lips to God’s ears. This is where players get away with murder. Women are eager to confirm exclusivity, so in an exchange like that, they feel reassured because to question further is to call the character of the guy into question, and most women are reluctant to do that. That’s why A&A works – it assumes most people won’t play hardball. It’s a way of finding a vulnerability in a woman and exploiting it.
Keep in mind, however, it is easy for a player to turn her questions around on her. Most women have a few “platonic” BETA friends orbiting them, with whom they are always going to the shopping mall or whatever. If she’s got even one such male friend, she will very seldom be able to pin him down even if he is keeping a large stable of casual sex partners. Once she admits to having male friends with whom she goes out and socializes, it is simple to say, “hey, so you know how it is.” It is much, much easier to conceal a stable than a serious girlfriend because they don’t intrude on a man’s life, and because in casual conversation, it’s impossible to distinguish “female friend” from “female sex toy”. Of course, the converse is true; I always assumed that when a woman mentions a male “friend” she means someone who either had sex with her or wants to have sex with her.
I have never met a woman who is bold enough to simply ask “have you had sex with anyone else in the last two weeks”. For the very good reason that it would be an obnoxious and intrusive question that no woman would want to face answering herself even if she’s a virgin. Instead, there is always dancing delicately around the subject and asking what “serious” means, the sort of thing that any man with reasonable verbal skill can adroitly avoid. Again, once she’s talking about herself, she’ll won’t go back to the subject.
@VD
I remember Ferdinand beating this drum quite frequently. Googling “solipsism,” dictionaries lead the results:
sol·ip·sism (slp-szm, slp-)
n. Philosophy
1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.
No mention of solipsism as it relates to women is found until the 9th page of Google results, where a post by Private Man is listed.
However, when one Googles “female solipsism” the results on the first page are as follows:
1. Alphagame
2. Rational Male
3. Rational Male
4. Private Man
5. Alphagame
6. MGTOW forums
7. Alphagame
8. The Spearhead
9. Cane Caldo
What evidence can you offer that “female solipsism” is not just another manosphere circle jerk?
I hope you don’t think I’m dumb *giggles* but exactly what you mean?
What I mean is that the last time I had a conversation like this, it was with a prosecutor. What is it that you’re trying to hide? [At this point, if you're still asking questions and not answering any, I've probably mentally checked out of the conversation and begun looking to escape it.]
I guess we have different takes on messy being good for the soul…so I’m to think you are making a mess with me or those girls or both?
No, this is not a mess. We haven’t been arrested, have we?
@ PJ
I am terribly sorry. Really am. Getting settled for is…oh my fucking god. It’s like getting stabbed in the heart. I’ve never had a girl I care about cheat on me, but I imagine it must be something like that, because your view of the relationship is just shattered. It doesn’t seem real anymore.
@ Susan
Agreed 100%. Quality over quantity for sure.
@Mike C
First, I do listen to Vox, but that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says.
Second, female attraction does not have two ladders. There is not a cad ladder and a dad ladder. There is simply a gate, and the man with the right mix of traits makes it through the gate.
I have been repulsed by the traits you define as sexually attractive. Of the women in my focus groups, I’d say 2 or 3 have attraction triggers that closely track those traits – they are the women with very high N. For the other women, dad traits are essential before a man is allowed into their lives. IOW, asshole arrogance will result in rejection every time for those women. Their attraction switch is not flipped without some indication that they are dealing with a “good man.” And that means beta traits, more or less.
Bottom line: Attractive means what is going to get you through the gate. For most women, the traits you define as ambiguous are prerequisites.
Susan,
I actually think A & A is more “shady” when it’s practiced in a “getting to know you” setting vs. a LTR. I think it was Lokland who said he uses A & A as a way to respond to shit tests, and my BF definitely does that too. For example we’ll be watching TV and a particularly hot actress will come on, and I’ll say something silly like “I bet you want to fuck her.” In response he’ll say “Oh yeah. In fact every night when you think I’m working the night shift, I’m in Hollywood having sex with actresses.” My response: “Ohh really??” with a grin. Him: “You’re a goofball baby.”
Basically, it’s a way to let me know I’m kind of being paranoid or too jealous (or whatever) without being direct, and it actually turns what could have been a negative interaction into a positive one.
It’s funny, I actually think women don’t respond that well to direct confrontation and prefer to keep things light (NAWALT of course). It seems like A & A was developed to work with a very common female communication style. Not that I think it should be used as a deception technique.
Yeah. It’s entirely reasonable to expect that various public and private organizations would fund scientific research focusing on something called “female solipsism” in a culture where feminism and the blank-state theory are the law of the land.
Honestly, who are you trying to fool, Ms. Walsh? You know absolutely well that such ludicrous demands for scientific evidence are nothing but an attempt to stifle debate on female nature.
What I mean is that the last time I had a conversation like this, it was with a prosecutor.
You dated a prosecutor that is interesting
What is it that you’re trying to hide?
I’m just asking a question why are you so paranoid?
[At this point, if you're still asking questions and not answering any, I've probably mentally checked out of the conversation and begun looking to escape it.]
What a coincidence! Likewise
No, this is not a mess. We haven’t been arrested, have we?
Not yet…the night is young.
What evidence can you offer that “female solipsism” is not just another manosphere circle jerk?
Here is the easy to understand definition of solipsistic:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/solipsistic
Solipsistic describes a philosphy that nothing is real but the experiences you have. (adjective)
An example ofsolipsistic is a belief that you can only know what you have personally experienced.
Here is my evidence….the comments on this blog by a variety of female commenters… even intelligent ones such as yourself, Hope, Anacoana. If you really want me to dig through comments I will but hopefully you’ll recognize the accuracy. I can’t even begin to quantify how many times a discussion is going that is dealing with purely abstract, general concepts and either you, or some other female commenter has the default assumption we are speaking about your relationship, or your husband, or your boyfriend. It happens so regularly and predictably that I do assume it must be some ingrained element of female wiring. I’ve observed and remarked on this phenomenon of “personalizing” abstract points a great number of times actually.
Question to the females.
I can relate to requiring Beta Traits to experience honest sexual attraction. When I was single, I definitely required character traits for that sexual attraction to really flower.
Since being in a relationship, I have found that more girls have become more sexually attractive. I don’t mean I want to stray, I just say that I can see a whole lot more girls as attractive. My guess-timate would have to be that this is somehow emotional, and part of my promiscuous side saying “you got something stable, now get something on the side.”
Do any women have that mechanism? Or other guys? Or am I just weird?
Yes, that’s a fair summary. Even a woman who would like to know the answer to that question wants to avoid looking like (or being called) a psycho.
What evidence can you offer that “female solipsism” is not just another manosphere circle jerk?
Observation and superintelligence. But I’ll gladly devise a practical scientific experiment to support the hypothesis if you like. I have observed, over 20 years, that one simply cannot talk to most women about most subjects without her either a) discussing how it reflects upon her, or, b) attempting to change the subject to herself. Anyone who talks to women on a regular basis will have observed it. In college, I used to amuse myself by counting the numbers of “I” and “me” whenever a female professor was lecturing; it was usually a multiple of those utilized by the male professors.
It is a concept that is no more intrinsically dubious than the observation that women prefer taller men to shorter ones or that men prefer younger women to older ones. Remember, science doesn’t create reality, it merely codifies our observations of it.
My guess-timate would have to be that this is somehow emotional, and part of my promiscuous side saying “you got something stable, now get something on the side.”
I think Athol mentioned that humans are wired in general to have a steady monogamous partner and get opportunistic sex in the side once in a while. Not sure if he has evo-bio evidence but it seems you are experiencing that you got one down so your body might be craving for the other part. Don’t listen to it though it will only bring you problems and you might end losing out on both, YMMV
@Olive
That makes sense, it can actually be a way of offering reassurance in an LTR where faithfulness really isn’t in question. I know that when I have felt paranoid, hearing that I’m being silly is very reassuring.
Who knew A&A was so versatile? In the end, it always comes down to intent. Is someone reassuring you because they care for you, or are they misleading you to maintain a harem? :-/
It’s funny, I actually think women don’t respond that well to direct confrontation and prefer to keep things light (NAWALT of course). It seems like A & A was developed to work with a very common female communication style. Not that I think it should be used as a deception technique.
Olive,
Exactly! Direct earnestness is a non-starter for most women, plus to the example you gave, there are only 3 options:
1. Pretend you didn’t ask the question and ignore it with no response 2. Qualify yourself with a “Oh, no baby I only have eyes for you” which is at the least a subtextual DLV 3. Play up the Agree and Amplify like your boyfriend did which playfully makes fun of the question
3 is the right move every time.
have observed, over 20 years, that one simply cannot talk to most women about most subjects without her either a) discussing how it reflects upon her, or, b) attempting to change the subject to herself. Anyone who talks to women on a regular basis will have observed it.
Well….I don’t have 20 years, but I have seen (a) and (b) over and over and over and over in the couple years I’ve been commenting and reading here. For example Susan, when the Instill Dread subject came up the first thing you did was talk about in the context of your husband and your relationship.
@ Susan
This is women should avoid those who use A&A during the “getting to know you” stage. People have a hard time making blatant lies, so one should be wary of anyone who tries to dodge the question like that. Sure, it could just be playfulness, but it could just as easily be someone misleading you about maintaining a harem.
I didn’t ask for scientific evidence, but the list of Google results is very telling, IMO. The concept is only recognized by a handful of manosphere bloggers. Surely, a sound, tested and observed concept would be known outside the ‘sphere? As I said, there are many pages of results discussing solipsism as a philosophical concept without regard to gender. I daresay that when it was conceived, it strictly described men.
I have made a habit of digging into the source of certain claims in the ‘sphere, and what I usually find is a complete absence of intellectual rigor. Instead, there is a sort of high-fiving among male bloggers on principles that are completely unsubstantiated.
Unless someone can offer me some rational explanation for saying that women are especially solipsistic, I don’t accept it.
@VD
I assume that you got bored with our play, naturally, can I say the moral of the exercise for the kids in the audience?
@ Ana
I was actually thinking that myself. Which is odd. I was wondering whether this is something most people experience all the time, or if they are just “switching modes” on occasion.
I dunno. FWIW, I have no intention on any cheating and attraction is pretty easily controlled at this point. I’m a grown-ass man
@Mike C
I don’t think anyone does that. The only time I assumed anyone was talking about my marriage was when Yohami said, “Your marriage sucks, I would never want a marriage like that.”
We may say, “that’s not my experience, here’s how it is with me.” But you do that frequently as well. Your days as a bouncer, your buddy with the N > 200, your personal experiences with your fiancee.
Isn’t personal experience the lens through which we understand the world?
Abstract concepts have little meaning if they don’t resonate at a personal level.
Mule Chewing Briars September 17, 2012 at 8:45 am
Most of the kerfaffle in the relationship arena stems from the fact that 95% of the female malaise comes from the upper end of the bell-shaped curve, and gets a lot, a lot of attention. After all, when this girl is dissatisfied, it’s Defcon 5 important.
95% of the male malaise comes from the middle and lower end, so when this guy is dissatisfied, he should Suck It Up, Get Over Ot, or best of all, just Be More Attractive.
—-
Wowzerz! That girl is probably the closest thing to a 10 possible. Love the hair!
Funny but when I clicked on your “this guy” it said not allowed to access AverageMan.jpg on this server.
They must’ve gotten cyber word that I’m an average gal who shoots above her weight in the SMP. LOL!
But what about the True Forced Loneliness brigade on youtube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xg8nek158w
Just listen to that guy’s attitude and look at him!
@ADBG
I think that’s the male desire for sexual variety. The female equivalent is probably buying Bride’s magazine long before it’s called for.
I have observed the exact same behavior from male commenters here for four years, on a blog that isn’t even directed at them. A post written expressly for women, couched in language addressing females, generates a flood of response from men talking about how the post fits into their lives, and then we’re off to the races. Pages and pages of reports of being shortchanged by others.
However, when one Googles “female solipsism” the results on the first page are as follows:
1. Alphagame
2. Rational Male
3. Rational Male
4. Private Man
5. Alphagame
6. MGTOW forums
7. Alphagame
8. The Spearhead
9. Cane Caldo
—-
Bwahahahahahaha! That is absolutely hilarious!
your buddy with the N > 200,
I’m curious about that guy I would guess he most be reaching 300 at this point or he is “settled” with rotating the same partners?
And before anyone assumes I’m focusing on the players I’m curious about many people that used to come here and how their lives had turn out Aldonza, Jesus M., Dogsquat, Filrabat, Liza…I just don’t know who to ask.
Honestly, it doesn’t seem that hard to differentiate. It’s all about context. The whole point of A & A, when used deceptively, is to avoid lying AND avoid telling the truth. So if you’ve already had a discussion and agreed to be exclusive, there’s no reason for a guy to use A & A to hide the fact that he doesn’t want to maintain exclusivity. Plus there’s the whole “player vibe” thing. Honestly, having read some harem stories around these parts, I get the sense that a lot of the girls who are part of harems are looking the other way at least a little bit.
It’s hard for most people to relate to something they can’t personally experience. My guess is that only the NXJs can really do that.
Plus we like to talk about ourselves. I can talk about N count in men not being the end all be all. Pull out the stats, happiness charts, etc. It’s a lot easier to talk about my personal experience, where with a 3rd base N=10, my life was an utter disaster. That feels much more personal and resonates a lot more strongly, even to my ENTJ side.
@Anacaona
I miss those commenters. Aldonza left due to the negative attitudes towards women here. She emailed me to say goodbye. Jesus M. had a similar experience – all the red pill talk was seeding doubts about his own relationship, and opening old wounds. Dogsquat is MIA at the moment in general, I hope he’s back soon. Filrabat vowed never to return to HUS after I wrote a post explaining that I support relationships and marriage. Liza – I don’t know. I had forgotten about her until she was mentioned in this thread. She was fun, I’m sorry she’s gone.
Second, female attraction does not have two ladders. There is not a cad ladder and a dad ladder. There is simply a gate, and the man with the right mix of traits makes it through the gate.
Ehhhh……and I thought we were making some progress to a common understanding based on the previous thread discussing attraction versus sexual attraction. I didn’t say anything about two ladders or gates. I’m talking raw visceral “I’m totally turned on by that guy”. So let me get this straight. Your position is the guy patting the head of the 5-year old demonstrating Dad traits starts to get your vagina wet? Is that what you are telling me? That the guy who is gentleman and holds the door open for the old lady entering the restaurant and demonstrates politeness gets your vagina wet? Is that what you are telling me? That’s what I want to know. Which specific traits get the vagina wet thinking I want to fuck that guy,…not that he is a good guy for a LTR. I really don’t understand the confusion/conflation on this simple point/distinction.
That’s why I originally said it was strictly a STR tactic.
No doubt, there is some plausible deniability.
@ Olive
Exactly.
Isn’t personal experience the lens through which we understand the world?
Abstract concepts have little meaning if they don’t resonate at a personal level.
That isn’t what we are talking about here. I’m not talking about using personal experiences as part of inductive reasoning to broad principles. I’m talking about discussing a particular point or concept and a female reader responding as if the guy was talking directly to her about her relationship or her husband. The solipsistic leap is when the assumption is made that the guy talking about some general idea is specifically referring to her personal situation. My time is too valuable to waste going through past threads looking for examples but this has happened a great number of times. If you question this, I am going to make it a point to call it out every single time I see it happen in the future. I’ll admit this is where I get frustrated because it seems like you never want to concede anything but continue to argue a point where you are demonstrably wrong.
What’s she saying is that the primal sexual urges for the most part do not trigger unless a man displays some beta behavior. It’s not that the beta behavior is attractive, it’s that it lowers women’s defenses and allows sexual attraction.
Do you play any RPGs? Think of it as a de-buff spell.
@ Mike C
Yes, I’ve seen plenty of female commenters do this, and don’t recall any male commenters doing this.
However, I do not believe Susan has ever done this.
@ ADBG
ROFL!
No man has ever gotten my vagina wet until we were making out, at least. And I require a mix of alpha and beta traits in order to make out with a guy. So yeah, that’s what I’m telling you.
The whole wet panties myth is an embarrassment. If you want to hook us up to porn, sure. But no woman’s vagina every got engorged or slippery looking at a guy at the bar. It doesn’t work that way.
Do you get it now? You’ve got to trip the switches to make it to first base, and for many women, beta trait switches are in the mix.
For me? Guy with a baby? Oh yeah…that’s hot.
You want proof that female solipsism has been tested and observed. Which anyone would call, in other words, asking for scientific evidence. What are you expecting your readers to dig up, really? A 135-page peer-reviewed essay published in some obscure medical journal scientifically proving and detailing the phenomenon of female solipsism? You know very well that such issues are taboo and there’s a precise reason why only rogue academics like Devlin dare to even touch them.
Or maybe…just maybe…the sphere is the only place where such issues can be openly noticed, debated and examined. Have you considered that possibility?
@Mike C
Even if true, that’s a far cry from this:
Metaphysical solipsism is the “strongest” variety of solipsism. Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other reality, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence.
Can you name a single instance where a female commenter disavowed the possibility of an experience different from her own? That her reality was the only possible reality, and that your reality did not even exist? That is what solipsism is.
You’re on. My guess is that your comments, which often come across as accusatory and confrontational, generate a defensiveness in females here. But let’s dissect it when it happens. I’m more than happy to be proved wrong.
Yes, I’ve seen plenty of female commenters do this, and don’t recall any male commenters doing this.
Yeah, given the replies so far, I’m not sure the concept is being properly understood. If Vox is still around, maybe he can take a shot at articulating it differently with an example. So far, I seem unable to effectively communicate the point. in a manner to be understood.
However, I do not believe Susan has ever done this.
You haven’t been here as long as me.
The instances have been much rarer, but it has occurred.
Before I accept it as gospel truth? Yeeeaaaahhhhh.
Why would that be the case? There are many sites that are anti-feminist and even misogynist. Yet female solipsism is restricted to Game blogs in particular, and there appears to be no original source for the concept.
In any case, I’m willing to debate and examine the concept, and I can’t find any evidence supporting it, including my own observations. I think people can be solipsistic, but I see the behavior as much from men as women.
@Susan
Solipsism.
It does happen to some women here. I agree with Mike C.
I am going to take notice of my interactions with women and watch for ‘I’ and ‘me’ now. Never something I watched for. Report back in a few days.
The subject is female solipsism, not “the ‘strongest’ variety of solipsism”, namely “metaphysical solipsism”, whatever that is supposed to mean.
@ Höllenhund
Yeah at this point we’re just arguing semantics.
You’re on. My guess is that your comments, which often come across as accusatory and confrontational,
As Obsidian would say what does this have to do with the price of rice? But yeah, I’m blunt, I’m direct, and I’m not “one of the girls” and I make no attempt to ingratiate myself. I call them as I see them. That said, I don’t attack or chastise individual commenters so including this statement here was purely a rhetorical tactic. For the record, the day you tell me you no longer want me to comment here, I will gladly abide by that. But I am me, I represent my POV in my style, and I’d rather stop commenting then grab my balls and put in them in a box and try to pussyfoot around.
In other words, you ask for scientific evidence.
Again – what would you accept as “original source”?
Because feminism, next to the blank-state theory and egalitarianism, is the law of the land, and to openly oppose it is a thoughtcrime, punished by excommunication from “polite society”, job loss, media witch hunts, ad hominem attacks, defamation and the like.
Many? Compared to what? Feminist sites, pro-feminist sites, misandrist sites? I’d say they are actually rare. And again – what’s the point? Even if such sites were common and all of them discussed female solipsism, what would that prove? Only that this issue is only discussed by the outcasts of polite society and mainstream discourse.
No. It’s a given that different types and levels of solipsism exist. But that’s no proof against the existence of female solipsism.
No man has ever gotten my vagina wet until we were making out, at least. And I require a mix of alpha and beta traits in order to make out with a guy. So yeah, that’s what I’m telling you.
The whole wet panties myth is an embarrassment. If you want to hook us up to porn, sure. But no woman’s vagina every got engorged or slippery looking at a guy at the bar. It doesn’t work that way.
I think you knew I was writing figuratively…but OK…we are going to play this game. Fine. I’m done responding on this particular point, Just remember some guy reading here is going to take this to heart and actually think he is going to be able to attract some girl by patting on a 5-year old on the head, and when nothing materializes, he is going to think but Susan Walsh told me this works for attraction.
@Mike C
Did you noticed me asking about our N> friend? Has he reached 300 now? Just curious.
Susan, “Second, female attraction does not have two ladders. There is not a cad ladder and a dad ladder. There is simply a gate, and the man with the right mix of traits makes it through the gate. ”
But you said before that women employ two different strategies, one for short-term and one for long-term.
Did you noticed me asking about our N> friend? Has he reached 300 now? Just curious.
Not even close I think, but I’ll get the number for you if you really want. He is closing in on 30 years old, and I’m sure that number probably starts in his mid to late-teens so his pace probably wouldn’t get him to 300 until I’m guessing 40.
FWIW, I think his current rotation is around 4 I think that he is currently banging (trying to think through the names over the past month or two). He has a 19-year old who grew up in his neighborhood and has a crush on him. She regularly walks her dog through the neighborhood. Apparently, she really wants to get good at her blowjob skills so she stops over during dog walks to blow him. I’ve seen the pic on his cell phone. Then he has a 31-32 year old single Mom that he bangs regularly who while on her period offered to let him fuck her in the ass even though she said she only did it a few times. Then there is some girl in an urban setting who he dropped a nuclear neg on and actually got (I owe him a lunch since I thought a save was impossible). FWIW, he is a pretty good looking guy. I forget how he came up in conversation but he did, and my fiancee said “X is attractive but he is a douchebag”.
“FWIW, I think his current rotation is around 4 I think that he is currently banging (trying to think through the names over the past month or two). He has a 19-year old who grew up in his neighborhood and has a crush on him. She regularly walks her dog through the neighborhood. Apparently, she really wants to get good at her blowjob skills so she stops over during dog walks to blow him. I’ve seen the pic on his cell phone. Then he has a 31-32 year old single Mom that he bangs regularly who while on her period offered to let him fuck her in the ass even though she said she only did it a few times. Then there is some girl in an urban setting who he dropped a nuclear neg on and actually got (I owe him a lunch since I thought a save was impossible). FWIW, he is a pretty good looking guy. I forget how he came up in conversation but he did, and my fiancee said “X is attractive but he is a douchebag”.”
—
And there are people who are still under the impression that the female sex drive is any less imposing than the male’s ?!?!
He is closing in on 30 years old, and I’m sure that number probably starts in his mid to late-teens so his pace probably wouldn’t get him to 300 until I’m guessing 40.
Oh okay I was thinking he was going throw women faster. You don’t have to ask if is too intrusive and he probably doesn’t remember anyway. Thanks for the answer
Ana,
FWIW, I’ve known this guy going on close to 4 years now. I’ve noticed he really doesn’t have many one-night stands, in fact, I can’t remember any. He always has a rotation of 3-4 girls and usually they are a few month flings. They are almost exclusively low SES women as far as I can tell except for maybe 15-20% more upscale, college educated professionals. He also goes for a lot of 5-6s in my estimation. I see the pics, sometimes more graphic detail then you can believe.
DefiniteBetaGuy @ 170:
Since being in a relationship, I have found that more girls have become more sexually attractive. I don’t mean I want to stray, I just say that I can see a whole lot more girls as attractive. My guess-timate would have to be that this is somehow emotional, and part of my promiscuous side saying “you got something stable, now get something on the side.” Do any women have that mechanism? Or other guys? Or am I just weird?
I’m a guy, but I’m going with you weren’t happy with yourself and your life before you were in a relationship, so you were finding faults in others (and yourself). Now you’re in a relationship, and that’s filled an emotional need that you perceived, so now there’s less fault-finding. The better solution IMO is to accept that being single is ok.
FWIW, I’ve known this guy going on close to 4 years now. I’ve noticed he really doesn’t have many one-night stands, in fact, I can’t remember any. He always has a rotation of 3-4 girls and usually they are a few month flings. They are almost exclusively low SES women as far as I can tell except for maybe 15-20% more upscale, college educated professionals. He also goes for a lot of 5-6s in my estimation. I see the pics, sometimes more graphic detail then you can believe.
He obviously needs a lot of variety given his lifestyle so of course, IMO, he will have to compromise on looks and social stance to get maximum results, do women leave or he kicks them out after a few months?
Sue: “I’ve been making this argument all along. The most desirable guy in the world can be a one woman man, and that doesn’t mean he’s not a “winner” in the SMP.”
So have I, making the same point with my “alpha” or “SMPW” definition. Success is the ability to choose polygamy, or monogamy on your own terms.
The difference, between what I am saying, and what you *believe* the other men are saying, is that IF he is a one-woman man, then it must be out of choice & abundance; not necessity, expectations, or social pressure. His N *probably* isn’t low (unless he is a unicorn-like Tebow) but rather, his N is simply not increasing.
I think the guys agree with me, and not that high-N is mandatory for success. Just that high N is one sure sign of it.
@A Definite Beta Guy
I suspect that when you are in an LTR your confidence goes up and you relax. This shows you in a better light.
More women become interested in you and they give you more IOIs, if only unconsciously.
Then you pick up on their interest.
I found that a focus on one woman made me more attractive to other womens. If I pried myself loose from the attachment the effect faded.
@OTC
So, success = options? End of story? Nothing else matters?
The first poster made a statement that 95% of the complaints come from attractive girls, that doesn’t mean non-attractive girls have no complaints, we do, but we shut up and don’t whine about it. I can’t count how many times I’ve been friendzoned by guys, but my story isn’t told because guys only pay attention to the problems of attractive girls. For example, on the fat post done by one of the manosphere bloggers, there was absolutely no sympathy for fat girls, one man commented
“Who the fuck cares how fat chicks feel?
They should stop complaining, stop eating Haagen-Daaz bars and get on the friggin’ treadmill.
It’s the fault of the fat chicks and their self-removal from the dating market that actual bangable chicks have such bitch shields.”
At least low SMV guys get to complain, low SMV girls are invisible.
As far as why game works, um, it works because these guys are hitting on girls in bars with STR mating strategies. For example, in my college, girls might go out to bars/parties on the weekends. The girls who do go are either hot or very STR focused. However, the girls who stay home are not STR focused and less attractive. therefore when men go out, it seems like all girls respond to game, when really it’s only a few girls. The rest of us, are hiding at home, accepting the likelihood of a life with cats because being a low SMV girls isn’t fun and after a while it starts to tear away at your self-confidence and enjoyment of the other sex. So we stay home.
I also think that men don’t want what they say they want. Most guys would rather date women with a”colorful” history who are attractive than women who aren’t and don’t have such a history. Furthermore, guys will also marry them because if you are a 6 male and you get the chance to be exclusively committed to an smv 9 woman who sleeps around, you’ll marry her and try to ignore the fact that you hate her sexual indiscretions.
In the end of the day the question is thus: Would it be better for an SMV 5 girl to stop hooking up/having casual sex or buy new boobs and lose weight if she wants to get into a relationship. I think she should probably save some money for boobs.
This is female game, it’s sad and cynical and I sometimes wish that looks mattered less than “inner beauty”. But we all know that “inner beauty” is just total bs.
“this issue is only discussed by the outcasts of polite society and mainstream discourse.”
EVERY time dissent that consistently grates on feminists (aka fun stuff) slips into the mainstream media it gets pounced on and viciously attacked. As long as defiant ideas and messages remain in their repressed and proper place they are not a threat to the feminist propaganda maintenance machine and hold on society
@ Just a thought
I felt really sad reading this.
This is one of the more egregious examples as to why I refuse to enter these manosphere blogs. The amount of hate there is rivaled only by Jezebel.
Yup the average person – male or female – is left out by this SMP.
All the disclaimer about NAMALT (I for example would rather stay single than end up with some woman who slept around). But I think many guys do care quite a bit about looks and would overlook sexual history for it.
Don’t buy new boobs. Us LTR guys don’t care for them. And don’t have casual sex. It might not do much harm, but it certainly won’t do you much good either. Preselection/confidence/least-interest-in-commitment isn’t much of a DHV for women, and doesn’t make up for the DLV of sluttiness.
But yes, losing weight is important (and definitely where the biggest gains are to be made looks-wise). The important thing is to do things that are healthy for your body and your weight will naturally come down. This means eating foods that are low in calories and high in nutrition. Don’t eat any white flour. Whole grain only. Limit consumption of sugar and starchy foods like rice and pasta too. Don’t worry too much about fat, as foods that are naturally rich in healthy fat – such as traditional creamy thick yogurt – are still healthy for you. The important thing is to cut down on calories while consuming enough other nutrition.
And of course, exercise. Try to find some fun sports activity or something, rather than going to the gym to workout for the sake of working out. And try to walk whenever possible rather than driving.
Bottom line is that the first law of thermodynamics is on your side: change in energy stored = calories in – calories out. Lower the calories in and increase the calories out and things will get better.
The truth is that people put far too much value to sexual attraction in their mating preferences. That’s a problem with our narcissistic culture. “Inner beauty” is total bs, just as nice guys aren’t actually valued. But it shouldn’t be bs. In other societies, people are taught to value important personality traits – and decrease the emphasis on looks.
I didn’t ask for scientific evidence, but the list of Google results is very telling, IMO. The concept is only recognized by a handful of manosphere bloggers. Surely, a sound, tested and observed concept would be known outside the ‘sphere?
No, it’s absolutely not true that “a sound, tested and observed concept would be known outside the ‘sphere”. Game is barely beginning to percolate into the mainstream and the vast majority of its concepts are firmly and soundly resisted by most women and an awful lot of men. Have you forgotten? That’s why it’s called the Red Pill. By definition, Game concepts are not mainstream. Game began with simple observations of what worked in the field, the evo-psych justifications and explanations came afterward. It will be the same with female solipsism, which is the practical and applied version of the philosophical concept.
I have made a habit of digging into the source of certain claims in the ‘sphere, and what I usually find is a complete absence of intellectual rigor. Instead, there is a sort of high-fiving among male bloggers on principles that are completely unsubstantiated.
I don’t think this is the case at all. If it were, our readers would be unable to put the principles and hypotheses being discussed into successful practice. The fact that the academic world has not substantiated a concept does not mean that the principle is “completely unsubstantiated”, just as the fact that the academic world has substantiated something does not mean it is actually true.
Unless someone can offer me some rational explanation for saying that women are especially solipsistic, I don’t accept it.
I can certainly give you a rational explanation for why women are especially solipsistic. And I expect I will eventually be able to give your evidence as well. But I suspect what you’re actually wanting is scientific evidence backed by academic authority. That, I cannot provide. No one can.
As for the original claim, it wasn’t me. The earliest record of me using the term “solipsism” with regards to women was in a column entitled “Winning the War Against Men”, published on June 28, 2010: “Because they want to believe that women are “the civilizing force,” their “better halves” or “the fair sex,” they are constitutionally incapable of seeing what is, from a rational male perspective, the seething cauldron of amoral solipsism behind the collective pretty face.
I don’t think anyone does that.
I’ll put together a post on the subject sometime this week and provide a number of illustrative examples as well as a easy R-U-Solipsistic test to which our readers can subject both men and women of their acquaintance in real life.
I assume that you got bored with our play, naturally, can I say the moral of the exercise for the kids in the audience?
Please feel free. But it wasn’t boredom, it was bedtime. I live in Europe.
@Herb, Anacaona and INTJ (yeah, you too, what the hell?)
On POF you can do a search as male for female or vice versa and see how many people show up in your area. In my area there’s a 3:1 man to woman ratio overall though it varied based on age. The lowest ratio I saw was 2:1 and the highest 4:1. When I used to live in Boston I looked a few times and it was about 2:1.
Also on a Mormon dating site I used to use it was about 2:1 of people online at that moment. (Yes, I used to be Mormon, a lot of good, some bad, eventually the bad became too much for me and I left but the people tend to be very nice.)
So, online dating should work for some women given the ratio. I met the best gf of my life on there a few years ago–great personality, beautiful (a 9 in looks in my opinion), fun, etc. Unfortunately she moved to another continent and eventually we broke up. When I lived in the Boston area it worked pretty well. Also met another gf on okcupid while living there. I was pissed that she only gave me a 3/5 rating while I gave her a 4!
But I had the last laugh since she fell madly in love with me. She was an 8 to maybe 8.5 in looks, the sex was really good, but the conversation was lacking and I need an intellectual connection to really fall in love.
In my current area the online dating kind of sucks but I met a cool girl and went out a couple times this last week, despite the 3:1 male-to-female ratio. A date #3 is planned. Another girl cancelled because she had met so many good guys that she wanted to focus on them. That’s fine, she was cute but kind of borderline, more of a 7, which does kind of piss me off because I’m probably better looking than she is and definitely have higher MMV, but not in her eyes or maybe I’ll just take what she said at face value and she had already gone out with a couple guys and wanted to focus on them. Anyway, that’s how it is to be a man. You get shot down a lot so don’t feel like a loser about it.
Point to women is that by filtering out the ONS/FB/FWB dudes there should still be a lot of good guys on there. Hell, I’m on there!
I think I need to do more approaching in bars, coffee places, on the street and also try to meet more people through friends. I have a lot of female friends that want to set me up but usually their friends aren’t so cute. Online has been good to me because it allows a girl to get to know me more before we meet whereas I’m sometimes shy in bars and such.
I did get a flight attendant’s email once and she came and visited me a couple times.
“Most guys would rather date women with a”colorful” history who are attractive than women who aren’t and don’t have such a history. Furthermore, guys will also marry them because if you are a 6 male and you get the chance to be exclusively committed to an smv 9 woman who sleeps around, you’ll marry her and try to ignore the fact that you hate her sexual indiscretions.”
Bingo!
Of course if the man is equal to or higher to the woman in SMV then he won’t ignore, but if he’s 2 or more points below and faces a life of celibacy or assortive mating without her, damn right homeboy ignore that sh*t. He knows what he’s got.
You missed the point that rich or otherwise higher SMV men might marry women lower in SMV thinking we will be “forever indebted” to them, and not give them the grief hot babes would. In fact I even saw such a comment over at The Spermhead today. As if we’re supposed to grovel at these guys’ feet over their money or looks. What, they ain’t human? They don’t sit on a toilet and crap like the rest of us?
Sheesh!
Talk about a culture of entitlement!
INTJ, “In other societies, people are taught to value important personality traits – and decrease the emphasis on looks.”
Which societies?
With all due respect, Just a thought, the notion that the complaints of low-smv men are somehow more accepted/respected socially than those of fat women is complete BS, a complete lie and an insult to human intelligence. One need not look further than the sheer amount of palpable female defensiveness and aggressive contempt generated whenever an average beta openly complains about his lack of success. Plus the amount of antipathy and contempt directed at the average fat woman by the opposite gender is negligible compared to that directed at the average low-smv man. Whatever amount of male contempt there is towards fat women is almost entirely the result of the outrageous and disgusting Fat Acceptance Movement shoved into our faces everywhere.
@Susan
You made me LMAO on this one…
Today I banged (heads with) some Mormon feminists (yes, they do exist) on feminist mormon housewives dot org about a man in a sexless marriage and that he was being so patriarchal and out of line for wanting more intimacy than 2x in 15 months with his wife who has no health issues, etc.
@A Definite Beta Guy 146
Great comment about emotional intimacy and sex for men with hearts and dicks.
@@A Definite Beta Guy 146
I second the HanSolo comment
@Just a thought
Losing weight is A Good Thing to do, but you should not do it for increasing your chances with guys, but for yourself, for the health reasons. Working out plus proper diet will do miracles for your HEALTH, this is the attitude you should get. In addition, if you will work out, your confidence will raise, you will meet new friends. You do not have to be slim, but you can’t be overly overweight. For example, look at the vocalist of vallravn: she’s a bit overweight (you can see it more in videos), but I’d say she’s still acceptable for most guys.
In addition, smile a lot. Many females are more attractive simply because they smile. I knew one girl (OMIGOD male solipsism), who was … well just fat. When she was laughing, she was quite pretty. When she was not, she was just ugly, fat girl. SMILE.
Meg: “So, success = options? End of story? Nothing else matters?”
I was defining more than just generic success, bur rather being an alpha or SMPL/W (leader/winner). A male SMPW has:
A. Options.
B. Knows he has them.
C. Has exercised them in the past but stopped due to his own volition, or; is exercising them now; or, has never exercised them due to strong moral reasons of his own conscious devising.
Without all 3, he is not a SMPW. That doesn’t mean a man can’t pair off, and have a great life, just that he’s not at the top of the pack.
JAT.
First, I doubt you are as fat as you think you are. Is your BMI really in the obese/overweight range? Body fat % well north of 25%? If so, then lose weight. If not, work on other things.
Two, those guys ragging on fat women, are just giving them SMV shaming, payback for being called creeps in the past. It’s revenge and not particularly attractive.
Three, average looking people go to parties. I went to lots with my average friends and even met my wife at one.
Four, honestly, if I were female, I’d buy boobs, and other touch-ups via surgery, and live a life of ease. That shit is an amazing investment. I’ve had female roomates and have been amazed how well they were treated and easy life was, just for being slightly above average.
Five, young women are generally not “invisible” in the sense young men are, unless they are deformed. If men have tried hitting on you, or you catch them staring at you in public, you are not invisble. Like the case you’re making, you’re invisible to the particular men you are interested. I say this not to try to out-victim you, but for you to realize your own worth and desirability. As a young woman, you are about 100 times more desirable than most men that surround you daily.
“As a young woman, you are about 100 times more desirable than most men that surround you daily.”
Why is that women and especially feminists abhor such statements? Perplexing indeed.
Has anybody else heard this song?
Theory of a Deadman- Gentleman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rly8cMUqkdY
I let the door, Hit you right in the face,
And when the cheque comes I’ll make you pay.
Don’t Have a car, Guess you’re picking me up,
And in the back seat we’ll be falling in love.
My only job is… to lie on this couch,
And while you’re workin’ I’ll be hangin’ out.
Now don’t get mad cause you knew from the start,
I was an asshole who would never go far.
Cause when you’re really good to girls,
Give them your entire world,
They end up walking away.
(Hey, Hey)
They don’t want a stand up guy, rather have you cheat and lie,
And do something they hate…
Girls don’t want a gentleman,
They say they do but in the end,
Girls don’t want a gentleman,
They want a loser like me.
Girls don’t want a gentleman,
If you want to get to them,
Girls don’t want a gentleman,
They want a loser like me.
Your parents cry when you bring me around,
They raised you up just so I can take you down.
There goes your life right before their eyes,
I’ll have you bare foot pregnant, going out of your mind.
Cause when you’re really good to girls,
Give them your entire world,
They end up walking away.
(Hey, Hey)
They don’t want a stand up guy, rather have you cheat and lie,
And do something they hate…..
Girls don’t want a gentleman,
They say they do but in the end,
Girls don’t want a gentleman,
They want a loser like me.
Girls don’t want a gentleman,
If you want to get to them,
Girls don’t want a gentleman,
They want a loser like me.
I used to be a nice guy,
But that don’t get you anywhere.
So now I’m just a piece of shit, idiot,
Who’s too stupid to care.
If you give a girl respect,
Treat her like she’s the best,
you’re nothing to her.
She’d rather have you playing games,
Piss her off and make her wait,
If you want it to work…
Girls don’t want a gentleman,
They say they do but in the end,
Girls don’t want a gentleman,
They want a loser like me.
Girls don’t want a gentleman,
If you want to get to them,
Girls don’t want a gentleman,
They want a loser like me. [x2]
(They want a loser like me) [x2]
It’s been getting played constantly on my local rock station. I usually hear it three or four times a night when I’m at work. I’m not saying their right or wrong (everybody’s already gone back and forth on that to the point of nausea) but the point is that obviously more and more guys are starting to THINK this way. My question is, if we think the SMP is screwed up now, how much worse is it going to be if this point of view becomes the accepted one among younger guys? Is the combat dating “arms race” just beginning? And how are women going to respond if this becomes the mindset of the average guy?
I’m not trying to stir up controversy. It’s just that this is the first time I’ve really heard the PUA type stuff really being expressed this blatantly in popular culture, and I every time it gets played I wonder what the regulars here would make of it…
“Two, those guys ragging on fat women, are just giving them SMV shaming,”
But
1) Being fat (no matter whether you are male or female) is not healthy. You should get in form, and your gender does not matter. Sure, for some it may be harder because of genes, but still, there is no excuse for not trying.
2) Both fat guys and fat girls are judged less attractive. No matter how much wrong it is, this is the sad truth.
Just don’t get crazy about it. Remember little overweight girls are perfectly OK, and that when you are trying to lose weight, you do it for yourself, for health reasons, not for guys (or for girls, in guys case). My advice for overweight guy would be exactly the same.
@Just a thought,
“Two, those guys ragging on fat women, are just giving them SMV shaming, payback for being called creeps in the past. It’s revenge and not particularly attractive.”
I agree with OTC. This was my exact thought when I read your post. My advice is to not take cues on your self worth from guys in the ‘sphere. Not healthy…
Here is a comment on the song form a girl -
“even though i’m a girl and (seriously if any guy treats a girl like this what the hell?) i have to agree with this song. every girl wants this perfect handsome sweet guy but it’s the badass idiots that get every girl going. every girl wants a gentlemen but it’s always going to be the bastards that treat them like crap that they’ll chase and never feel complete without. i really hope i do find that “gentlemen” but seriously, more girls fall for the idiot stuff guys pull.
“Cause when you’re really good to girls, give them their entire world
They end up walking away, hey hey
They don’t want a stand up guy
They’d rather have you cheat and lie
And do something they hate”
so true…so true”
At least she is not in denial. Why do most women refuse to admit this? Do they hate themselves for feeling this way?
http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858875656/
.
Vox – “You’re totally missing the point, Ted. That’s your job as head of the household and she is implicitly recognizing your authority. What you see as explaining reality is simply her wanting you to take responsibility for what she already knows. I get this from my employees, male and female, on a regular basis, who know a hell of a lot more about the details than I do.”
I understand this now, but I had NO clue in my blue pill days what this dynamic was all about. I am far less aggravated by it when it happens now, but I still find it to be an immature way to deal with another adult. In essence she IS making me the bad guy, and expecting me to happily fill that role. I do it because I have to, but I still don’t like it and I find it very unattractive behavior.
“Now, these are smart people. They know perfectly well what to do. They simply want to be relieved of the responsibility for the decision.”
And this is why I’ve passed on the opportunity to take management positions in the past. Nothing irritates me more than people who are completely able to make a decision passing it on to someone else simply because they are afraid to call the shots. I’m perfectly fine helping someone that doesn’t have all the information, or doesn’t have the experience to make a decision, but anyone capable should simply because they can. Bothering me is a waste of my time.
“She knows what reality is, she just doesn’t want it preying upon her mind.”
Right, so by default it comes to me. I get it, I’ll do it. I’m not happy about it.
And before we get into a “Ted D’s wife is steering the wheel” let me simply state that I don’t deal with this type of thing very often from her. Of the women I’ve known, she is actually pretty damn straight forward and logical. But, she is also an EF combo, so I have to work very hard sometimes to communicate through her emotional haze. However this particular problem was HUGE in my last marriage, and I see that it is still a problem for my ex and her new man. I’ve been spending some time going back through my previous marriage in detail to pick apart the things I did wrong, and this entire dynamic was a very big problem for us. She relied on me far more than I was comfortable to make the decisions, and I was under the misguided idea that we were equal partners, so I pushed her to help me make those decisions. It worked out as expected I guess.
Susan – “I agree.”
LOL, you are killing me this week… So, if you agree, then you are saying that Game indeed has a place in LTRs, and that the amount of Game necessary will vary greatly from couple to couple, where some may only need the slightest amount of Push/Pull, and others may need something just short of asshole Game to keep things going?
Sassy – “If he is tired, he doesn’t mind telling me that he would rather stay in than go out. If he has other things on his plate, he doesn’t mind telling me that he can’t see me. He doesn’t mind asserting his needs, and he doesn’t always bend over backwards to please me. His wants are important to him too, and he doesn’t mind voicing them.”
Understood. To me that is simply normal interaction, so we weren’t talking about the same thing.
Travis – “I’m not saying their right or wrong (everybody’s already gone back and forth on that to the point of nausea) but the point is that obviously more and more guys are starting to THINK this way. ”
Theory of a Dead Man is classic on woman hating. They have MANY songs about mental women, so I assume whoever writes their lyrics probably either:
a. got screwed over super badly by some totally crazy woman
b. is actually the asshole he claims to be in his lyrics.
I remember reading somewhere that after they released their first CD, the record label asked them to back off the “woman hating” a little for the second one. No idea if that’s true, but they still seem to be bashing away.
@Ted,
Yeah. But my point is that the POPULARITY of the song (not to mention the band) speaks to the mindset of a whole lot of young guys out there. We all know how the ‘sphere feels, but I’d be willing to bet that 99% of the guys who listen to Theory of a Deadman have no idea the ‘sphere even exists.
Again, I’m not trying to debate whether or not this is how girls really are. I’m just pointing out that IF a large chunk of young guys start feeling this way (which seems to be the trend), it’s gonna’ have a pretty big effect on the SMP. Even if girls don’t like those guys, it’s gonna’ become a lot harder to find the “good” (not nice) guys they want. At which point they’ll probably become a lot more cynical and mercenary. Which causes the guys to become EVEN MORE cynical and mercenary. And the SMP just gets more and more fucked up…
Travis – I yeah, I agree 100%. I actually saw ToaD live, and what I found more amazing was the number of women screaming and shaking their asses to the music. They are either completely unaware of what the lyrics are actually saying, or they aren’t intimidated by the idea that men are ‘waking up’, so to speak.
And, as far as it goes, I wasn’t impressed with their live show at all. Music was fine, singer wasn’t as good as he sounds on the CDs. As a musician, I hate going to see a band only to find out they don’t sound as good as on their recordings. I’m OK with a little “ear candy” in the studio, but if you are a rock band and you can’t sound just as good live, don’t bother touring IMO.
The whole wet panties myth is an embarrassment. If you want to hook us up to porn, sure. But no woman’s vagina every got engorged or slippery looking at a guy at the bar. It doesn’t work that way.
Thanks for saying this. I’ve gotten so used to “wet panties” as a metaphor the guys use that I’d sort of forgotton that’s it really not true that we just see a guy and get wet panties. As I recall from my fertile days, ovulation gives one wet panties, not the presence of a particular man. Other than that, women generally don’t lubricate until they actually need to.
Thanks, INTJ,
No, I’m not morbidly obese, or overweight at all really. What I am trying to point out is that, when I google friendzone and look at the images, 95% of them are complaints from men who have been friendzoned by girls, but women also get friendzoned by guys they really like too. Why don’t we give the advice to men, hey, you aren’t getting the girls you want? Do you have any girls who are your friends who may like you? Why not date them? I would guess because physical attraction is to girl what dominance is to men, it’s kind of a biological thing no sex can get over,and a man probably shouldn’t marry someone he’s not attracted to.
I also was just responding to Mule Chewing Briars comment in #2, awkward, less pretty girls are also complaining, but the were ignored so they have opted out of the SMV and into radical feminism.
Off the cuff, I agree with you about the boobs/makeup. That is analogous to a guy learning game, ( except game has fewer health risks). However, just like game, to me, getting a boob job to attract men means that men are irrational, swayed by pretty bodies over pretty minds. Similarly game working, would mean that women are irrational, swayed by fake displays of dominance over real displays of love.
I think that it is possible for women to not get much sexual interest. I will assume that most women get some. However, say you are a 5, and the SMV men from 0-3 will be interested in you. The 4, 5 men use game to punch above their weight. Now 1/2 of the 0-3 men will be home playing video games, avoiding the SMV, while the other 1/2 are too scared to approach. Even if you date them, you’d be punching below your weight.
The only reason I speak, is that most women will not acknowledge their plainness, because if we say, ” I’m not really that attractive,” we are told we have low self-esteem and too ” love our bodies”. Because of such less pretty women often suppress their feelings about how they are viewed on the market. As one of those women who is certainly not Helen of Troy (haha), I think that our would looks completely different.
*world.
As a musician, I hate going to see a band only to find out they don’t sound as good as on their recordings. I’m OK with a little “ear candy” in the studio, but if you are a rock band and you can’t sound just as good live, don’t bother touring IMO.
HA! I though thtat was a family thing. DH and the boys are all muscial but refer to some acts as “studio bands,” ie. bands that do better in the studio than in concert. To DH, Queen was the ultimate studio band. The first time the boys saw an old Queen concert on Palladia after hearing them on CD they were extremely disappointed.
KISS is the utimate concert band–fun to look at, mediocre music. Floyd–the perfect blend.
“And, as far as it goes, I wasn’t impressed with their live show at all. Music was fine, singer wasn’t as good as he sounds on the CDs. As a musician, I hate going to see a band only to find out they don’t sound as good as on their recordings. I’m OK with a little “ear candy” in the studio, but if you are a rock band and you can’t sound just as good live, don’t bother touring IMO.”
Felt the same way about a Tool concert I went to a couple of years ago. I don’t know if they were having a bad night or what, but it was horrible. A decent cover band doing Tool songs probably would have been more enjoyable.
J – “HA! I though thtat was a family thing.”
IME it is a musician thing. Or, more to the point, a musicians musician thing. I like to see bands that are very technical because I actually watch them play. Not jump around, but actually PLAY the instruments. Dream Theater was one of my favorite concerts, not because they played the best music, but because they were VERY good (as in classically trained) musicians. The bass player uses a six string bass, and it was simply amazing to watch his fingers flying all over that fret board. And the drummer?! awesome. (although my favorite drummer is still Raymond Herrera formerly of Fear Factory. I always expected to see a robot behind the kit when they played.)
But yeah, “studio band” is a derogatory term in my house.
Travis – “Felt the same way about a Tool concert I went to a couple of years ago. I don’t know if they were having a bad night or what, but it was horrible. A decent cover band doing Tool songs probably would have been more enjoyable.”
OH Lord! Say it isn’t so?… I’ve never seen Tool live, but they’ve been one of my favorite bands since their first single Sober. I did get to see Staind cover Sober live which rocked! Aaron started by saying “now this is a song I wish I’d written” and they nailed it. So sad to hear Tool wasn’t good live. I wonder if A Perfect Circle suffers from the same problem?
Ted,
“OH Lord! Say it isn’t so?… I’ve never seen Tool live, but they’ve been one of my favorite bands since their first single Sober. I did get to see Staind cover Sober live which rocked! Aaron started by saying “now this is a song I wish I’d written” and they nailed it. So sad to hear Tool wasn’t good live. I wonder if A Perfect Circle suffers from the same problem?”
I’m not sure what the deal was. I was talking to the guys next to me and they said that the last time Maynard came to Spokane (where I saw the concert) with A Perfect Circle, the crowd kept screaming at them to play Tool songs. According to them, it pissed him off and he’s half-assed it every time he’s come back.
So you might have better luck somewhere else, I don’t know. I still love ‘em, but I probably won’t be shelling out any more money to see them live any time soon.
Just remember some guy reading here is going to take this to heart and actually think he is going to be able to attract some girl by patting on a 5-year old on the head, and when nothing materializes, he is going to think but Susan Walsh told me this works for attraction.
I think that guys often make the mistake of thinking that women are instantaneously attracted to a man based on his doing X or Y. It’s more of a gestalt for us. Fatherliness is a definitely part of that gestalt but, no, women don’t drop trou the minute they see a guy pat a kid on the head. Attraction is cumulative. We may need to see a pattern of attractive stuff before we really get into you. The first one or two things will get our attention but then there’s a decison making process based on growing (or not) attraction. Roissy is fond of saying the women know within 5 seconds if they are going to sleep with a guy. I don’t think that’s true outside of bars, and, even there, it’s the converse that’s true. Rejection is quicker than acceptence. I know I’ve changed my mind about men over time. Good-looking guys have become less attractive to me by being assholes; less attractive men have become more attractive to me because they are great guys.
Ha, the debate about Game …
When they walked into the VIP area of Miami’s Crobar, everyone noticed.
They were both platinum blondes with well-tanned fake breasts and
identical outfits—tight white tank tops and tight white pants. How could
anyone not notice?
They were what the PUAs would call perfect 10′s, and
they were dressed to turn men into beasts. This was South Beach, where
testosterone levels run high, and the pair had been whistled and hollered at all night. The girls seemed to enjoy the attention almost as much as they savored shooting down the men who gave it to them.
I knew what to do—and that was to do what everyone else wasn’t doing.
A pickup artist must be the exception to the rule. I had to suppress every
evolutionary instinct inside me and pay them no attention whatsoever.
With me were Mystery and two of our students, Outbreak and the
Matador of Love. The rest of our pupils were sarging on the perimeter of
the dancefloor downstairs.
Outbreak went in first, complimenting the platinum twins on their
outfits. They brushed him off like a gnat. Next, the Matador of Love moved
in with the Maury Povich opener. He too crashed and burned.
Now it was my turn. This was going to take every bit of confidence and
self-esteem that Steve P. and Rasputin had hypnotized into me. If I showed even a flicker of weakness or doubt, they’d eat me alive.
“That tall one isn’t a 10,” Mystery leaned in and whispered to me.
“She’s an 11. This is going to take some hardcore negging.”
The girls strolled to the bar, where they began talking to a transvestite
in a black tutu. I moved in, not even glancing at them, and greeted the
transvestite as if l knew him. I asked if he worked at the club, and he said
no. It didn’t really matter what I said to him: I was just maneuvering into
position, pawning him for the two-set.
Now that I was in range, it was time to neg. “That girl over there is biting
your style,” I said to the 10, the shorter of the two. “Look at her.” I
pointed to another platinum blonde in a white outfit.
“She’s just got the same hair,” the 10 replied, dismissively.
“No, look at her outfit,” I persisted. “It’s almost the exact same.”
They looked over, and here was the make-or-break moment. If I didn’t
come up with something good to follow, I’d lose their interest and be
branded just another weirdo. So I continued with the negging. “You know
what?” I told them. “You both look like strange little snowflakes.”
It was a bizarre, cryptic comment, but now I had their attention. I could
sense it, and my heart began to pump faster. I continued with what I knew
all along would be my true opener: “I have to ask you something. Is your
hair real?”
The 10 looked shocked, then recovered her composure. “Yes,” she said.
“Feel it.”
I pulled it gently. “Hey, it moved. It’s not real.”
“Pull harder.”
I complied, and yanked it so hard that her neck jerked back. “Okay,” I
said. “I believe you. But how about your friend there?”
The 11′s face reddened. She leaned over the bar and looked me hard in
the eye. “That is really rude. What if I’m bald underneath here? That could
really hurt someone’s feelings. It’s disrespectful. How would you feel if
someone said that to you?”
The pickup is a high stakes game, and to win you have to play hard. All
I had done so far was commandeer their attention and provoke an emotional reaction. Sure, it was a negative one, but now we had a relationship.
If I could turn her anger around, I’d be in.
Fortunately, I happened to be trying to make a point to the students
and was wearing a black mod wig and a fake lip piercing—just to show that
looks don’t matter. It’s all game.
I leaned over the bar and stared the 11 down. “Well,” I told her. “I actually
am wearing a wig, and I am bald underneath here.”
I paused, and she looked at me with her mouth open. She didn’t know
how to respond. Now it was time to reel her in. “And I’ll tell you something
else. Whether I go out totally bald, in this wig, or in some crazy longhaired
wig, it doesn’t change the way I’m treated by other people. It’s all your attitude.Don’t you agree?”
Everything I say in a pickup has an ulterior motive. I needed to let her
know that unlike every other guy in the bar, I am not and will not be intimidated by her looks. Beauty to me was now a shit test: It weeded out the losers who got dumbstruck by it.
“I live in Los Angeles,” I continued. “It’s where the most beautiful
women in the country come to try and make it. You look around a club
there, and everyone’s good-looking. It makes this VIP room look like a dive bar.” They were words I’d learned, almost verbatim, from Ross Jeffries.
And they were working.
I let her look around, then continued: “And do you know what I’ve
learned? Beauty is common. It’s something you’re born with or you pay for. What counts is what you make of yourself. What counts is a great outlook and a great personality.”
Now I was in. It was the girls who were dumbstruck now, not me. I had
entered their world, as Jeffries once put it to me, and demonstrated authority over it. And, to ensure my position there, I threw in one more neg, but softened with a slight compliment, as if they were winning me over: “And you know what? You have a great smile. I can tell that underneath all that, you’re probably a good person.”
The 10 sidled up to me and said, “We’re sisters.”
A lesser pickup artist would have thought that his work was done, that
he had won them over. But no, this was just one more shit test. I looked very slowly at both of them, and then took a chance. “Bullshit,” I said, smiling. “I bet a lot of guys believe you, but I’m a very intuitive person.
When I look at you both, I can tell you’re very different. Too different.”
The 10 broke into a guilty smile. “We never tell anyone this,” she said,
“but you’re right. We’re just friends.”
Now I’d broken through her programming, moved her away from the
auto-pilot responses she gives to men, and demonstrated that I was not just another guy. I took another chance: “And I’d be willing to bet that you
haven’t even been friends for that long. Usually, best friends start to have
the same mannerisms, and you two don’t really.”
“We’ve only known each other a year,” the 10 admitted.
Now it was time to back off my game and fluff a little. However, I made
sure never to ask questions; instead, as Juggler had taught me, I made openended statements that led them to ask me the questions.
The 10 told me they were from San Diego, so we fluffed for a while
about the West Coast and Miami. As we talked, I kept my back to the 11, as
if I were less interested in her. This was classic Mystery Method: I wanted
her thinking more about me, wondering why I wasn’t giving her the attention she was so used to. Nothing in the game is an accident.
I think of a woman’s interest in me as a fire, and when it starts to die
out, it’s time to turn around and stoke it. So, just when the 11 was about to
walk away to find someone to talk to, I turned around and delivered a beautiful line: “You know what? When I look at you, I can see exactly what you looked like in middle school. And I’m willing to bet you weren’t so outgoing or popular then.”
Sure, it was a truism. But she stared at me flabbergasted, wondering
how I could possibly know that. To seal the victory, I laid out one last
beauty-neutralizing cold-reading routine. “I bet a lot of people think you’re
a bitch. But you’re not. You’re actually shy in a lot of ways.”
She began to give me the doggy dinner-bowl look, as the PUAs call it. It
is the look that is the goal of any approach. Her eyes glazed over, her pupils dilated, and she just watched my lips move, entranced and attracted. I noticed, however, that the more interested the 11 became, the more kino the 10 gave me.
“You’re interesting,” the 10 gushed, pressing her breasts against me. I
could see Mystery, Outbreak, and the Matador of Love rooting me on in the background. “We have to hang out with you in L.A.”
She leaned in and gave me a tight hug. “Hey, that’ll be thirty dollars,” I
told her, disentangling myself. “This shit ain’t free.”
The more you push them away, the more they run toward you. “I love
him,” she told her friend. Then she asked if she and her friend could stay
with me next time they were in L.A.
“Sure,” I said. But as the words left my mouth, I realized, too late, that I
should have made my hospitality more of a challenge. There’s so much to
remember and juggle during a pickup that it is hard to get everything perfect.
But no matter. She gave me her phone number, and I gave her mine.
You may have noticed that I haven’t been referring to these girls by
their names. That’s because I never introduce myself during a pickup. As
Mystery had taught me at that first workshop, I wait for the woman to introduce herself or ask for my name.
That way, I know she’s interested. So, as we exchanged numbers, I received my first real IOIs and learned that the 10 was Rebekah and the 11 was Heather. Now it was time to separate the two of them and see if I could get enough IOIs to kiss-close Heather.
A guy they knew suddenly showed up and bought three shots—for
Heather, Rebekah, and himself. I held out my empty hand and looked
around, pretending to be hurt. Heather, who I was slowly realizing was actually a sweet girl beneath that laboriously wrought exterior, took the bait.
“Don’t mind him,” she said, pointing to their guy friend. “He’s just rude.”
As she called the bartender over and ordered me a shot, Rebekah threw
her a dirty look. “Remember our rule?” she whined.
I knew what their rule was: Girls like this love it when guys buy them
drinks. But David X had taught me better: Girls don’t respect guys who buy them drinks. A true pickup artist knows never to buy meals, drinks, or gifts for a girl he hasn’t slept with. Dating is for tools.
“We promised not to buy any drinks on this trip,” Rebekah whined.
“But you’re not buying a drink for yourself,” I told them. “You’re buying
one for me. And I’m different from all the other guys.”
I’m not really that arrogant, but in the game there are rules. And the
rules must be obeyed, because they work.
Suddenly, Mystery walked toward me and whispered in my ear, “Isolate!”
“I want to show you something,” I said to Heather, as I took her by the
hand. I led her to a nearby booth, sat her down, and performed the ESP experiment. Behind me, I saw Mystery punching his fist into his open hand in slow motion. It was a code: the signal to phase shift, to slow down and move in for the kill.
I told her about soul-gazing and, with house music and dozens of conversations blaring around us, we stared into each other’s eyes and shared a moment together. In my head, I imagined her as the pudgy middle school student she used to be. If I’d been thinking about how beautiful she really was, I would have been too nervous to sully her with my lips, as I was about to attempt to do.
I slowly moved my head toward hers.
“No lips,” she said, quietly.
I held up my index finger, placed it against her lips, and said, “Shhhh.”
Then I kissed her—on the lips.
Extract from The Game by Neil Strauss
IME it is a musician thing.
Yeah, they’re all musical, all multi-instrumentalist.
I like to see bands that are very technical because I actually watch them play. Not jump around, but actually PLAY the instruments.
Yeah, they’ll all push their way up to the front of an audience to watch people actually play.
But yeah, “studio band” is a derogatory term in my house.
It means two different things in my house. A band that is so crappy musically that they can only play well in a studio where the engineers can fix their errors or a band that performs well musically in the studio but has no stage presence.
J – “It means two different things in my house. A band that is so crappy musically that they can only play well in a studio where the engineers can fix their errors or a band that performs well musically in the studio but has no stage presence.”
Well when you take into consideration that my boys and I are primarily rock/metal oriented, there is no “studio only” option. I personally like some studio only projects (after all, I listen to a lot of electronica/dance/trance/dub step) but to me that type of music is more about creative use of computers than musicianship, so they get a free pass. Otherwise, if your band consists of guitars, bass, drums, singing, and filler, you have NO excuse for a bad live show.
I’m a bit of a music snob. And, I’m even MORE opinionated about it than I am about our discussions here. I know, hard to believe I can be more stubborn than I show in my posts, right? But, if you want to ever see me in a good knock down drag out debate, get a music discussion going. LOL
I didn’t ask for scientific evidence, but the list of Google results is very telling, IMO. The concept is only recognized by a handful of manosphere bloggers. Surely, a sound, tested and observed concept would be known outside the ‘sphere? As I said, there are many pages of results discussing solipsism as a philosophical concept without regard to gender. I daresay that when it was conceived, it strictly described men.
Astute comment.
I think men are as solipsistic as women, but they express it differently. A prime example is that when women don’t fit the evo-psych approved pattern of female behavior or behave differently than the women who have hurt the guys who post in the ‘sphere, they are labeled “outliers.” The underlying notion is “You don’t fit my experiences and preconceived notions; therefore, there is someting wrong with you.”
Otherwise, if your band consists of guitars, bass, drums, singing, and filler, you have NO excuse for a bad live show.
That’s not exactly what I’m talking about. There’s both a visual and a musical element to a performance. I used KISS as an example of a band that is fun to watch because they do interesting stuff and Gene is a physically imposing and impressive person. A KISS concert is big fun, but few musically astute people want to sit and listen to them on the radio/CD. Their music is boring if you are older than 14. Conversely, Queen performed interesting music well, but how many times can you watch Freddie Mercury mince around the stage while the rest of the band just stands there? Nonetheless, they’re the world’s best road trip band. You want to hear them, not see them. Pink Floyd provided audiences with both powerful visuals and music.
I get what you are saying regarding watching musicians play but that’s a musician thing, not a general audience thing. Originally, I was discussing the latter. Since I have no musical talent whatsoever, I can’t speak to the former.
I’m really not debating what you’re saying. I’m just talking about something a bit different. DH and the boys really enjoy watching someone’s hands as they play.
@OTC
Thanks for clarifying. I suppose who’s “top of the pack” is going to depend upon who one admires (and why), and how narrowly one defines “success”. Interesting… this definition seems to view 1) a guy who *could* have NSA sex but chooses not to in favor of a GF, equal to 2) a guy who only sleeps around with promiscuous women he meets in bars. They’re both “winners” of equal caliber?
IMO this just confirms that there isn’t an objective definition. If N is the Holy Grail, whether you drink from it or not, just being able to is the measure of a man. With one exception, every guy I’ve been friends with has had the following goals post-college: wife, house, kids (optional). Most have achieved those goals. By the N-based definition, they’re losers perhaps. I like to think they’re playing a totally different game.
No, I’m not morbidly obese, or overweight at all really. What I am trying to point out is that, when I google friendzone and look at the images, 95% of them are complaints from men who have been friendzoned by girls, but women also get friendzoned by guys they really like too. Why don’t we give the advice to men, hey, you aren’t getting the girls you want? Do you have any girls who are your friends who may like you? Why not date them? I would guess because physical attraction is to girl what dominance is to men, it’s kind of a biological thing no sex can get over,and a man probably shouldn’t marry someone he’s not attracted to.
@Just a thought,
You are correct that both sexes get stuck in the friendzone for somewhat different reasons. A key difference though is men don’t really lie or mislead women about how to get out whereas the opposite does take place. To the extent that women are misled, it is by other women. Most men are quite honest about improving physical appearance being important. Often though, when that message is delivered, many women don’t want to hear it, or if you deliver that message you are a “bad” guy. As a side point, I’ll say there is a ton that can be done to improve appearance without having to resort to extreme things like plastic surgery.
The 4, 5 men use game to punch above their weight.
I see this thought process often so I want to correct it. A guy who is a 4 in looks with game is no longer a 4. Game has raised his SMV because it has made his personality more sexually attractive. If a woman is a 3-4 who is 50 pounds overweight and loses the 50 pounds to become a 6-7 she is a 6-7. She isn’t a 3-4 punching above her weight. The process of losing the weight moved her SMV up.
The only reason I speak, is that most women will not acknowledge their plainness, because if we say, ” I’m not really that attractive,” we are told we have low self-esteem and too ” love our bodies”.
And who are the people sending this “feel good” but ultimately misleading and counterproductive message?
More mainstream media fodder for female gynocentrism:
details.com/sex-relationships/marriage-and-kids/200808/stigma-of-the-never-married-man
When they walked into the VIP area of Miami’s Crobar, everyone noticed. They were both platinum blondes with well-tanned fake breasts and identical outfits……
What a smarmy scenario!
@Travis #229
I believe it was Ali G who said, “If you don’t treat them rough, you don’t get the muff.” There’s a certain amount of truth in that; at least, it describes a certain slice of human experience in the same sense that it’s true that “men love women who play hard to get.” It’s just not the whoile story.
J – “I’m really not debating what you’re saying. I’m just talking about something a bit different. DH and the boys really enjoy watching someone’s hands as they play.”
OH I know. I”m just babbling for the sake of it at this point. I get your view on it, and I’ve seen many bands that fit the bill. Off the top of my head, best showmanship I’ve seen:
Janet Jackson – saw her in the 80′s spectacular stage show
ZZ top
Motley Crue – NOT a fan, but they do put on a good show
Godsmack – not only great musicians, but very good stage presence as well
Yanni – Good Lord that show was full of great musicians, but the stage show was pretty great as well, for mellow music anyway
311 – just a really fun show. Of course, 2/3 of the audience was probably high…
Slipknot – O M G. Their stage show is epic, with fire and explosions and lights. I was very glad that when we saw them, we weren’t too close to the stage. The view from the grass was awesome.
I can enjoy a show for the sake of the show, but I have to intentionally “go there” in my head before I start getting critical of the actual musicianship. LOL
No. Men love women that are, you know, actually hard to get. Chastity is the only way women can protect whatever amount of human dignity they have.
I think that guys often make the mistake of thinking that women are instantaneously attracted to a man based on his doing X or Y. It’s more of a gestalt for us. Fatherliness is a definitely part of that gestalt but, no, women don’t drop trou the minute they see a guy pat a kid on the head. Attraction is cumulative.
Meh…I think this “cumulative gestalt” thing is really code for I can’t nail down the specific things/traits that are sexually attractive. Rather then try to argue my own case, here is what a woman has to say:
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-logical-fallacy-of-female-attraction.html?showComment= 1346858262362#c4844847469754732785
As a woman, I can tell you the vast majority of us do not wonder what it’s like to be much more aware of one’s internal processes, at least as they pertain to things sexual. Why would we? We are programmed to be passive in this regard. As pursuers, it conveys an advantage to you to understand your own inner workings and, to whatever extent possible, the inner workings of that which you pursue. The better you understand, the more likely you are to catch your prey. But as the pursued, our goal is simply to be caught by the most suitable predator. With that in mind, what advantage does it convey to us to analyze our own inner workings? It won’t affect the outcome of the pursuit.
“Chastity is the only way women can protect whatever amount of human dignity they have.”
From the view of romantic minded men. Which is most men.
Woman are being directed to have various parts of men on whims du jour. Penis today, the rest later. Why? Because men have vagina today, the rest later. The difference? Women are mostly ok with that.
I don’t understand the debates about chastity, as one other poster stated, saving yourself for marriage is a pretty bad/risky idea. And I say this as a virgin, I’m not sure why I’ve waited so long. Guys claim to like chastity, but it really ranks low on the list for most men. For the men whom chastity does matter, many of them are unwilling to dump a girl who has all the other qualities they want, but not chastity, assuming she doesn’t cheat on them. So out of 20 qualities, chastity is like 18 or 19. Why bother?
Mike C, with all due respect, I think in some ways men do mislead women.
However, I think what you said about game is true and I concede the point.
That said, would you rather the feel good movement not lie to women? In our modern world, a woman’s beauty is continually on display. I think without the feel-good movement, very few women would be able to deal with their SMV. Expect suicides. a rise in anorexia and bulimia. More beautiful women, but more screwed up ones too.
I don’t see the fixation with PUA’s. I’ve read Chateau Heartiste, Rollo’s blog and others. But many of these guys have a short-term mating strategy. I assume that guys here want a girl who loves them for who they are, will stick with them for years and years and sleep with them when they are 80 and unattractive. None of the PUA’s have this girl because you can’t get her with “game”. Perhaps, married man game, ( which to me is a little different) might help, but in the end of the day, these tactics will not make most men here happy. I mean I could sleep with 20 guys by offering sex for free, perhaps, or working as a prostitute, but I don’t need or want 20 guys. I want one. The right one. Similarly, you can learn game and sleep with 11′s and 10′s but what you really want is a woman like Ann Romney or Michelle Obama who will still live with you and love you 20 years later when everything has changed, or you are on your deathbed and don’t make much money or you are so depressed you aren’t up to running game on your wife. In that case, why does Mystery’s game matter? He sleeps with a lot of girls, but he’s also depressed, needs medicine to function and frankly, crazy. The question is : how can I, how can we find men and women who will love us for us and stick with us until we die? is this even possible? That’s what concerns me.
@Mike C
How is that solipsism? First, my relating the concept to my own experience is not a case of my inability to imagine it in another light, or deny another’s experience. I think it’s human nature to bounce ideas off of our own experience in order to understand them.
For example, in discussing the male desire for sexual variety, you have insisted many times that men experience this as a very strong craving, and it has taken you months to accept that some men, e.g. Ted, Escoffier, Cooper, Megaman, etc. simply don’t share your experience. For the longest time, you identified them as extreme outliers. It’s the same with the female promiscuity topic – you can only square the circle of your own experience by reluctantly concluding, after many hours of debate and much evidence provided, that there is a spectrum of female sociosexuality. Is this stubborn insistence that your own observations represent the “real truth” not solipsism?
My response to Instilling Dread was a moral one. I understand the experience well by virtue of the instructions I’ve read on how to pull it off. I know Machiavellian tactics when I see them. I also know they do not reflect an accurate understanding of female sexuality of the restricted variety. How is it solipsistic to question that tactic as used on a wife?
“I told her about soul-gazing and, with house music and dozens of conversations blaring around us, we stared into each other’s eyes and shared a moment together. ”
Gag. What an airy fairy shemale of a man. Soul-gazing? I’d be like , “laterz, sucka!”
“As a young woman, you are about 100 times more desirable than most men that surround you daily.”
“Why is that women and especially feminists abhor such statements? Perplexing indeed.”
Abhor? Are you kidding? We’d love it if it were true! How is a young woman to know she’s 100 times desireable if she gets IGNORED???
Let’s go with Mike C’s easy peasy definition:
Solipsistic describes a philosphy that nothing is real but the experiences you have. (adjective)
Why does referring to my own experience or beliefs by using the pronouns “I” and “me” indicate that I believe all other experiences are not real?
The best example of solipsism according to this definition would have to be the male victims of frivolous divorce, who go apeshit at the idea that some beta men are actually cherished by their wives.
@Mike C
My point was that while you don’t attack individual commenters, you are often a harsh judge of female nature. That sparks defensiveness in readers, which leads to NAWALT. You say “all women want x” and women respond “But I want Y!”
That is not solipsism.
@Hollenhund
I couldn’t find a definition of female solipsism! Please define it for us, if you know the origin of this concept. Why not just use the definition that it’s an inability to comprehend any reality you haven’t experienced directly? Why do you say that women do this more than men?
How does this apply online, where nearly everyone comments anonymously? Online conversation is hardly limited to the manosphere. How about someone overtly anti-feminist like James Taranto or the evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa?
Hey Susan. I’ve put up the first part of my response, which is not a proof, but simply what I hope will be a useful clarification.
“No. Men love women that are, you know, actually hard to get. Chastity is the only way women can protect whatever amount of human dignity they have.”
Men love that the women they are physically attracted to are hard to get, and for many average men, those attractive women are in fact hard to get – for them, which those men then don’t love. Hence the Manosphere.
There’s a certain threshold of looks and below that, women become invisible and hence hard to get might not be the best card to play.
I did not know you were writing figuratively, because you and others often talk here about the traits that make women wet or tingle. I’ve had men here ask me what the sensation is and when it occurs. The truth is, traits do neither at first meeting. We can be attracted certainly, but your bifurcation between sexual attraction and “other” attraction has no basis, IMO.
Certainly evo psychologists don’t divide them. What they do divide is the time orientation – long-term mating vs. short-term mating. Short-term maters most likely have a different set of triggers from long-term maters.
I’m not saying women feel sexual attraction for traits like honesty, though some might. I do believe that the boundaries are very ill-defined. A recent example I gave was that women like men with status and dominance, but those are probably the product of industriousness and intelligence, which are both considered beta traits.
If you took 100 good looking men, and put half of them in situations where they were with kids, e.g. coaching a team, playing at the playground, wearing a Snugli, while posing the other half alone, I am certain that women would describe the guys with kids as hotter. And why wouldn’t we? In the reproductive sweepstakes, those are the guys who represent WINNER!!!! We’ve evolved to reject the guys who look narcissistic and likely to cheat – and that’s been clearly demonstrated in the kind of research I describe.
Susan,
Your responses are basically non-sequiturs to the key issue of what constitutes female solipsism. If I have time later, I will go back and try to find some the specific examples of what I am referring to which is basically someone or some guy making a generalized point and a woman responding as if he is literally speaking to her and her personal situation. To repeat myself again, there is a difference between drawing on personal experience to make some broad generalizations and RESPONDING AND REACTING AS IF THE CONVERSATION IS LITERALLY ABOUT YOU AND YOUR LIFE.
Vox said he would write a post explaining and giving examples. I have no doubt he will be more effective than me. If I have time to find the examples later I will do so…I think I recall some of the posts that engendered solipsistic responses, but I’ll admit this is a pretty low priority item for me. Truthfully, I’m getting worn out…..which probably will make you happy.
@Plain Jane
True, but not the same women. Time orientation in mating is strongly correlated to restricted vs. unrestricted sociosexuality, and they vary little over time.
Therefore, the promiscuous woman’s mix of traits for entry is going to look very different from the restricted woman’s mix of traits for entry.
IIRC I think some men (Escoffier?) said that while a low N guy *might* be alpha, we can’t designate him that because he generally won’t have taken the opportunities to prove it. There was consensus that high N was the safest bet to know a real alpha.
Re: solipsism,
It’s funny, my dad obviously never uses the term, but I can’t tell you the number of times he’s accused my mom of being overly self-absorbed, or having to relate everything he says to her own experiences. I honestly think it might be another example of male vs. female communication styles/thought processes, as it doesn’t generally bother me to hear women talk about themselves when I know it’s not out of malicious intent (and I do it too!). I like to share, and I like to hear other people share… which is also why I tend to tl;dr the overly abstract discussions around here (the recent discourse between Marellus and HerrKaiser comes to mind).
Also, the best HUS example I can think of is the discussion about Doug1′s open relationship. I was literally incapable of not putting myself in his GF’s shoes and being horrified, and I suspect several other female commenters felt that way as well.
But you said before that women employ two different strategies, one for short-term and one for long-term.
True, but not the same women. Time orientation in mating is strongly correlated to restricted vs. unrestricted sociosexuality, and they vary little over time.
Therefore, the promiscuous woman’s mix of traits for entry is going to look very different from the restricted woman’s mix of traits for entry.
—
Dunno. All seems very confusing. Isn’t there a one size fits all model that our puny human brains can easily compute and file away?
@VD
How do readers put the concept of female solipsism into successful practice? I would also point out that our corner of the net is by no means representative of the population at large, so the applicability of the concept might be limited to certain populations.
Well, amoral rather than immoral. I guess that’s a start. Can you define the phrase in bold? I don’t see the connection to an inability to grasp any reality but one’s own experience. You appear to illustrate this solipsism by citing the misandry peddled by female supremacists and ideologues. If those women are indeed solipsistic, on what basis to you generalize to all XX?
Excellent. Can you give examples of the practical application of the scientific method in defining female solipsism?
I love the idea of a test. I look forward to that.
At HUS, the truth is 180 degrees from this. There is little to no female contempt for beta guys. There is constant complaining re female obesity.
@Travis
That song reminds me of the movie Blue Valentine.
If a husband needs something anywhere close to asshole Game to keep things going, he married very badly. Perhaps he can salvage his relationship, but it doesn’t sound like it will ever be healthy or rewarding. If I were a man I would rather divorce, even in this legal climate. But I recognize that men may have their own reasons for remaining in the marriage. (Note: Not solipsistic!)
@Marellus
Precisely. We have a metrics problem.
Much discussion of “female solipsism”…
I’m not convinced that females are by default MORE solipsistic then males.
From where I stand, both men and women are obviously pretty self-centered beings. If only we would just care for ourselves and think of others a little less. What depresses me most though is all of the time and energy that both spend on jockeying for position, status and esteem among their peers, while at the same time mouthing empty platitudes about being independent and true to yourself.
What do all the “manosphere” types mean about female solipsism? I think I grasp this slippery little idea, but I don’t feel certain enough to propose satisfactory definition. Could some of us perhaps suggest something?
I’m certain that a male version exists, how would we characterize that in general?
@J
Agreed, and this is rampant here. One of the guys says that other guys at the Spearhead tore him a new one when he said his mom was cool and a good woman. Someone called Anonymous Reader became apoplectic when I said I’d observed some happily married beta dads at my neighborhood playground. He claimed that such a thing was impossible. Betas cannot be happy, apparently, as they are *Never* desired by their wives.
Vox’s Solipsism test is going to be fun. I’m going to try and build my examples entirely from online convos.
“some guy reading here is going to take this to heart and actually think he is going to be able to attract some girl by patting on a 5-year old on the head”
Back when I was a young and dumb deti, I did exactly this kind of thing — tried to display my “dad” cred to try to get in good with some girl. I did this specifically because my mom, my sisters, and other women told me they thought men who liked kids were attractive.
Never worked. It failed every time I tried it.
The part they left out was what they actually meant — they wanted attractive, hot, great looking, wealthy men who happened to like kids.
Please feel free. But it wasn’t boredom, it was bedtime. I live in Europe.
Oops sorry but since you said that in the imaginary conversation you would be looking for the way out I was thinking you were bored with it as well. You also left me hanging on the “Science is evil” trope conversation so I assumed that you were not interested on this either. Want to continue or we are done? Just checking.
Anyway, that’s how it is to be a man. You get shot down a lot so don’t feel like a loser about it.
This is how to date period. Regardless the gender this is part of the process unless you are made out of gold chances are not everyone will like you or want you. That is part of life.
I think I need to do more approaching in bars, coffee places, on the street and also try to meet more people through friends.
Don’t get me wrong online dating is ONE tool but other tools are welcomed and required it should be in addition of going out and meeting people unless you are really extremely shy, live in a place where is hard to make friends or too busy.
The pickup is a high stakes game, and to win you have to play hard.
I never noticed how Game looks a lot like playing poker. Interesting.
Meh…I think this “cumulative gestalt” thing is really code for I can’t nail down the specific things/traits that are sexually attractive.
I think I mentioned before but here it goes again. You are thinking that there is a fixed timeline sluts get their gestalt effect in days or hours, most women need weeks sometimes months before even thinking about sleeping with a guy. Is not that we don’t know is that the plumbing comes with different timeframes depending on the woman’s personality, upbringing or opportunity.
You know you should try to read a Nympho’s memoirs, they decide to sleep with a man the moment they see him, in fact they report that they only see penises not men anymore that is an extreme type of outlier that might remind you of the spectrum we all live.
Ted, Escoffier, Cooper, Megaman, etc. simply don’t share your experience. For the longest time, you identified them as extreme outliers
Add hubby to that list he actually told me that he never had a ONS because he doesn’t stomach the idea of having sex with a woman he doesn’t consider a friend or knows for sure that cares about him on some level, also he doesn’t “stick it on the crazy” and you need to know a woman for a while to know if she is crazy or not.
Olive – “I was literally incapable of not putting myself in his GF’s shoes and being horrified, and I suspect several other female commenters felt that way as well.”
As much as I disagreed with Doug1′s view of the morality of his relationship, I had no issue being overwhelmed with empathy for his wife. To me, he came across as a braggart and my impression of her was that she was either happy to be in an open marriage, or simply too weak to do something about it. Either way, it is her life and her issue to deal with. I can’t even sympathize for/with her if she isn’t willing to do something about it herself.
Susan – “If a husband needs something anywhere close to asshole Game to keep things going, he married very badly. Perhaps he can salvage his relationship, but it doesn’t sound like it will ever be healthy or rewarding. If I were a man I would rather divorce, even in this legal climate. But I recognize that men may have their own reasons for remaining in the marriage. (Note: Not solipsistic!)”
I agree, but that wasn’t my point. I am still speaking to your claim that Game is strictly a STR strategy for men, and that its only real use/application is for ST mating. In fact, as has been discussed here repeatedly, most men seem to do just fine using Game to get and keep LTRs as the guys trying to rack up N do with the STR bar flies. Game can and does attract LTR oriented women, but once you get your foot in the door, the strategy needs to adjust to show some long term traits AS WELL AS continuing with whatever alphaness got her interest in the first place.
I think the bone of contention here is: most of the men believe it is the alpha traits that attract both LTR and STR women at first meeting, and then the STR women eat up more alpha while the LTR women start looking for beta comfort. BOTH are attracted to the “lust” factors first though.
Or, are you saying that this is true, but these supposedly LTR oriented women (Sassy is an example from HUS. She is very open about her “lusty” desires despite being VERY long term oriented) are still looking at mating from a STR perspective (despite being very selective and looking for LTRs), and there are other women that are literally “turned on” by displays of beta behavior? If there are two separate LTR strategies (one that still looks for ‘alpha’ but needs beta underneath, and one that mostly/only looks for ‘beta’) then it would explain some of my observations and incorrect assessments. Because to the best of my knowledge, I have never met a woman that has a strictly beta mindset. But, I also am attracted to women that are rather “sexual” (again, think Sassy in terms of frankness about her sexuality, but still very selective in her mate choice) and may very well have completely missed women looking for the pure beta. And, to be honest, I wouldn’t be happy with such a woman. I like that my wife lusts for me, and I like that she lusts for me from a place of animal attraction. Its fine that she loves me for my betaness, and I’m even OK if some of that betaness turns her on. But, at the end of the day, I want her to lust for me based on my “manliness”, not my domestic capabilities. A woman that only found my “beta” attractive would not give me the sense of “masculine” I get from feeling that female lustiness directed at me. And since finding the Red Pill, I find that I very much enjoy feeling that lust and wouldn’t want to go without it.
I’m not sure I explained this very well…
Re: solipsism
Isn’t it almost always the male commenters who reject Susan’s statistics and academic studies because it doesn’t match their own personal experience? (NA-HUS-M-ALT of course.)
@Hollenhund
Gynocentrism is female supremacy, which is the opposite of androcentrism. What we see most commonly in the ‘sphere is gynophobia.
Solipsism is also known as the Egocentric Predicament, a total self-centeredness. This hardly seems limited to the female sex.
Other descriptions of solipsism:
1. Self-absorption, an unawareness of the views or needs of others
2. a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism.
Solipsism is a philosophical position that nothing outside one’s own mind can be known to exist, or, sometimes, the position that nothing outside one’s own mind does exist. Solipsism Syndrome is, by extension, the overwhelming feeling that nothing is real, that all is a dream. Sufferers become lonely and detached from the world and eventually become completely indifferent.
@ Emily:
You said “Isn’t it almost always the male commenters who reject Susan’s statistics and academic studies because it doesn’t match their own personal experience?”
MikeC’s quote at 273 is particularly apropos in response :
“there is a difference between drawing on personal experience to make some broad generalizations and RESPONDING AND REACTING AS IF THE CONVERSATION IS LITERALLY ABOUT YOU AND YOUR LIFE.”
Important to distinguish between solipsism and narcissism. Strong-form solipsism is the belief nobody’s emotions other than one’s own are real (maybe the other apparent humans are simply cunningly-programmed androids); perhaps we can define weak-form solipsism as the belief that other people’s emotions are indeed real but operate exactly like one’s own.
Narcissism is excessive focus on one’s own thoughts, experiences, appearance, etc…does not automatically imply solipsism since you can perfectly well recognize other people’s emotions as real and different but still be obsessively focused on your own.
Around mt neck of the woods, there seems to be a rampant epidemic of even-stronger-form solipsism, as indicated by the almost total absence of **turn signals**. Even if all the other people *were* nothing more than cleverly-programmed non-conscious robots, it would *still* be a good idea to let them know what you’re doing, just as collision-free operation of a swarm of drone aircraft would require coordination among them.
@Mike C
Whoa! This woman is abdicating the role of female selection! Men display and pursue, women select. A woman who does not understand herself will most definitely have a different outcome than the woman with awareness and insight into her own attraction triggers.
@Mike C
How so? Please explain.
I don’t think this is the definition of solipsism. I also think that this is something you do frequently. Maybe when you explain more I’ll understand better.
@Olive
That is solipsism? Color me confused. I call that empathy, as well as rejection of the supremacy of male sexuality. Is it solipsism when men express strong feelings about cuckoldry?
What you’re missing is that the “liking kids” ups his score.
@Ted D
I do not claim that. It was written as a STR strategy. Specifically, “how to get beautiful women into bed in 7 hours.”
I have never claimed that its only application is for short-term mating. In fact, I have been arguing otherwise for nearly three years. I support Game as a way that more LTR-oriented men can become attractive to women.
As I understand it (correct me if I’m wrong), solipsism is the inability to believe in the existence of any reality but your own. Some examples might be:
You see women grinding in bars, so you believe that all women enjoy rubbing their pelvis up against a stranger.
You see cell phone pics of naked women, so you believe that all women are in the habit of sexting nude pics of themselves to men they are having casual sex with.
You sleep with cads who dump you, so you believe that all men are cads who dump women after using them for sex.
You are an asshole, and you get ONSs, so you are certain that all women love assholes.
You live in NYC, where dating is favorable for males, so you believe that the same dynamics are in place everywhere.
You found out your gf lied to you about her number, so you believe that all women have high N and lie about it.
You are aware of hookup culture, so you assume that all students enjoy hooking up. (Oh wait, that is Pluralistic Ignorance!)
« 1 2 3 4 … 10 »
{ 2 trackbacks }