A Reader Responds

In yesterday’s Reader Mailbag, I gave my unassailable advice to reader S. She has responded to it in the comments.

Hi, I’m S. herself.

You were wrong on this one.  Since I wrote you my (ill-advised?) request for help, K. and I are now dating, crazy about each other, and never been happier.  I was wrong about thinking he was self-destructive; as it turns out, some bad personal stuff happened to him last year that he never told me about, and he had every reason to be unhappy.  Now he’s much different.  Bright, kind, strong.  I never dreamed anything could be this good.

This site is a guilty pleasure for me, and occasionally hilarious, but you folks should know that sometimes real life is very different from this blog.

This blog is where girls go for thrill rides.

Actually, I was not wrong. I recommended you drop all your expectations and just fuck the guy and get it out of the way. You have started doing just that — dropped your expectations (“I was wrong about thinking he was self-destructive”) and smoothed the way for an eventual lay by making excuses for him and downplaying his flaws (“he had every reason to be unhappy”) and telling yourself there is a love connection (“I never dreamed anything could be this good.”) Yes, I’m sure he’s a changed man. He changed long time… in two weeks.

S. wrote me her request for help less than two weeks ago. It seems odd she could go from completely unsure of this guy K. to “dating, crazy about each other, and never been happier” in two weeks time. It sounds like K. said all the right things and cooed love whispers in her ear. His game must be tight. Respect.

But as we will see below, not tight enough to get the bang.

Thanks, commenters, for your advice.

Lemmonex: no, I’m not going to “just fuck him.” I’m too old-fashioned for that. Making out is pretty wonderful, on the other hand.

So you won’t put out but you’ll torture him with makeouts until his balls explode from pressure buildup. Yes, pretty wonderful for you, but for him… let’s just say only a guy with no options would put up with that frigid ice queen treatment for long. Give yourself a pat on the back… you’re dating a beta. Ironically, if you succeed in your mission to break his manly spirit and make him play by your rules, you’ll be more likely to lose interest in him.

as: He is a nice guy to whom I’m attracted, and if things work out I will introduce him to my parents.

Is your mom a MILF? If your niceguy “boyfriend” hasn’t been scrotally drained, you may want to hide her in the basement.

Piece and beaver grease.

ps: Keep us posted.

pps: (I try to help and this is the thanks I get. Do you people know how I bleed for you? Is it so hard to show even a tiny bit of gratitude? I suppose you want to see a grown man drown his sorrows in a vat of Ben&Jerrys Chunky Monkey. You’re all sick, sadistic bastards.)





Comments


  1. There are no winners in this game. We’re all screwed.

    Like


  2. Roissy, you cynicism is indomitable.

    I like it.

    Seems a pretty accurate analysis to me.

    Like


  3. Pupu is grateful and having fun with the rides.

    p.s. do Roissy and all the smart commenters here who have tried Thomas Sweets think Ben&Jerrys Chunky Monkey is better?

    Like


  4. Old fashioned girls fuck, too….they just blame it on the booze…or the passion…or his pressure. Believe me, I have plenty of “old fashioned” friends who have been with more men than me, been with married men, been in multiple threesomes…

    Embrace you inner modern girl and do it…you clearly know what you WANT to do, despite all the pressures on you to do otherwise.

    Like


  5. Lemmon- fresh, I would so bang the dog-snot out of your sweet little modern beaver. The funny thing is, you would thoroughly enjoy it.

    Some day… perhaps

    you might just be that lucky

    and word Roissy, keep that bitch straight

    Like


  6. I agree with Lemmonex on this one. If you’re in love with each other, why wait? Life is way too short. The bliss of naked bodies rubbing against each other when you are both in love with each other is better than any other drug known to man. All the other drugs only attempt to recreate that moment. Procreation is the purpose of our creation.

    Ever hear advice from the old and wise? They all say seize the moment, carpe diem, and they all regret what they did not do more than what they did. Even if they tell you to be responsible and cautious, it is nonetheless true that their regrets were more “I should have” than “I should not have.”

    Like


  7. Hope,
    Here, here my lady. As per usual, very well stated. You are an Asian lady I could make a notable exception for, were the climes different.

    Your hubbie should be thanking his lucky stars.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  8. “Yes, I’m sure he’s a changed man. He changed long time… in two weeks.”

    Oh, she just didn’t KNOW before. 😉

    People with their stereotypes and silly misconceptions.

    Like


  9. “The bliss of naked bodies rubbing against each other when you are both in love with each other is better than any other drug known to man.”

    Drugs + Naked Bodies Rubbing Against Each Other = Awesome

    Like


  10. S. could be my deer hunter roommate who met her boyfriend on eharmony…she was crying the other day and then ran home for the weekend….

    Like


  11. @ 6 doesn’t sound like one of Hope’s stereotypical comments…

    You’re all sick, sadistic bastards.

    I want to watch you bleed. 🙂

    Like


  12. @ 6 doesn’t sound like one of Hope’s stereotypical comments…

    Change is the only constant.

    There are things much more ancient than you and I.

    Like


  13. Change is the only constant.

    Not true. There is nothing new under the sun.

    Like


  14. Going back to the original subject, doesn’t Roissy’s advice to S. violate his own axiom that love advice across gender lines is not just worthless, but harmful, even when well-intentioned?

    Like


  15. on October 5, 2008 at 1:43 pm Steve Johnson

    “doesn’t Roissy’s advice to S. violate his own axiom that love advice across gender lines is not just worthless, but harmful, even when well-intentioned?”

    That’s when it goes from female to male. Men, unlike women, are actually capable of using logic and experience to give advice. In fact, I’d bet that women’s advice to other women is going to be mostly worthless too and only long standing cliches are good advice for girls.

    Like


  16. 16 PA,
    Pupu’s hunch is that it is too early to tell. When a woman first tastes the forbidden fruit, her view of the man takes a kaleidoscopic change. This change could last months, years, and in the best case scenario, for a life time. The man is, however, not changed. He is only a changed man in the view of one woman.

    Like


  17. Initially: S says she’s horny, she wants him but he’s a bad guy

    Two weeks later: S says he’s a good guy, they just got together, cuddle, and they didn’t have sex yet.

    => Two weeks ago: ovulation

    => Now: Those days of the month

    Like


  18. Not true. There is nothing new under the sun.

    Change does not necessarily mean something new, but rearrangement and difference in existing systems and configurations.

    Like


  19. OK, I done had enough.

    Here’s the deal, Roissy’s right to the extent that dude S is messing with is a stompdown Herb-Beta. Proof of this is that he ain’t take control of the situation.

    Experience has shown Mu that if the man does not take control of the situation, and early on at that, in a decisive, direct and uncompromising manner, the female will loose faith in his leadership ability, in all areas of life. This has already begun in S’s case, and will only get worse, even if she allows Herc to stick around…stick around that is, until one who is not so sedate comes along.

    Women are natural submissives. There are exceptions, but don’t get it twisted, for the most part you can bank on this axiom being 100% true. And don’t even listen to any woman tell you otherwise. Don’t what Mu does, ignore em.

    Dude here, Princton Herb, he shoulda been done tapped girlfriend, and his fear is what held him back. He blinked when she came at him w/the Ice Queen deal. What Lemmonex said earlier is 100% correct, and I’ve already said it before, but I see it bears repeating:

    ALL WOMEN HAVE A HO IN THEM. ESPECIALLY THE “OLD FASHIONED” ONES.

    Quick story from the Archive:

    Back when Mu was teaching astro at Temple, he had the chance to put the Good Wood to a gal, who had just been accepted into the Psych program. By now, y’all know Mu’s drill, he don’t so skinny chicks, especially if they White. She’s voluptuous, blonde, busty, got a hefty backside for a White girl.

    She also a die-in-the-wool feminist. Talk a game game, too. A challenge, just the kinda game Mu like.

    OK, so we at her spot chillin’ watching some flick I can’t even remember now. About 20 minutes in, I got tired of the BS, got up stood in front of her, and undid the quick release unleashing the gun. She looked shocked for like a half minute, I didn’t move, didn’t say a word, just let the gun do the talking. She grabbed hold, took a taste, and I didn’t leave till Sunday morn.

    We got busy Friday night.

    Machiavelli says that Luck is like a woman, and if a man is to have any luck at all in this world, he must take her, and w/o any hesitation whatsoever.

    The Prince is on Mu’s Required Readling List.

    Is it on yours?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  20. 22 Mu’Min

    Dude here, Princton Herb, he shoulda been done tapped girlfriend, and his fear is what held him back. He blinked when she came at him w/the Ice Queen deal. What Lemmonex said earlier is 100% correct, and I’ve already said it before, but I see it bears repeating:

    ALL WOMEN HAVE A HO IN THEM. ESPECIALLY THE “OLD FASHIONED” ONES.

    Okay, I realize that this may not be the right place to ask this question, but…

    What if YOU actively prefer to tap her later rather than sooner? What if the one thing you really care about is building your relationship up into a healthy, lasting marriage, and you derive NO (or even negative) utility from actually tapping her now rather than just making out? I totally agree that the man must demonstrate leadership, but are there ANY effective forms that leadership can take that don’t involve getting into her pants ASAP?

    Like


  21. on October 5, 2008 at 5:26 pm Steve Johnson

    “I totally agree that the man must demonstrate leadership, but are there ANY effective forms that leadership can take that don’t involve getting into her pants ASAP?”

    No. Next question.

    Like


  22. What if YOU actively prefer to tap her later rather than sooner? What if the one thing you really care about is building your relationship up into a healthy, lasting marriage, and you derive NO (or even negative) utility from actually tapping her now rather than just making out?

    You can tap her sooner rather than later and still build your relationship into a healthy lasting marriage. If anything, my best relationships were the ones where we had sex sooner rather than later, because by getting that sexual tension out of the way fast, we actually could focus on other things. That being said, I found these women very interesting to begin with so the quick sex was not something that made me move on right away.

    It’s ALWAYS better to move too fast than to slow. It’s better to ask for forgiveness than seem like you’re waiting for permission. The only way moving slower rather than faster is if you can somehow communicate that you aren’t biting at the bait because you just aren’t that impressed yet, not because you’re timid. But if the girl suspects, rightfully or wrongfully, that you are interested but hesitating for some reason, you get labeled as weak and your stock begins to plummet.

    Like


  23. Or you can skip my rambling and just go with Steve’s answer at 24.

    Like


  24. Hope 13 & 21

    Change does not necessarily mean something new, but rearrangement and difference in existing systems and configurations.

    Ok Confusian one. Here’s some classical western thought, channeled by way of a (somewhat) wizzened New Englander.
    One of my high school geometry teacher’s favorite aphorisms (regularly repeated, nay, more like intoned from time to time) was:

    Creativity is the recombining of elements of your experience into new and varied forms.

    That requires first that you get yourself some first class elements of experience. He left that part unsaid, but you were definitely supposed to get it.

    Like


  25. Supposed to get it and therefor do your homework, despite being bright.

    Like


  26. Steve J 24-
    LOL!!! My sentiments exactly.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  27. 22 Mu’Min:

    ALL WOMEN HAVE A HO IN THEM. ESPECIALLY THE “OLD FASHIONED” ONES.

    *steadies self against desk*

    But…but…*gulp*… d-d-d-does this apply to….um…um…I guess what I’m trying to ask is…oh god…does this apply to Clio as well?

    Clio, can this possibly be TRUE???

    Like


  28. You are virtually all pathetic by products of brainwashing and mass hypnosis; men and women included. Check this out, fellow losers.

    Rockefeller Admitted Elite Goal Of Microchipped Population:

    In a later conversation, Rockefeller asked Russo what he thought women’s liberation was about. Russo’s response that he thought it was about the right to work and receive equal pay as men, just as they had won the right to vote, caused Rockefeller to laughingly retort, “You’re an idiot! Let me tell you what that was about, we the Rockefeller’s funded that, we funded women’s lib, we’re the one’s who got all of the newspapers and television – the Rockefeller Foundation.”

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/290107rockefellergoal.htm

    You see, all of your pimping, pandering, GAME, and obsessive focus on cheap sex and orgasms is just exactly what the “they” want from you. As long as you keep your sexual energy below the waist, you are easy to control, and the women who fuck you are in exactly the same pathetic situation.

    Like


  29. does this apply to Clio as well?

    Given the brief glimpse of Clio that I saw on her blog, she falls under the “sexless” category due to her “sexless” looks that she shares with most females in the world. Mind you, I must remind my readers that my opinions are as valuable as Lehman Brothers or WaMu stock. 🙂

    Like


  30. Clio definitely has her inner ho. I am sure the fact that so many on here are curious about her sexuality and openly write so is one of the reasons she enjoys reading this blog. She is sort of a phenomenon. I personally would love to spend a night eating her out/fucking her brains out. She is probably quite hot in bed.

    Like


  31. 33 D:

    I say we put it to a vote.

    Like


  32. Tupac & Dave A,
    Oh God, I’m surrounded by heathens, LOL!

    Both of you, listen very carefully:

    ALL WOMEN HAVE THE HO IN THEM, ESPECIALLY THE “OLD FASHIONED ONES”. This is no respector of Race, Class, Ethnicity, Educational level, Religious or Political Party affiliation, or, yes, Looks or the Lack Thereof.

    So yes TC, it applies to Clio, in some ways I would say eve moreso. Why?

    Because women like Clio know that receiving the Blessings of the Good Wood are few and far between for them, for a number reasons, some biological, others of their own doing. So when the Chance smiles on them, its a special day indeed. It explains in part why you see so many women in the front pew in Church on Sunday morn, because of the whoopin and hollerin they was doin’ the night before. They giving Thanks, and rightly so.

    Now, a guy like me’s on some Counterintuitive ish, so sometimes the mood will strike me to bestow the Blessings of the Good Wood on the likes of say, a Clio. And believe me, they really work it out, for the aforementioned reasons. Quiet as is kept, a lot of Hotties, knowing they hotties, can be duds in the sack. Not all of em by any stretch and not all the time, but it does happen more than many of us want to admit.

    More in a sec…wait for it…

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  33. T aka Ricky Raw 25-
    Picking up on T’s point, Mu was told by an Old Master of the Poon, that women already have decided as to whether they will break off the man before them a Piece, usually inside of five minutes.

    Mu, being somewhat wet behind the ears at this point in his life, was stunned. Rapidnly blinking his eyes in disbelief at hearing this piece of vital information, he asked the Old Master to repeat it again, which he did, and went on to explain. Mu will not belabor this point, besides the point is to trust it and act on it, for doing so will net you much more Poontang.

    So, this is another reason why decisive and forceful action is necessary in having women, because while they may have decided that you are worthy of entry into their Sugar Walls, they still will not make he first move. In fact, they often will test you to see how you respond to the situation, and if you blink, even ever so slightly, they will begin to lose interest.

    Master Roissy earlier and elsewhere in the forum has mentioned the importance of the man NOT talking too much, and here Mu must stand up and testify; for it is indeed possible to talk yourself OUT of the P*ssy. You must know what to say and when to say it, and then STOP.

    Please review my foray into the Blonde Psych Class Bombshell. Please note that, when the Moment of Truth had arrived, Mu said nothing, merely acted. From the moment we locked eyes (ALWAYS MAKE EYE CONTACT, ITS IMPORTANT PEOPLE) I knew what the deal was. It was just a matter of time. Btw, there’s more to that story. Wait for it.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  34. ALL WOMEN HAVE THE HO IN THEM, ESPECIALLY THE “OLD FASHIONED ONES”.

    While that may be true, but like the vast majority of women Clio doesn’t the hyper-sexual looks of a porn star, so I’m not willing to find and discover than “inner ho” in her or other women.

    Like


  35. on October 5, 2008 at 7:31 pm Steve Johnson

    “Mind you, I must remind my readers that my opinions are as valuable as Lehman Brothers or WaMu stock.”

    No, you really don’t have to state that warning. That’s one of those things that anyone can figure out.

    Like


  36. oooohhh this is really good.

    Feminism Killed Courtship on Campus:

    Feminism depicts traditional women as ” chattel” oppressed by their husbands. But by undermining the morality (fidelity, chastity) inherent in the family roles Feminism has robbed many women of their natural identity (wife, mother) and degraded them more than ever.

    Save the males!

    http://www.savethemales.ca/001573.html

    Like


  37. Now, Tupac and David, take Sara here. Clearly, she reeks of what we’re discussing at this very moment, its all over her. And there’s palpable Cognitive Dissonance here, because she does not know how to reconcile that Wanton Lass Within w/her more politically conscious facade.

    This is a common thing w/females, for they are often confused. This is in no way meant as a putdown or anything like that, just merely pointing out the truth in most cases. Women are governed by their feelings and can often be flustered and confused by them to the point or either inertia, where they do nothing, or hysteria, where they try to do everything. Here we can Sara clearly acting in the Second Modality of Feminine Being when in such an excited state.

    Of course, the solution is simple, as is so often the case when Occam’s Razor is brought to bear. The Good Wood must be applied forthwith.

    Questions?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  38. 36 Mu’Min

    Master Roissy earlier and elsewhere in the forum has mentioned the importance of the man NOT talking too much, and here Mu must stand up and testify; for it is indeed possible to talk yourself OUT of the P*ssy. You must know what to say and when to say it, and then STOP.

    Okay, this is something I’ll try to learn, seeing as how it’s even more relevant to bonding with a life partner than it is to hitting every hot thing in sight.

    But how does this play out in the long term, with a woman who is legitimately my equal? I seek a fusion of intellectual stimulation and emotional closeness. I can accept having to act like a cad in the short term, just to allow anything to be possible at all. But how do I build on that beachhead toward what I really want? (Yes, with most women this is actually impossible. That’s why I never approach them; the rest of you can have ’em. There are outliers, though, and I’m exclusively concerned with them.)

    Like


  39. 40 Mu Mu

    Of course, the solution is simple, as is so often the case when Occam’s Razor is brought to bear. The Good Wood must be applied forthwith.

    You greatly over value “The Good Wood”. In and of itself, it’s worthless.

    This is a common thing w/females, for they are often confused.

    No, Mu Mu…PEOPLE are often confused.

    Like


  40. DOJ,
    As Master T has already said before, in reply to a rhetorical question put to the forum along these lines, learning Game skills and proper application of same is the same within marriage or LTR, some would argue, myself among them, even moreso, because the female will always test you for leadership fitness from time to time. Therefore, if marriage is what you seek, you need to apply yourself to th materials and instructions Roissy has already indicated.

    Forthwith.

    Moreover, it must be said, that anything with No Head is Dead, and anything w/Two Heads is a Freak; this is in response to the notion of seeking an “equal”. Women are equal in the sense that they are human beings and shoul be accorded human rights and so on; but beyond the metaphysical realm, women are not equal to men, much to the chagrin of Sara, and as Hope has indicated recently, many women actually agree with this view. Think about it. Women have enough votes to put a woman in every office if they wanted to. They don’t. And there’s a very good reason why they don’t, even in the face of ridiculous Feminist Lobby ideology. Its because if anyone knows women, its other women. Which explains why they interact with each other in the way they do. Sitback and observe for yourself.

    In certain respects the man must be in the assertive, superior and dominant role, if this is not so, the woman will in due course of time come to disrespect and eventually hate the man.

    Biology and Nature has determined this. It is up to Post-Modern Man in the Western World to get the cobwebs of ideology out of his eyes and recognize. For this, we must give thanks, biggups, peace and shoutouts to Master Roissy.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  41. Sara 42,
    Spoken like a woman who does not yet understand and appreciate a good chunk of Mahogany when she sees one.

    Please speak for yourself, my lady. There is no fitna over here. Everything is Illuminated.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  42. People are making some valid points here but the tone of the conversations and some of the generalizations point to the fact that there doesn’t seem to be much respect or appreciation for peoples individuality here outside of their gender, which DOESNT dominate who a person is or who they end up being in the world. There is alot of rampant sexist language here, subtle and overt…and I am a man.

    The concurrent gender battles here speak to what is beneath the surface which is a problem of overstating gender, one size fits all descriptions (even the statements of”most”) to an extent and dismissing individuality which always spirals down into stereotypes concerning both men and women.

    Its what I suspected initially I would say that people need to do an internal check with regards to their attitudes concerning the opposite sex and how PERSONAL some of them are…thats from some of the male and female posters here.

    Like


  43. Dave A 37-
    Spoken like a true neophyte and rank amateur. Ask any man worth the mention and they’ll tell you that some of the best lays this good earth has to offer are to be found among the mundane Plain Janes. You are still focused on surface things, which, in our time, are easily remedied. The Ho is the Ho is the Ho, no matter where you go or where you look.

    Women like Clio, can and probably will, bang your brains out. Which, given your current state young Padawan, would definitely be just what the doctor ordered.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  44. 43 Mu’Min

    In certain respects the man must be in the assertive, superior and dominant role, if this is not so, the woman will in due course of time come to disrespect and eventually hate the man.

    I understand this.

    Moreover, it must be said, that anything with No Head is Dead, and anything w/Two Heads is a Freak; this is in response to the notion of seeking an “equal”. Women are equal in the sense that they are human beings and shoul be accorded human rights and so on; but beyond the metaphysical realm, women are not equal to men, much to the chagrin of Sara, and as Hope has indicated recently, many women actually agree with this view. Think about it. Women have enough votes to put a woman in every office if they wanted to. They don’t. And there’s a very good reason why they don’t, even in the face of ridiculous Feminist Lobby ideology. Its because if anyone knows women, its other women. Which explains why they interact with each other in the way they do. Sitback and observe for yourself.

    And I already agreed that this applies to most women.

    The catch is, “most women” bore me to tears. To the point that I don’t want to fuck them, it just isn’t worth it. And this isn’t some theoretical misconception that will go away as soon as I actually try it.

    However I’ve met a few outlier women who truly do inspire me, and can give as much as they take. It is only these women that I’m interested in.

    When I say “equal”, I don’t mean someone I will fail to be assertive with and dominant over, in my own unusual way. I mean someone who is worth being assertive with and dominant over in the first place.

    Like


  45. DOJ,
    Take Elizabeth and Hope, women whom in the time I’ve had to observe and sonverse with them are highly intelligent people. This is a very strong added bonus to them both. But, like Princeton Herb has shown us, it does little to advance understanding on the Primordial level.

    Moreover, neither woman would want a man for long whom had to consult her to make every decision, every jot and tittle. Don’t believe me, ask them.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  46. When I say “equal”, I don’t mean someone I will fail to be assertive with and dominant over, in my own unusual way. I mean someone who is worth being assertive with and dominant over in the first place.

    I think I understand where you’re going with this, DoJ. However, I sense a major rationalization going on here, on your part.

    You’re rationalizing your lackluster efforts, or friuts, in the dating game by saying that most women aren’t worth pursuing.

    Up until Mu gave you some straight talk on “one head, not none or two” (a brilliant image Mu, is it your own?) you also had, as a bonus, a self-image as a “noble guy” because you want a woman who is “an equal.”

    Get ready for some reality: you’re not that great or that special. Nobody is. Just about every woman, over a certain threshold of quality, is worthy of you. When you say that you want “someone who is worth being assertive with” you’re in reality saying “I am not chasing/getting women, which means that I am just too good fro them.”

    I am not ragging on you. I understand your desire to develop a long-term relationship wand marriage with a quality woman. That was always my goal too, when I was dating.

    Like


  47. PS: when you say:

    “The catch is, “most women” bore me to tears.”

    … I don’t believe you for a minute.

    Like


  48. 48 Mu’Min

    Take Elizabeth and Hope, women whom in the time I’ve had to observe and sonverse with them are highly intelligent people. This is a very strong added bonus to them both. But, like Princeton Herb has shown us, it does little to advance understanding on the Primordial level.

    Moreover, neither woman would want a man for long whom had to consult her to make every decision, every jot and tittle. Don’t believe me, ask them.

    Yes, they would be the sort of outliers I speak of. My question is, how do I actually develop the kind of LTR I’m looking for with such a woman, after an initial demonstration of leadership in getting them out of their pants?

    Like


  49. 49 PA

    You’re rationalizing your lackluster efforts, or friuts, in the dating game by saying that most women aren’t worth pursuing.

    I’m not afraid to say that my current efforts are not bearing fruit. (Though my efforts have not been David Alexander-style lackluster.) That is, after all, why I’m asking for advice.

    Get ready for some reality: you’re not that great or that special. Nobody is. Just about every woman, over a certain threshold of quality, is worthy of you. When you say that you want “someone who is worth being assertive with” you’re in reality saying “I am not chasing/getting women, which means that I am just too good fro them.”

    I’m not going to insist that I’m “too good for them.” (Though it depends on context. Sometimes it is useful to deliberately be a bit arrogant.) The disinterest is generally mutual.

    But I have, in fact, tried a relationship with a girl who was physically attractive enough but didn’t intellectually excite me that much. It simply could not hold my interest. This isn’t a matter of academic pedigree, either — the girl I just spoke of was a Harvard graduate, whereas one of the last girls I truly was inspired by, and strove (and failed) to start a relationship with was a UCSD undergrad.

    Like


  50. DOJ,
    How do you develop a LTR w/the likes of Elizabeth and Hope?

    For Hope, go back through the archives and read what she said about her now hubbie.

    For Elizabeth, read back what I said on the Reader’s Mailbag thread where I mention her specifically, then check the Great Depression thread where she and I discuss Astrology. That’s your answer.

    Next question, please…

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  51. PA,
    No, I cannot claim ownership of the Ho Head/Two Head quote. Actually, I got it from one of the Sunday morn Preachers that comes on TV. Problem is, I can’t remember which one, LOL! I think he’s deceased now though. But, for all his protestations against Religion, Master Roissy would be surprised to what degree this Preacher was talking about many of the very same things that are all par for the course here. Game is Universal, so is Man’s Quest for Big Booty.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  52. 53 Mu’Min

    How do you develop a LTR w/the likes of Elizabeth and Hope?

    For Hope, go back through the archives and read what she said about her now hubbie.

    For Elizabeth, read back what I said on the Reader’s Mailbag thread where I mention her specifically, then check the Great Depression thread where she and I discuss Astrology. That’s your answer.

    Next question, please…

    Thanks for answering. On the surface, your answer is too specific (I don’t see any available Elizabeth or Hope clones in my vicinity… and you also don’t imply that what would have worked on Hope would also work on Elizabeth, or vice versa), but I’ll try to generalize as much as possible from it.

    For starters. I’m formally an atheist, and not a naturally mystical person. I place enormous value on honesty, and my instinct is that covering up my beliefs in an effort to appeal to a girl is a very submissive thing to do, setting a horrible precedent. But, while that instinct may be sound when it comes to other areas of discourse, the data is starting to strongly indicate that I must make an exception when it comes to religion. On one occasion, a girl with an atheist father and Catholic mother, who was a not-very-devout Catholic herself and didn’t have any problem with marrying an atheist, nevertheless was disappointed when I expressed disinterest in the question of whether “there is something more.” On another, a girl told me she had “serious reservations” about romance with a guy who didn’t have faith in something, and clearly my prosaic belief that life gives me opportunities to expand human liberty and quality of life, and that I’m accountable to future generations for making the most of those opportunities, did not qualify. And my own sister tells me the same thing about wanting a man who believes in “something.”

    I found Eliezer Yudkowsky’s recent post “Beyond the Reach of God” on the blog “Overcoming Bias” quite thought-provoking (I’d provide a link, but I fear that it will hold my comment up for moderation). I have the mental fortitude to stare Nature in the eye, and work within its unfeeling laws to create a space where my mate can be safe, where her more optimistic beliefs hold partly because I wrestled to create a world in which they were that much more likely to hold. This is a compelling narrative (well, if the probabilistic qualifiers are dropped, anyway), but only when seen from the outside. On the inside, am I best off becoming literate in astrology and the like, and always keeping my mouth shut about my battle with Nature? Is there any way to meet this apparently universal need (at least among girls I’m fascinated by) for mysticism, without crippling future discourse as much? (I think a LOT about the less pleasant details involved in making the world a slightly better place, so a blanket ban on uttering such thoughts would really suck for me.)

    Like


  53. Moreover, it must be said, that anything with No Head is Dead, and anything w/Two Heads is a Freak; this is in response to the notion of seeking an “equal”. Women are equal in the sense that they are human beings and shoul be accorded human rights and so on; but beyond the metaphysical realm, women are not equal to men, much to the chagrin of Sara, and as Hope has indicated recently, many women actually agree with this view. Think about it. Women have enough votes to put a woman in every office if they wanted to. They don’t. And there’s a very good reason why they don’t, even in the face of ridiculous Feminist Lobby ideology. Its because if anyone knows women, its other women. Which explains why they interact with each other in the way they do. Sitback and observe for yourself.

    I love it. Good stuff.

    Like


  54. — the Ho Head/Two Head quote

    Freudian slip, eh?

    — That is, after all, why I’m asking for advice.

    I think it’s cool that youy’re on a path of self-improvement. My bit o’ advice:

    (1) Get yourself in order. Clothers. Hair. Shoes. Fingernails. Hit the gym. Learn and practice the principles of “Game,” which to me always boiled down to the three elements: (a) being a challenge; (b) having self-confidence; and (c) having self-control.

    (2) Hit on women. If your goal is to find someone for LTR, screen out gold diggers, feminists, and psychoes. If you feel yourself pulled toward women who are “bad news,” then make sure you’re not dealing with one of the four types of Heartbreakers that Clio writes about here and on her blog.

    (3) Once you meet a girl who is over your attractiveness threshold and has a good personality (is loyal, giving, and has integrity — observe her for red flags) don’t think that you’ve crossed the finish line. You’ve just come to a new starting line. It’s easy to get a girl. It’s harder to keep her. Game is a lifetime practice.

    Hope this helps!

    Like


  55. 57 – Great post! I would add:

    1) Don’t stop at appearance. Clean your entire life. Become a Man. Have a vision of what you want to achieve and set out a plan to get there Get interesting hobbies and friends. Get rid of the people who will not support you on your transition. Clean up your apartment and always have clean sheets available (you’ll need them soon).

    Step 2) – I would add that there is a great (free) online course at Venusian Skills (not VA), which covers all the basics of game. It’s the best free resource out there. Nothing else required if you are committed to using it (go out >3 times a week). Depending on where you are right now you will have to go through all the painful phases outlined in the course.

    Between step 2) and 3) you are likely to stop chasing and have enough to you that women will be active in getting to know you. Even if it feels like you “are there” ad now can relax – don’t get lazy at that point. Don’t think shit tests will ever stop. Remain a gym member and keep your house, exterior and life under control.

    Like


  56. PA, DOJ,
    Indeed it is, PA. Indeed it is.

    Self control is key to everything in life. A man w/poor impulse control isn’t a man at all, he’s a boy. What woman really wants a boy?

    Control over one’s body is essential to becoming a Master. This is why physical training is important. Not because of buff muscles or anything like, its because one wants to gain self control. Can’t be a Master over others until you’re a Master over yourself.

    In the Islamic tradition, males over a certain age are obliged to observe the fast of Ramadan, which occurs on the 9th month of the Islamic calendar. During this time we do not eat, drinky, smoke or engage in sexual practices from sunrise to sunset. Mu takes it a step further and abstains from sex of any kind for the entire month, no matter what time of day or night. Mu also knows many other brothers who do this, often the wives and SOs of the brothas will complain. See how women when deprived of the Good Wood will revert to a much baser nature than was previously thought. Master Roissy has spoken on this.

    Too much attachment to anything is not good for the mind or body, periodic denial is good to re-focus onself. Also, many women are under the impression that their sexual nature is what will bring a man under subjection. This is true only for those men who lack self control. The Old Jedi Mindtrick doesn’t work on Mu.

    Insofar as fitness is concerned, follow the general rules of thumb, you should be able to see your belt buckle when you look down (and my White brothers, PLEASE WEAR A BELT W/YOUR PANTS. See Master Roissy’s additional commentary about the proper wearing of pants elsewhere in the forum). Don’t drink or smoke. Don’t partake of drugs. These things dulls the mind and kills essentials needed for busting the maximum number of nuts. Induglence in drugs and drink impede this important life function and purpose. See Jim Morrison.

    Biggups go to Master T of The Rawness.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  57. Zamani —

    There is alot of rampant sexist language here, subtle and overt…and I am a man.

    You don’t sound like much of a man to me.

    Remind me. What exactly is SO WRONG with being sexist? At least as applied to what anyone is saying on this thread?

    Are you saying that men and women aren’t different in their sexuality?

    Yeah we’re all individuals, but is there nothing about female individuals that tends to be different from male ones?

    Just how thorough was your brainwashing?

    Like


  58. Let me point out there is a risk S is taking.

    If K can find another woman who will sleep with him, he will dump S like a rock, or simply string her along.

    That might or might not be remote, it’s hard to tell. Even if he’s beta, he might leverage increased confidence with S at least flirting with him to score with another woman. I’ve seen this happen. Not often but I’ve seen it.

    So S could very possibly have the worst of both worlds. Women often overestimate the power they have over men, and the pull of their beauty.

    Like


  59. Spoken like a true neophyte and rank amateur.

    I would imagine that there are some men who are simply incapable of having an erection regardless of the sexual output of the “Plain Jane”. A girl may act like a ho, but if she can’t look like one, then there’s no arousal at all and instead of a sexual act, it comes across as a bit of poorly scripted comedic humour.

    You are still focused on surface things, which, in our time, are easily remedied.

    The surface things are the most important things of all.

    Moreover, neither woman would want a man for long whom had to consult her to make every decision, every jot and tittle.

    Yes, instead you make a decision, watch it fail, and then promptly receive the shower of insults due to one’s stupidity.

    Like


  60. but is there nothing about female individuals that tends to be different from male ones?

    They’re rumoured to have these weird things called vaginas and breasts, but some fat guys have breasts too…

    Like


  61. DOJ-
    On Women & Atheism…

    In Mu’s experience he has not seen many women who are stompdown “God is Dead” types. Over the course of the discussions Mu has had w/Dr. Czar, Mu has come to the general conclusion that perhaps it may not be possible for many women to entertain in a serious way, the prospect of Nothing after this life.

    In any event, women like Elizabeth, while not necessarily doctrinaire, still believe in a God, and want to yoke themselves to a man who believes as well. In fact, after some degree of meditation on this matter, it has occured to Mu that this is why Men need to have and demonstrate stronger Faith, as is seen in Islam; there, the obligatory requirements are on men, not women (women can do so if they wish, but are not required; take Jum’ah, for example).

    However, I don’t want this to mean that my Christian brothers cannot participate in this regard, they most certainly can and should.

    As I am not an Atheist, and have never personally dealt w/Atheist women, it is difficult to say exactly what should be done in that area. It will be hard to secure women under that rubric, but not impossible. Master Roissy will no doubt have something to say about this aspect.
    But what Mu can most definitely say is that it is essential and most necessary NOT to lie and become something you are not in pursuit of the Big Booty. If you are not religiously inclined, so be it. Besides, women are evolutionarily inclined to detect lies and deception.

    Does anyone else have any suggestions here?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  62. By the way, Mu’Min, David Alexander didn’t say I was a Plain Jane. (The general consensus seems to be that I’m attractive.) He said I looked sexless, by which he means that I don’t look like a porn star – big blonde hair, tons of makeup, and an enormous bosom.

    Just thought I’d like to clear that up.

    Clio

    Like


  63. 64 Mu’Min

    As I am not an Atheist, and have never personally dealt w/Atheist women, it is difficult to say exactly what should be done in that area. It will be hard to secure women under that rubric, but not impossible. Master Roissy will no doubt have something to say about this aspect.
    But what Mu can most definitely say is that it is essential and most necessary NOT to lie and become something you are not in pursuit of the Big Booty. If you are not religiously inclined, so be it. Besides, women are evolutionarily inclined to detect lies and deception.

    Thanks a lot for your input, especially the bit about not becoming something I’m not. I was really demoralized about the matter.

    My romantic goals are very very different from Roissy’s, so I don’t know how much he’ll be able to help me, but I’m curious what he has to say as well.

    Like


  64. DA 62 —

    DA quotes another: Moreover, neither woman would want a man for long whom had to consult her to make every decision, every jot and tittle.

    DA: Yes, instead you make a decision, watch it fail, and then promptly receive the shower of insults due to one’s stupidity.

    1. Make decisions that more often than not succeed rather than fail. Pick yourself up after a failure, dust yourself off, call it a trial balloon rather than a failure (or a learning experience), and, wiser, try again and succeed this time. That takes some T.

    2. By all means make her your trusted adviser. Do not be unable to act without her, but make full use of her brains and judgment, while you make the final call. Women love this, especially really smart and capable ones do.

    3. But relative to 2., you made the call, you take responsibility. Always. Women also love that. It’s also just what strong men do. But see 1. Failure, as opposed to reversals, is entirely a state of mind. It doesn’t last if you persist and have things on the ball.

    Like


  65. Hello Clio,
    Understood, although I say w/all due respect to my little brother David, that he’s just learning how to piss stright, let alone how to flex those muscles that make it possible to bust a proper nut.

    And a woman such as yourself could teach a young man like him much in the ways of the Comforts of the Couch. I myself have greatly benefitted in this regard.

    Dave definitely needs to get out more and get laid a lot more. Don’t you agree?

    Salaam
    Mu

    PS: where can I view a photo of you? I’d like to see for myself.

    Like


  66. David Alexander didn’t say I was a Plain Jane.

    Yes, Clio along with the other women who post here are beautiful. They’re just not sexually attractive, but again, such things are in the eye of the beholder.

    Make decisions that more often than not succeed rather than fail.

    One can do that, yet still fail. The main problem is that private failure can be tough, but accepted, but public failure is simply shameful in the eyes of others and an excuse for becoming a whipping post and example for others.

    you made the call, you take responsibility

    Now that’s funny. I’d rather let her take responsibility for the decision, and then I blame her for the poor decision or massive fuck up, sparing myself the indignity of being at the receiving end of the insults.

    Failure, as opposed to reversals, is entirely a state of mind.

    Failure whether real or imagined is the ghost that lingers in the mind and chases away beautiful dreams and positive thoughts.

    Like


  67. Clio,

    The general consensus is that most men would love to sleep with you (even Lemmonex probably). I know I would. You are hot.

    Just thought I’d like to clear that up.

    Like


  68. Do you people know how I bleed for you? Is it so hard to show even a tiny bit of gratitude? I suppose you want to see a grown man drown his sorrows in a vat of Ben&Jerrys Chunky Monkey. You’re all sick, sadistic bastards.

    Oh, yes. Post photos, please! The more ice cream drool, the better.

    43 Mu’Min

    In certain respects the man must be in the assertive, superior and dominant role, if this is not so, the woman will in due course of time come to disrespect and eventually hate the man.

    I’m curious in what respects you mean, Mu’Min. Because while this is true —

    48 Mu’Min

    Moreover, neither woman would want a man for long whom had to consult her to make every decision, every jot and tittle. Don’t believe me, ask them.

    — it would depend on what particular decisions were being made. I get really impatient when, say, my friends are all discussing what restaurant we should go to for dinner (“oh, you decide,” “no, you decide,” etc.), so I don’t much care when someone plays the dictator in that situation. (Come to that, I’m usually the one who plays dictator…)

    And if some fellow wanted to buy me some lovely, gorgeous piece of jewelry, I’d prefer to be surprised. 😀

    But there are certain important decisions that I’d never want anyone to make for me — like where to live, whether to buy a house, how many children to have, etc. Those are decisions that couples — at least any couple I’d want to be part of — would have to make together, and I’d never want to be with someone who thought he had the right to “lay down the law”, so to speak, regarding important decisions.

    53 Mu’Min

    For Elizabeth, read back what I said on the Reader’s Mailbag thread where I mention her specifically, then check the Great Depression thread where she and I discuss Astrology. That’s your answer.

    Well, it’d take a bit more than that. 🙂

    60 dougjnn

    Remind me. What exactly is SO WRONG with being sexist? Yeah we’re all individuals, but is there nothing about female individuals that tends to be different from male ones?

    Dougjnn, I don’t think you really mean this, because sexism can have devastating consequences for men in child custody cases if you’re dealing with a lazy judge who’s more interested in the “women are more nurturing” meme than in the individuals before him.

    But if you want me to answer your questions, I will. 🙂

    Morally wrong? I’d say everybody deserves to be judged as an individual, regardless of what group they belong to.

    Strategically wrong? If you judge based on the group rather than the individual, you might find yourself making a huge mistake.

    The key phrase in your second question is “tends to be.” It’s certainly true that there are gender-based differences. And most men may exhibit one trait, and most women another. And there’s no problem with having philosophical or scientific discussions about that, or in making advice/drawing conclusions in a general sense. But when you’re dealing on an individual basis, not speaking in generalities, you need to be prepared to adapt to the individual, not to the default norm. 🙂

    Like


  69. DoJ 66 —

    My romantic goals are very very different from Roissy’s, so I don’t know how much he’ll be able to help me, but I’m curious what he has to say as well.

    Most of Roissy’s insights into what makes women tick are almost as applicable to attracting the one hot or hottish and (very) smart girl whose interests and personality and mind, and her non sluttiness, make her seem like a really great long term match, as they are to doing volume pickups.

    As far as Mu’s advice on astrology is chick crack but on the other hand “be yourself” goes, well, it’s both simple and complicated.

    It’s simple to do and complicated to explain how to change to someone who isn’t getting it.

    Women love emotional engagement and passion in a man. That’s a universal. Show me a woman who isn’t attracted to those things in a man. Show me a woman who really passionately loves a man who can’t tell you about what that man cares passionately about. I guess sometimes that’s limited to her, but usually it’s also something else. It sure does help if there’s something else.

    Like


  70. Earlier in the Reader’s Mailbag thread, Master Roissy talks about building up a resistance to Rejection. These are wise words indeed, because rejection is only another word for Failure. And Failure never need not be a bad thing, so long as one takes it and learns the proper and correct lessons from it so as to do better the next time.

    Over the years, Mu has learned to embrace failure and rejection, for they are powerful teachers that can show one the way. In fact, Mu has gotten to the point that he likes first getting rejected by a female, retooling Game, then going back for round two. There’s nothing quite like a Cap-Up on the Rebound.

    But then, I like it when they struggle a bit.

    Anyway, yes, as Doug has mentioned, if you want to sit in the Big Chair, you must also be willing to take the hit when things go left. This is the way of things. When marriages fail, the man always gets the blame. Always. Without fail.

    However, when marriages, LTRs and the like go well, he will get the credit.

    Learn how to overcome objections, turn failures into success, seek every opportunity to adapt and improvise, and you will win.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  71. 69 David Alexander

    I’d rather let her take responsibility for the decision, and then I blame her for the poor decision or massive fuck up, sparing myself the indignity of being at the receiving end of the insults.

    Now this is interesting. It reminds me of an article I read the other day that said that women tend to feel fear more deeply than men, while men tend to feel shame more deeply. According to the article, men actually feel more trapped and panicky when they feel shame than when they feel fear.

    Your comment kind of reflects that, David Alexander.

    Like


  72. Elizabeth 71 —

    But if you want me to answer your questions, I will. 🙂

    No, actually I didn’t and don’t want you to answer that question about sexism. It wasn’t addressed to you.

    I wasn’t making careful distinctions. I was asking an apparently brainwashed beta guy what HE thinks is wrong with the kind of sexism he says he found all through this thread for example. As opposed to sexism that might claim for example that “women cannot make good lawyers because they simply can’t think logically,” or “no man without a wife living with him can raise children successfully”.

    In other words Elizabeth, I was hardly stating that it’s impossible for any kind of sexism to be stupid or otherwise wrong. I was asking HIM to grapple with his bits of received wisdom that everything that’s labeled sexism by feminists must be wrong — to the point that all gender differences must at all costs be minimized to the maximum extent possible.

    Morally wrong? I’d say everybody deserves to be judged as an individual, regardless of what group they belong to.

    Where did I suggest otherwise?

    I would not have expected you to seize upon an unqualified question and turn it into a strawman.

    Like


  73. Elizabeth,
    Hmm…*Mu thoughtfully rubs oil-anointed goatee*…now your words will take a bit of some doing to properly expand and respond to.

    One can be a leader without being a tyrant. Even Machiavelli talks about this, that it is not wise to reach for the hammer every time one sees an ant. In fact it can be counterproductive, especially in something as closed quartered as a LTR or marriage.

    Having said that, women really do want the man to lead, but in a way that doesn’t debase them or make them take low as women. So, gentle persuasion is called for. This is something that Mu admittedly has had to cultivate a good bit over the years, and it was not and is not easy, for Mu can be impatient.

    Most men really do want the input of the women in their lives, but there is a very fine line here. If a woman gets the sense that the man cannot make a decisive decision, and stick with it, confidence can and will erode.

    So its tricky, as the great philosophers Run-DMC once said. A real Finesse game, so to speak.

    As for convincing you to go out on a date, I would say, that talking about things such as astrology and the like, *in a competent way*, NOT in the manner that some PUAs discuss it, certainly opens the door. There are other things. But that’s a start. Plus, I really like sitting at your feet and listening more to your interest in things like History. But that’s just me.;)

    Btw, speaking of Fortune Cookies…

    Yesterday evening, after grabbing up some General Tso’s Chicken, I reached for the fortune cookie, and it had TWO fortune slips in it! One read something about how, if I fed my friends, the number of my friends would increase; and the other said, many fortunes would smile on me now.

    Very interesting, because I’m due for a double raise at my job this month, the fourth one this year overall.

    Not bad.;)

    Holla back and let me know what you think. And check the Great Depression thread, there’s something for you.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  74. Dougjnn wrote: You don’t sound like much of a man to me.
    Remind me. What exactly is SO WRONG with being sexist? At least as applied to what anyone is saying on this thread?
    Are you saying that men and women aren’t different in their sexuality?Yeah we’re all individuals, but is there nothing about female individuals that tends to be different from male ones?Just how thorough was your brainwashing?

    Zamani: Wow, dude I must have struck a nerve, especially since I never addressed you specifically, and I dont think I have even ready any of your posts…lol.

    I will ignore the insults based on the fact that you have absolutely no knowledge of me and of who I am as well as from my good guess that I have possibly interacted with (in every way) more women than you could possibly imagine…Ask Mu….and in that experience I have not found any typical women in the sense that they or anyone else can be categorized, yes there is a female sensibility and sexuality however those drives are all in combination with an individual pyschology that is often much more sophisticated than a sexist stereotype can define. I would say the same thing about men. What I see alot of here is a discounting of individuality, especially of the sort that would have to make you interact and generate the interest of a women based on your own genuine attributes and not mind tricks designed to simply bed a women down…which I have done alot of without all the “strategy”. Thats not brainwashing, I dont believe in feminism or masculinism, just people and human individuality. The same ideas about women that are being thrown around here are akin to those that were once openly (and are still privately) attached to African Americans (of which I am one) which I find offensive or just plain simplistic and dumb.

    Whats the difference between believing that ALL women want this one particular approach and someone saying that “In General Black People all want ________”.

    Its obvious that theres alot of antagonism here with regards to the sexes. Thats not my thing.

    Like


  75. 72 dougjnn

    As far as Mu’s advice on astrology is chick crack but on the other hand “be yourself” goes, well, it’s both simple and complicated.

    It’s simple to do and complicated to explain how to change to someone who isn’t getting it.

    Women love emotional engagement and passion in a man. That’s a universal. Show me a woman who isn’t attracted to those things in a man. Show me a woman who really passionately loves a man who can’t tell you about what that man cares passionately about. I guess sometimes that’s limited to her, but usually it’s also something else. It sure does help if there’s something else.

    Oh, I’m totally aware that women want men who are passionate about something. And I don’t think I lack that, though I could be wrong.

    But I’m passionate about nerdy things, and conversely, I’m averse to being passionate about things like astrology which do not strike me as intellectually sound. And it looks like even the interesting women who are okay with my more nerdy passions also consistently want to see some spiritual side of me. I simply don’t know what to do about that. Is there some variant of the “I’ll stare cruel, unfeeling Nature in the eye, and build a safe place for you” narrative that I can actually tell the woman I’m interested in? Because that’s the only thing I can think of saying that is actually “being myself.”

    73 Mu’Min

    Earlier in the Reader’s Mailbag thread, Master Roissy talks about building up a resistance to Rejection. These are wise words indeed, because rejection is only another word for Failure. And Failure never need not be a bad thing, so long as one takes it and learns the proper and correct lessons from it so as to do better the next time.

    Over the years, Mu has learned to embrace failure and rejection, for they are powerful teachers that can show one the way. In fact, Mu has gotten to the point that he likes first getting rejected by a female, retooling Game, then going back for round two. There’s nothing quite like a Cap-Up on the Rebound.

    Yup, I love persisting in the face of failure as well.

    But this is useless in the face of the atheism problem. Once I’ve told a woman I’m an atheist, and they find it unacceptable, there’s no second chance.

    Like


  76. I think its reprehensible that any man would push a woman out before him to take any blame for anything. As Doug said, ultimately the head man has to make the call, and if things don’t work out he has to take the hit. To do otherwise is less than dishonest. To push a woman out there, is less than a Coward.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  77. PA 57 —

    That’s gold advice bro. Respect.

    Like


  78. 75 dougjnn

    I wasn’t making careful distinctions. I was asking an apparently brainwashed beta guy what HE thinks is wrong with the kind of sexism he says he found all through this thread for example.

    Zamani will have to speak for himself. But I do think he made a distinction when he wrote this:

    45 Zamani

    The concurrent gender battles here speak to what is beneath the surface which is a problem of overstating gender, one size fits all descriptions (even the statements of”most”) to an extent and dismissing individuality which always spirals down into stereotypes concerning both men and women.

    In other words, he was questioning the value of sexism in the context of this particular discussion and this particular topic, that is, how valuable are gender-based stereotypes in dating, hooking up, etc. He acknowledged that people are making valid points, but he apparently believes that even in the dating context, there needs to be a tailored, individual approach. He doesn’t think the same things will work on everyone because he doesn’t believe everybody is the same. That is apparently the problem he has with the kind of sexism he thinks is found in this particular thread.

    And my point was that’s what’s wrong with sexism in general. You can say “all women respond to X in a dating scenario,” or you can say “all women can’t be lawyers because all women are incapable of illogical thought,” or you can say “all men are worse parents than all women”: the answer to what’s wrong with sexism is the same regardless of any situation in which you’re dealing with an individual. You’re not judging the individual by the individual.

    Zamani seems to be saying that there’s useful stuff to be found in this thread — but you have to be willing and ready to alter your game plan if you find it doesn’t work on a particular person. He’ll have to clarify for himself, of course, and perhaps I’m misinterpreting his comments. But I don’t think he deserves to be called “betaish” for making the point that it’s smart to take people as individuals, not as indistinguishable members of a group.

    I was asking HIM to grapple with his bits of received wisdom that everything that’s labeled sexism by feminists must be wrong

    I don’t understand where you got this from his comment. I don’t think he was objecting to the idea that there are certain traits that tend to be exhibited by men and certain traits that tend to be exhibited by women. He was objecting, as he said, to the idea of “one size fits all.”

    Where did I suggest otherwise?

    I don’t think you believe otherwise, which is why I said that in my post. But your question about what is so wrong with being sexist suggested that you didn’t really have a problem with sexism. The “what’s wrong with sexism?” question is one I hear get asked a lot, and I actually think it’s a question that deserves a serious answer — one that the more vocal “feminists”, who prefer to heap scorn, do not provide. And you provided an opportunity to answer it. And I did. Not because I thought you didn’t already know it, but because some people do seem to believe there’s a one-size-fits-all solution to dealing with people, or certain groups of people, and, like Zamani, I don’t believe there is.

    Like


  79. DOJ, Doug,
    Now, DOJ, I just got finished having this discussion w/Dr. Czar, wrt astrology and its depth. We don’t really want to revisit that…do we?

    But Doug is right, women are drawn to passionate men. It took me a very long time to realize this, because for a long time I was afraid of it within myself.

    But over time I learned to embrace it; it gives me strength and focus.

    LOL. You know, within the astrology community I’m regarded as something od a “Misogynist” because I say many of the very same things Roissy says, although he does it so much better than I. And I’ve read the occasional potshot taken at him labeling him a “Misogynist” as well.

    Which is interesting to me-what, exactly, is he saying that is so sexist, so, misogynist? I can see nothing. He’s not calling for women to be removed from public life, to be denied the vote; he’s passionately pro choice (whereas I’m pro life), I just don’t get it.

    All the man is talking about is the basic truth of things between men and women, that’s all. And the fact that so many men-and women-are here, are writing letters to him, post regularly, tells me that there has to be some truth to what he’s saying.

    So, for those who level the charge that he, or anyone else here is “sexist”, etc, I say, show us the proof.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  80. 76 Mu’Min

    One can be a leader without being a tyrant.

    Yes, this is true. But I don’t think women who want to be married are looking for a leader. I think they’re looking for a husband.

    Having said that, women really do want the man to lead, but in a way that doesn’t debase them or make them take low as women.

    See, I think this is the kind of statement Zamani was objecting to. I mean no offense by that, Mu’Min, because I think you’re a bright fellow. And perhaps you’re right about most women. Perhaps you’re right about all women but me; I don’t know. I can’t speak for all women. But I can speak for me, and you did talk upthread about what I would say I want. 🙂 And what you’re describing wouldn’t really work for me, for points that have already been belabored. So. Um. Find a new example? 🙂

    Yesterday evening, after grabbing up some General Tso’s Chicken, I reached for the fortune cookie, and it had TWO fortune slips in it!

    Ah, fortune cookies. Fortune cookies are wonderful. My niece once got a fortune cookie that had no fortune in it, and she was convinced that meant she was going to die, so I thought quickly and assured her that no, it meant she got to make up her own fortune. 🙂

    And check the Great Depression thread, there’s something for you.

    Yeah, saw it and responded. Did you find The Queen?

    Like


  81. Elizabeth, thanks for the clarification of my comments. Apparently you are one of the “few” women who posses logic and arent soley driven by your irrational feelings..lol. I suppose your presense will be a source of frustration.

    I think alot of this stuff is a way for people to try to codify human behavior because perhaps the sophistication of social interaction that demands understanding and adjusting to the differences within individuals is too much to master for some.

    Notice along with the “women want and react to” commentary, you also have more codfication and labeling with the ridiculous “beta” man and Alpha man etc. At least there is equal opportunity stereotyping at hand..lol

    I think that sexism IS a problem. The very idea that someone wouldn’t find it to be a problem says all that one needs to hear and to label someone “brainwashed” or lacking “manhood” because he dares come to the defense of the stereotyped is akin to calling someone a Nigger Lover because they defend someone against a racist attack. I still contend that if someone needs to play mind games to generate interest from a women that those interactions with be surface and superficial and that the facade will unwrap itself eventually.

    Because I realize just how different women really are from interacting with hundreds and possibly thousands of them in a variety of settings, and with women of a variety of backgrounds,temperaments, intellectuall levels etc. I realize that there isnt a one size fits all approach that women will respond to and to even think that one can apply a “most” is problematic. I USED to think that women were as cookie cutter as is being promoted here, I realize from actually INTERACTING with them that they are not.

    Like


  82. 82 Mu’Min

    Now, DOJ, I just got finished having this discussion w/Dr. Czar, wrt astrology and its depth. We don’t really want to revisit that…do we?

    Clearly astrology has a great track record with women exactly where I am weakest. So I would love to be able to passionately discuss it while still “being myself.” My question is (and this is an honest question, not rhetorical), do you think this is possible for a rationalist atheist like myself? I’m very open minded when it comes to considering new evidence. I just can’t lie to myself when I see someone presenting an explanation for that new evidence that contradicts other evidence I’ve already seen; I can only consider theories that fit both the old and the new evidence. (I’m not averse to rechecking my old evidence, by the way.)

    Like


  83. Now me and Mumin are friends. We are both also actively involved with the practice of Astrology.

    Someone labeled Astrology “Chick Crack” which is yet another way of stating that something that women find interest in must be foolish and highlights the fact that the individuals who think like that are being willingly ignorant to a science and an art form for thousands of years simply because of its associations with women.

    The fact that those sort of references fly around here not only unchallenged and worse yet, defended or are co opted as something useful in hopes of manipulating potentially more women with “game” is hysterical.

    I think that there may be men who are simply afraid of women, afraid of the intimidation they feel in their presence and under their scrutiny and consciously or unconsciously they either withdrawal (like some of the nerd types) or they OVERCOMPENSATE (like the alpha types) by promoting the idea (in their minds of in the masses) of their superiority to women in some sense, or the more subtle idea of just feeling superior which justifies the labeling and categorization of women and the use of psychological tactics that appeal to what they all “allegedly” desire in most men.

    Listen to the language here and please tell me how different some of it is than racial stereotyping.

    By the way, Im not being a defender of women either honestly, I was kicked off a site for predominately women for daring to challenge their assumptions concerning what all “Black Men want” and again there were mostly a bunch of individuals on that site who were unhappy in their interactions with the opposite sex and instead of turning inward, instead of addressing how their home environment and their parental interactions affected their relationship choices decided to project everything outward and stereotype.

    Like


  84. Elizabeth,
    Several things.

    First, Zam: I consider Zam to be a rare anomoly, which I completely and wholly accept. He is one of those rare men who was born w/The Gift. It is my view that no one should listen to his advice because they can never do what he does. No dis to Doug or any other man in the room, but if I were a betting man I’d lay serious odds that Zam has talked to, dated and bedded more women per capita over the past decade than anyone else here, present company included. As I’ve said before, he doesn’t keep phone numbers in a cellie or rolodex or blackbook, he uses spreadsheets. I’ve seen them.

    Because he’s kind of a freak, I ain’t in no way mad at Zam. Hey, some people’s got it, and he won the lottery in that regard. For the rest of us mere mortal men, there are other things. Call it what you will, but a great deal of it does indeed work, and all the more recent PUAs have done is collated it and brought it all together into a tight, coherent whole.

    The more Humanity interacts w/each other, the more we see that at the most fundamental level, we are the same than different. W/very few exceptions, all women seek to be beautiful. Why? W/very few exceptions, all men seek to excel. Again, why?

    I like the empty fortune cookie example. Never happened to me, but it is something to think about to be sure.

    In all things, throughout life, there are leaders and followers. I didn’t make the rule, only bearing witness to it. And I do admit, freely, that there are instances where women lead, and do it well. Our recent discussion wrt Elizabeth I was a case in point. But for the rank and file, in the main, for most people most of the time, that is not the case.

    Nor do I ever say that I like all of the truths of life I stumble upon. In fact in some cases, its a bitter pill to swallow indeed. But the world will not stop spinning because Mu don’t like something regardless of whether its true or not. Like everyone else, Mu will have to accept the world as he finds it, and move on.

    The idea that we are individuals bursting with exceptional specialness is sorely overrated, and here even the scientific realms, such as they are, are bearing this out. Yes, there is always something to be said for permutations, but the baseline remains a constant.

    I still do not see any evidence of hard and fast sexism or misogyny here in this thread. If you do, please explain it to me.
    And no, no luck finding the Queen yet. But since I have a bit of time off soon, I will be watching it.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  85. 82 Mu’Min

    Which is interesting to me-what, exactly, is he saying that is so sexist, so, misogynist?

    Number one, sexism and misogyny aren’t the same thing. Misogyny is defined as “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.” Sexism is defined as “attitudes or behaviors based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.”

    Saying “women suck and we should kill them all” is an example of misogyny. Saying “women are all natural submissives” is an example of sexism. Something can be sexist without being hateful, and something can be misogynist without being sexist.

    I can’t really think of anything genuinely misogynist that I’ve read here, either by Roissy or by a commenter. I’m willing to bet that most people who read this site do not hate women. In fact, when certain people let down their guards, you get a peep at a hopeless romanticism. 🙂

    I have seen a lot of sexist stuff here; that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong in a general sense. Stereotypes often exist for a reason. The fact that this stuff seems to work would suggest it’s true for a lot of women — though, like Zamani, I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all approach that will work on everyone in Creation.

    So Mu’Min, I don’t know if your comment was directed at me, but if it was — just because it’s sexist doesn’t mean it’s necessarily incorrect. There are useful tips for guys to pick up here. Apply them, you might be able to score with a lot of women. I think what Zamani is saying, and certainly what I’m saying, is that when you’re trying to pick a girl up, you need to be like a good quarterback: know the play, but be prepared to audible if you don’t like the look of the defense. 🙂

    Like


  86. DoJ: I totally understand where you are coming from. I would have a serious problem using astrology in a conversation and keeping a straight face.

    It doesn’t have to be astrology, but “cold reading” does seem to be pretty universal stuff among all the Game material that I’ve read. So far, I haven’t really tried it. I probably need to — I’ve finally advanced to the point where I’m getting beyond my old approach anxiety, and now I’m struggling with the next 2 minutes *after* a cold approach. I tend to run out of things to say and the conversation trails off, and so my cold approach success rate is still rather low.

    Basically, I need non-opener material that is engaging. It’s hard to build off my day-to-day life because my day-to-day life, in all honesty, is not super exciting, and the stuff that I am (intellectually) passionate about is stuff that women generally find as boring as can be (computers… business… economics…).

    Human psychology, on the other hand, is something that women *are* interested in, and that I’m at least moderately interested in. There’s a whole spectrum of material along these lines. Astrology is at one extreme. In the middle is stuff like the “cube routine”, which I am I kind of iffy on. But there is other stuff I can see using.

    For better or worse, it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the (typical) female mind operates *very* differently than the (typical) male mind. The difference compared to the “geeky male mind” is more extreme still.

    Like


  87. Elizabeth,
    Ah. Sports analogies! Didn’t know you were into that sort of thing.

    Well, at the risk of pulling on a stereotype, let me go to the NBA for the next one.

    You see, there are guys like Zam who can play instinctively, or at least partially; and then are are guys like the John Stocktons of the world, who play it more by the book. Of course, Stockton won’t make the highlight reel anywhere near as much, if at all, like the Zams; but they are solid players and can have solid careers; even make the Hall of Fame.

    Of course, the idea is to have a bit of both, raw talent and skill/work ethic, but that’s a rare combination in one man (or woman). Usually the L is divided into two distinct camps. Happens all the time.

    As for the distinction between Sexism and Misogyny, so noted. Nevertheless, as you noted, the question, the chief, major question, is, is what is being said true, not in the particular, but in he aggregate? As I said earlier, we, particularly as Americans, are punchdrunk on this idea of “specialness”, when in truth, when one takes a good, hard look around, most of us, the vast majority of us, are very average, at least in most of the ways that matter.

    And, if I may, methinks I detect just a weebit of “doth protest too much” from some quarters (not necessarily you, of course); whenever that jumps off, its usually a signal that a raw nerve of Truth has been struck.

    And thank for the “you’re a bright guy” compliment. Coming from you, it means a lot. 😉

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  88. 85 Mu’Min

    First, Zam: I consider Zam to be a rare anomoly, which I completely and wholly accept.

    And if there are male anomalies, would you acknowledge there are female anomalies as well?

    He is one of those rare men who was born w/The Gift. It is my view that no one should listen to his advice because they can never do what he does.

    From what he said, he seems like someone who is ready and willing to adapt when Plan A doesn’t work out so well. Don’t you think that might have something to do with his success? Perhaps he uses the principles of game as guidelines, rather than hard-and-fast rules?

    Call it what you will, but a great deal of it does indeed work, and all the more recent PUAs have done is collated it and brought it all together into a tight, coherent whole.

    I don’t doubt that it works on a lot of people (and works for a lot of people). I do have my doubts that it will all work on everyone, all the time, or even that all the rules will work on the same person. I think some might work on some people better than others.

    W/very few exceptions, all women seek to be beautiful. Why?

    ‘Cause it’s fun, and it makes life a lot easier. 🙂

    W/very few exceptions, all men seek to excel. Again, why?

    ‘Cause it’s rewarding, in many more ways than one.

    In all things, throughout life, there are leaders and followers.

    I don’t agree with this; it’s too limiting. I think there are people inclined to be leaders and people inclined to be followers. I think there are people who can go either way, depending on the situation. I think there are lone wolf/independent operator types who just want to do their own thing and not be bothered. I think there are contrarians who will go against the norm regardless of what the norm is; they rebel for the sake of rebelling. I think there are apathetic types who can’t muster the energy to be much of anything. And I think there are cooperative types who don’t want to lead or follow, but do want to work with partners toward a common goal.

    Some situations require leaders and followers; not all of them do.

    But for the rank and file, in the main, for most people most of the time, that is not the case.

    This might be true. And if your goal is just to shack up with a bunch of indistinguishable ladies, there’s not much need to adapt to the anomalies. But if someone’s goal is to get that one particular person who happens to be an anomaly, then certain principles espoused here might not work so well. Hence the need to tailor one’s approach depending on one’s target.

    The idea that we are individuals bursting with exceptional specialness is sorely overrated, and here even the scientific realms, such as they are, are bearing this out. Yes, there is always something to be said for permutations, but the baseline remains a constant.

    The idea that we all have exceptional specialness is silly. Most people are average, below average, or above average; they are not exceptional.

    But every single person alive is an individual, and even if they might not be all that different from anyone else, it’s still important to know how they are different. Again, to compare it to football, you might be playing a team that’s pretty darn close, in talent and style of play, to the team you played last week, but you still need to take into account and prepare for how they’re different. The one different trick play in their playbook could be the difference between a win and a loss.

    Like


  89. 77 Zamani

    I will ignore the insults based on the fact that you have absolutely no knowledge of me and of who I am as well as from my good guess that I have possibly interacted with (in every way) more women than you could possibly imagine…Ask Mu….and in that experience I have not found any typical women in the sense that they or anyone else can be categorized, yes there is a female sensibility and sexuality however those drives are all in combination with an individual pyschology that is often much more sophisticated than a sexist stereotype can define. I would say the same thing about men. What I see alot of here is a discounting of individuality, especially of the sort that would have to make you interact and generate the interest of a women based on your own genuine attributes and not mind tricks designed to simply bed a women down…which I have done alot of without all the “strategy”. Thats not brainwashing, I dont believe in feminism or masculinism, just people and human individuality. The same ideas about women that are being thrown around here are akin to those that were once openly (and are still privately) attached to African Americans (of which I am one) which I find offensive or just plain simplistic and dumb.

    Whats the difference between believing that ALL women want this one particular approach and someone saying that “In General Black People all want ________”.

    Agreed about individuality… I’m only interested in outlier women, after all, so all the “how to bed an average hot chick” advice would be mostly useless to me even if it was 100% reliable for the stated purpose.

    Nevertheless, there are limits to the “find out exactly what the woman is like, and adapt to that” approach. I’ve been trying that, and, among other things, have found that my lack of spirituality is a consistent problem. I thought that the brilliant women I’ve been interested in would like my total intellectual honesty, but nope, responses ranged from significant disappointment to essentially total disqualification. Sometimes, a failure to correctly stereotype a woman, no matter how much of an outlier they may appear to be, can be irrecoverably fatal.

    I’ve tried my damnedest to treat women entirely as individuals, and I’ve been burned for the last time. I certainly agree with your sentiment. But reality has shown me that I need to stereotype at least a little bit more if I want to succeed.

    Like


  90. 90 Mu’Min

    Ah. Sports analogies! Didn’t know you were into that sort of thing.

    I coached high school football, and grew up cheering for the Huskers (back when they could win a game or two or, you know, a national championship). If a guy came up to me and started talking football, I’d brighten faster than I would if he offered to read my palm. 🙂

    Nevertheless, as you noted, the question, the chief, major question, is, is what is being said true, not in the particular, but in he aggregate?

    I’m not disagreeing with this. But DoJ, for example, was talking about ladies who might well be anomalies, in which case Zamani’s advice — be prepared to adapt — would come in very handy.

    And thank for the “you’re a bright guy” compliment.

    You’re quite welcome. 😀

    Like


  91. 89 zorgon

    It doesn’t have to be astrology, but “cold reading” does seem to be pretty universal stuff among all the Game material that I’ve read. So far, I haven’t really tried it. I probably need to — I’ve finally advanced to the point where I’m getting beyond my old approach anxiety, and now I’m struggling with the next 2 minutes *after* a cold approach. I tend to run out of things to say and the conversation trails off, and so my cold approach success rate is still rather low.

    Really stupid question: what, exactly, is “cold reading?” Is there any form of it that a rationalist atheist like myself can apply without handicapping future intellectual discussion?

    Basically, I need non-opener material that is engaging. It’s hard to build off my day-to-day life because my day-to-day life, in all honesty, is not super exciting, and the stuff that I am (intellectually) passionate about is stuff that women generally find as boring as can be (computers… business… economics…).

    Human psychology, on the other hand, is something that women *are* interested in, and that I’m at least moderately interested in. There’s a whole spectrum of material along these lines. Astrology is at one extreme. In the middle is stuff like the “cube routine”, which I am I kind of iffy on. But there is other stuff I can see using.

    For better or worse, it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the (typical) female mind operates *very* differently than the (typical) male mind. The difference compared to the “geeky male mind” is more extreme still.

    Yes, I’m in exactly the same boat as you here. I’m actually more than moderately interested in psychology… but this doesn’t seem to be enough.

    Like


  92. 84 Zamani

    Elizabeth, thanks for the clarification of my comments.

    You’re welcome. 🙂

    I think alot of this stuff is a way for people to try to codify human behavior because perhaps the sophistication of social interaction that demands understanding and adjusting to the differences within individuals is too much to master for some.

    Yes. That’s not to say I don’t think there are useful guidelines in interacting with people, but you still have to be able to make allowances for individual differences. Especially when you’re dealing with someone extraordinary, for whom a lot of “rules” might not apply at all.

    Like


  93. Mu,

    Theres nothing special about me whatsoever. I have no gift at all man…lol.

    I’m not the type of guy that makes heads turn in women, in fact most people comment on the idea that I actually look “mean” in person until they talked with me.

    For the one women that finds me appealing there are probably 50 that wont, but honestly thats probably the natural odds for most people and due to peoples inherent differences, tastes etc. thats how its supposed to be.

    I learned along time ago that having an approach doesn’t work for me and especially with the sorts of women I find appealing. What I found out as a teen was that just being myself would be a strong appeal to some and not to others and that those were liked a down to earth a guy like me would find me just as appealing as the girl who liked the super extrovert or the macho head etc.

    As a young man I assumed that mimicking someone unlike myself or pretending to be overly aggressive or “act” confident (which is an oxi moron) was the way to deal with the opposite sex and I found out quickly the the types of women I was drawn to the most were turned off by ego and arrogance…even a hint of it.

    Whats different about me as I said before is that women realize quickly that I am trying to get to know them in their entirety, even if im coming on to them, flirting with them etc and that produces a comfort level and a sense of feeling like this person is as concerned about the totality of who they are as they are with my physical attributes.

    There is s no game involved. Although I flirt or make the normal sexual innuendo that goes with the territory of someone you are physically attracted to my conversations with women are often not that different than the ones I have with my platonic friends. I talk about politics, astrology, love, the economy, mundane stuff etc.

    That translates to women intuitively when its genuine but a guy cant generate it when its not sincere.

    Now as I said, I’m definitely not for everyone but certainly the fact that I haven’t had any problems attracting women of all sorts, all physical types, all professions etc. says that there’s somebody for everyone ..to use a popular cliche.

    So if there’s anything that I COULD say about women in a general sense is that beneath their attractions and their tastes in men etc. they DO want someone who is concerned about them in their entirety, unless her sensibilities have been so burned out from her superficial interactions with men or she has harbored some serious bitterness etc.

    Now this obviously isnt going to go over in an enviroment where males are raised to think of women as utility or as a caregiver, or a sexual conquest or as someone to buffer ones Ego but its the honest truth nevertheless.

    Like


  94. DoJ: for a simple example of “cold reading” that I find less questionable than the cube routine, Google the “best friends test.” It’s anti-intellectual pop psychology, yes, but I can see how it is entertaining and “flirty.”

    I think the definition of cold reading is telling people truisms about their personality that make you sound insightful, even though zero insight is actually required. The truisms don’t even have to be accurate; the other person simply just has to want to believe.

    Like


  95. Nature plays itself out in the fact that for the average guy theres is some women out there who will not only be interested in him and who he will find a natural attraction and affinity for but possibly multiple women.

    Of course and individual mans physical appearance and their persona and practical circumstances can limit or assist him.

    From what I know about Astrology, individuals personal preferences and taste and attraction are so highly individualized that almost any sort of person will be appealing to someone somewhere.

    Im my community as an African American there is an 8 to 1 women to men aspect ratio which increases the odds of a guy finding someone whom he is attracted to and compatible with.

    Like


  96. 96 zorgon

    DoJ: for a simple example of “cold reading” that I find less questionable than the cube routine, Google the “best friends test.” It’s anti-intellectual pop psychology, yes, but I can see how it is entertaining and “flirty.”

    *googles* Oh, *pukes*. I absolutely refuse to do something like that unless I am providing at least some quantum of legitimate insight.

    I was conversing with a female friend who had her own very recent breakup, and among other things, I wrote,

    “Now that I think about it, maybe I can actually identify with ***** being nonverbal… since I should be saying things to comfort you, but doing so does require pushing myself out of my comfort zone. I think that this was for the best, and that you will be able to find a man who is able to emotionally fulfill you. But I feel awkward writing such platitudes without being able to directly help it come true, or secret knowledge that it will.”

    Her response:

    “No, no, your instincts are fine. You do not need to say these platitudes. I like how you are when you’re being your natural self. Besides, if you say these platitudes with no actual knowledge that it’ll come true, it weakens your other statements. :)”

    And that reminded me of the biggest reason I behave the way I do (and why she is a good friend).

    So, is there any “cold reading”-style technique that is both effective and doesn’t weaken my credibility if I’m lucky enough to be dealing with a true rationalist woman?

    Like


  97. Elizabeth,
    Ah, there’s the coy you.:) please tell me Elizabeth, *why* is life so much easier for beautiful women? And exactly what *are* the “many ways that ambition pays off for a man?

    The fundaments of Game-Evolutionary Psychology-are quite clear on these points. It is to secure the best chances of mating w/each other, ie, a man finding the choicest female, and vice versa for the female. As base or simplistic as that may be, or come off, that is what Evo-Psych says, and as I’ve said recently to Dr. Czar, I accept its premise.

    So, w/that said, do I accept that there are female anomalies? Absolutely. But, being what they are, they occur much less so than male ones. But I do accept them nonetheless.

    Zam’s point about the cooke cutter approach, whatever that means, is in a way a red herring, given his special status. Of course everything will come accross as exceptional to him; “just be yourself” is all the advice he needs, and again, I have no problem in the least w/that. But such advice does DOJ no good whatsoever, does nothing for David A, does nothing for Zorgon. “Just being themselves” simply ain’t good enough in a time when being a good guy w/a decent job doesn’t mean what it used to. And that’s what a lot of women, and some men, like my good friend of more than a decade Zam, either can’t understand, or refuse to accept. For all its problems, and let’s be clear, there ARE problems, Game has nonetheless given guys who had zero chance to getting some and getting something more out of life, like uh, marriage, a fighting chance. And I say, even while I criticize it on one hand, embrace it with the other, because the alternatives, such as they are, are booty, small “b”.

    Instead of all the knee jerking, why not actually put to the test the fundaments of Game, not in theory but in practice? My dad, God bless his soul, did many of the exact same things that Roissy and others mention, and he’s by no means alone, and yea, they work. And not just on no-name also-rans, but women who are pretty smart.

    My thing is this, why are so many people seemingly so reviled by Game? Particularly women? Hmm? Is it realy because its a cookie cutter thing? Or, maybe its because they know it comes really close to home?

    Again, a man like Zam would have no need for Game, and to that I say, God bless him. Fair enough. Nor has anyone said anything about not being able to adapt and be fluid, if anything Roissy and quite a few others, myself included, have said as much.

    But why knock something that gets what a lot of men want? Is it BECAUSE men are getting something they want? No one said anything when women were able to free themselves up sexually; in fact, its Blasphemous to even fix one’s mouth to say anything against it. Yet, the minute men get any tools at all to balance the scales, there’s a problem. I find that fascinating.

    Don’t you?;)

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  98. Having been places where other atheists and agnostics congregate, there are a few females in that mix. What others say here is true; waxing rationalism with females generally does not work. You have to get at their emotions. But spirituality is only one conduit. There are others.

    My husband is much more spiritually inclined than I am. He is into Mayan astrology, reincarnation and the afterlife. I used to hang out with hard atheists and don’t believe in a God, though I don’t deny the existence of possibilities. I’m an agnostic or soft atheist and a skeptic in general. His spirituality frustrates me often, but I have learned to accept it.

    He is also more nurturing, feeds the cats more regularly, and the cats seem to adore him more. He loves animals and life (is pro-life), and thinks more intuitively. I code and program, whereas he tried to learn but failed. He is good at socializing, “reads” people very well, and usually gives me great emotional support. By the way, he has a face that has both masculine and feminine characteristics.

    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1635527

    Early studies provided some evidence that women rate faces with masculine features such as wider jaws as more attractive, though other research reported that faces with a mixture of masculine and feminine characteristics were generally rated most attractive.

    The present (2006) study provides the first direct evidence that women’s attractiveness judgments specifically track both men’s affinity for children and men’s hormone concentrations.

    Given that men’s testosterone concentrations and interest in infants scores were uncorrelated, the present results furthermore suggest the possibility that there exist somewhat independent indices of men’s genetic and paternal quality rather than a single dimension in which the two aspects of mate quality trade off against one another.

    Like


  99. DoJ:

    I absolutely refuse to do something like that unless I am providing at least some quantum of legitimate insight.

    Well, then I think that rules out cold reading. It sounds like your interest in psychology is in, well, *real* psychology rather than just pop psych. 🙂 Interestingly enough, one of the main legitimate criticisms of the evo psych we all toss around on sites like this that it *is* dangerously close to just being pop psych, and that it can be used to “explain” just about any phenomenon you can think of by just coming up with a plausible-sounding (yet often untrue) Darwinian story to back it up.

    I found your email from your URL, so I’ll email you off the site shortly. I definitely get where you are coming from here, so I’d be happy to exchange ideas.

    Like


  100. You know, there’s this undertone of “these guys just want sex from these women!” that I find, to be frank, disgusting. So long as no one gets hurt, what is the harm? As T pointed out to Zam a little while back, and to which Zam has yet to actually respond if I recall, no one says anything when women use evrything plus the kitchen sink to appear attractive and stack the cards in their favor. The issue is only w/the men. Now, if THAT ain’t Sexism, I don’t know what is.

    Roissy is 100% right when he says that man has a birthright to enjoy sex w/beautiful women, at least to the best of his ability,and Game can help the man not born w/Zam’s prodigious gifts do just that. In this I see no crime, no one forced any woman out into the bar or club, no woman made them get gussied up, etc.

    And again, we keep skirting the question: DOES GAME WORK? And no, I’m not talking about the needle in the haystack person, that’s a red herring. Does it work, or not? And if it does work, what’s the problem? What is so wrong w/men wanting sex? Aren’t we all adults here?

    Including women?

    Comments?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  101. Zam,
    W/all due respect, the issue here is just not “any woman” if that were the case Game would be questionable in its need and utility. The question is in bedding down the choice females. Now, one can disagree with that, fair enough, but no one takes women to task for wanting the most successful man they can find. And yea I know, all women don’t do that, but enough of them do.

    And as for astrology, I’d argue that there things are more the same than different. Think about it. What is the single biggest question asked of any astrologer, anywhere, at anytime?

    Oh, btw, a question was asked by, not sure if it was Zorgon, DOJ, etc, as to whether atheism and astrology can coexist or words to that effect if I recall alright. My answer is that astrology can operate, quite well in fact, w/o any recourse to religion at all.

    Anyway Zam, again, not knocking you in the least for what you’ve been able to accomplish. But I think for the average to a bit above, things like Game ain’t all bad.

    Holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  102. on October 6, 2008 at 3:18 am ironrailsironweights

    Nothing is more delicious than a thick, rich, luxuriant bush.

    Peter

    Like


  103. 57 PA

    (1) Get yourself in order. Clothers. Hair. Shoes. Fingernails. Hit the gym. Learn and practice the principles of “Game,” which to me always boiled down to the three elements: (a) being a challenge; (b) having self-confidence; and (c) having self-control.

    (2) Hit on women. If your goal is to find someone for LTR, screen out gold diggers, feminists, and psychoes. If you feel yourself pulled toward women who are “bad news,” then make sure you’re not dealing with one of the four types of Heartbreakers that Clio writes about here and on her blog.

    (3) Once you meet a girl who is over your attractiveness threshold and has a good personality (is loyal, giving, and has integrity — observe her for red flags) don’t think that you’ve crossed the finish line. You’ve just come to a new starting line. It’s easy to get a girl. It’s harder to keep her. Game is a lifetime practice.

    This doesn’t deal with a few of my individual problems, but nevertheless, good comment.

    I think I’m pretty good with (1). I’m health-conscious and keep myself in good shape; I’m on the skinny side, but I hit the gym sometimes. I plan to increase my frequency of gym visits, but I won’t be obsessive since there are rapidly diminishing returns. I’m rather self-confident and -controlled until a relationship or possibility of one appears to be legitimately falling apart, at which point I’m prone to making a pretty major embarrassment of myself, but in some cases that might be a feature rather than a bug (I’m forced to move on quickly).

    As for (2), okay, I don’t do this enough. I’m only genuinely interested in brilliant outliers, and since I don’t hit on anyone else I haven’t gained much experience. On the other hand, all of my instincts are geared toward nurturing a lifelong relationship, and this makes it tough to “practice”; in architecting short-term “practice” relationships, I’ll be fighting against every fiber of my being. But I guess I’ll just have to suck it up, if without such practice I’ll always quickly scare away the women with whom a LTR could actually work.

    At least I seem to be naturally good at (3) as soon as I’m actually in a relationship, though. Though I’m concerned that I’ll have to destroy some of what makes me good at this in the process of getting past (2)…

    Like


  104. 104 Mu’Min

    Oh, btw, a question was asked by, not sure if it was Zorgon, DOJ, etc, as to whether atheism and astrology can coexist or words to that effect if I recall alright. My answer is that astrology can operate, quite well in fact, w/o any recourse to religion at all.

    Okay, that’s encouraging. What source would you recommend for this?

    Like


  105. all of my instincts are geared toward nurturing a lifelong relationship, and this makes it tough to “practice”; in architecting short-term “practice” relationships, I’ll be fighting against every fiber of my being.

    I thought I was only interested in LTRs, until I actually got in one. Then I realized how screwed up it was.

    Granted, a big part of the reason was that it was with someone I was fundamentally incompatible with in a number of ways. But, honestly, coming out of that experience, I concluded: wow, this sure is overrated. Nothing wrong with the single life.

    I certainly don’t see a lot of women around who I would be interested in a serious LTR with.

    That doesn’t mean I’m not interested in sex with them. And, as Mu said, “What is so wrong w/men wanting sex?”

    Like


  106. Women often overestimate the power they have over men, and the pull of their beauty.

    Power is a dynamic thing, a push and a give. The yin does not swallow and overwhelm the yang, nor vice versa. They are in symmetry.

    Men often overestimate the allure of sexual attraction over long-term mate selection for women. During ovulation a woman is most prone to short-term dalliances, but many women still want intimate, fulfilling and stable relationships.

    You know, there’s this undertone of “these guys just want sex from these women!” that I find, to be frank, disgusting. So long as no one gets hurt, what is the harm?

    Does it work, or not? And if it does work, what’s the problem? What is so wrong w/men wanting sex? Aren’t we all adults here?

    A woman who engages in too much casual sex might be seen as a “loose” woman, lacking in self-control, and be prone to cheating after marriage. Not that these perceptions are necessarily correct, but many men do place a high emphasis on sexual fidelity in their mates.

    A few mentioned previously on this blog that such activity tend to desensitize a woman to casual sex and strong long-term bonding. They are therefore “lesser value” in the eyes of a man seeking marriage. This is especially the case in cultures that have more traditional values. The new Western paradigm of the “hook up culture” is a rarity in itself.

    My thing is this, why are so many people seemingly so reviled by Game? Particularly women?

    My husband hates game more than I do. His critique is that game seems to be focused on the chase and taking power in the short term. The culture is focused on beginnings and what is new and exciting, so the stale old tail gets tossed aside. I think that is the primary objection — people tend not to like being seen as objects. Men would probably not want to be taken as mere ATM machines or dildos, nor women as simply baby makers or moist holes. It is the loss of humanity and respect that he despises.

    With regard to long-term relationships, it is important to keep sexual attraction going through some sort of “fun game,” but also important (perhaps more so) are compromise, sensitivity towards each other, letting go of expectations, honest communication, mutual acceptance and tolerance, real forgiveness, and other such stereotypical but important relationship truisms.

    Like


  107. why are so many people seemingly so reviled by Game? […] [Hope’s husband’s critique] is that game seems to be focused on the chase and taking power in the short term.

    Don’t get me wrong, I see a huge problem with Game. Namely, it is (ahem) a zero-sum game.

    I’m an economics geek. All my economics training tells me that we want a society where individuals’ self-interest is harnessed in positive-sum, not zero-sum or negative-sum activities.

    A big part of Game is status-seeking: increasing your perceived status. (I won’t say “actual status” because, as far as I can tell, perceived status is the *only* kind of status) By definition, status-seeking activities cannot be positive-sum.

    I don’t have any moral qualms with using Game myself. I *do* have a qualm with a society where individuals are forced into status-seeking activity in order to live a happy life.

    I don’t like the rules of the game, but I didn’t design them. Since I can’t change them, I am stuck playing the game as it exists.

    Like


  108. DoJ, much of the advice here is for men who are looking to approach ravishing beauties in clubs where they compete for the beauties’ attention with many other men, often men with money, good looks, and charisma. I suspect the advice works more often than not, and that it may even lead to real “relationships” in some cases.

    But trying to find an intellectual woman, which seems to be what you want, in a club or an ordinary bar is difficult. Not impossible; intellectual girls like a dance and a drink too – but in venues like that you can’t easily pick out the ones who are. Plus, it’s tough to have a witty or intellectual talk when you’re shouting over loud music, and you’ll be competing with many aggressive, smooth men.

    So perhaps you need to read up on “day game”, as these fellows call it, and start hanging out in places where the women you want are likely to hang out. Go to bookstores, university libraries, cafes where people read the New York Times and play chess all day – that sort of thing. And work on the kind of repartee you can use on the women you find there.

    Clio

    Like


  109. I thought I was only interested in LTRs, until I actually got in one. Then I realized how screwed up it was.

    Granted, a big part of the reason was that it was with someone I was fundamentally incompatible with in a number of ways. But, honestly, coming out of that experience, I concluded: wow, this sure is overrated. Nothing wrong with the single life.

    I certainly don’t see a lot of women around who I would be interested in a serious LTR with.

    Neither do I. On the other hand, even though my previous LTR experience was screwed up, I’m still certain that a LTR is the only thing of interest to me. I want to form an incredibly deep bond with my partner. And I want to raise a family, too. Marriage may be obsolete for Roissy’s objectives, but not for mine.

    That doesn’t mean I’m not interested in sex with them. And, as Mu said, “What is so wrong w/men wanting sex?”

    Nothing. That just isn’t enough for me, though.

    Like


  110. 111 Clio

    But trying to find an intellectual woman, which seems to be what you want, in a club or an ordinary bar is difficult. Not impossible; intellectual girls like a dance and a drink too – but in venues like that you can’t easily pick out the ones who are. Plus, it’s tough to have a witty or intellectual talk when you’re shouting over loud music, and you’ll be competing with many aggressive, smooth men.

    Oh, I have no intention of ever trying to pick up girls in a bar. (Heck, my hearing is a little sketchy as it is; the last thing I need is loud music…)

    So perhaps you need to read up on “day game”, as these fellows call it, and start hanging out in places where the women you want are likely to hang out. Go to bookstores, university libraries, cafes where people read the New York Times and play chess all day – that sort of thing. And work on the kind of repartee you can use on the women you find there.

    Okay, thanks. I’ll focus on this.

    Like


  111. Intellectual, even nerdy, girls can definitely be found in bars. I had a date with one earlier this week. From appearances I would never have guessed — her real personality and interests were radically different than the stereotypes that her appearance immediately called to mind.

    There is no shame in bar pickup. Well, at least for guys. Heck, as a guy, among guys, “I picked her up in a bar” should always be a badge of pride.

    Like


  112. 98 Mu’Min

    please tell me Elizabeth, *why* is life so much easier for beautiful women?

    For more reasons than just to find a mate, believe it or not. 🙂 It means that people are attracted to you, and not just in a sexual way. It’s easier for beautiful women to make friends, get jobs, and get things done for them. It’s easier to get help in stores — to get help in pretty much anything, really. Studies have actually been done on this, and the evidence shows that people are friendlier, more helpful, and more eager to please with a beautiful woman. That means people of both genders. Not just men.

    And it means compliments, compliments, compliments, from people who are not family and friends, all the time, which are nice to get. It means getting asked to model for the school publications on your first day of college. It means being told by a bum on the street that when he dies, he hopes the angels in heaven have smiles like yours. It means random people walk up to you all the time and tell you that you’re beautiful. And that helps. It helps a lot. Especially when you’re having a rotten day.

    It means getting noticed. And that makes all the difference in the world.

    And exactly what *are* the “many ways that ambition pays off for a man?

    Achieving something worth achieving. Leaving your mark on the world. Having the satisfaction of knowing that you left things better than you found them. Doing something interesting, something that absorbs you. Doing something that you love — something that you love as much as any person.

    Sex, attraction — they’re important. But there’s a lot more to life than just that. Eating is important, too. But we’re more than the sum of our base appetites. If we weren’t, the arts, the sciences, civilization itself wouldn’t exist. We’d just be feeding, screwing, and sleeping all the time. There’s something inherent in the human soul, the desire to strive for something more — the desire to live for the pursuit of knowledge and the good, as Dante would say — and thank God for that. It’d be a pretty boring world otherwise.

    Instead of all the knee jerking, why not actually put to the test the fundaments of Game, not in theory but in practice?

    What knee jerking? I’ve already said that on at least some people, it works just fine.

    But why knock something that gets what a lot of men want?

    How did I knock it? I said for the outliers, you’ll need to adapt. That’s not knocking it. That’s just saying it won’t work on everyone in Creation.

    Nor has anyone said anything about not being able to adapt and be fluid, if anything Roissy and quite a few others, myself included, have said as much.

    Zamari said, quite sensibly, that people are individuals. That one size doesn’t necessarily fit all. I agreed with him. That’s all. I never said that everyone else here denied the need to adapt. I said that certain approaches might not work for everyone, and that it’s smart to adapt to the individual if you can. Especially if you’re interested in the outliers, as DoJ indicated he was. Because while game rules might work on women who are “pretty smart” or even very smart, they won’t necessarily work on everyone. I know that a lot of the stuff that gets tossed around here, stuff that a lot of women apparently like, would reduce me to tears and make me never, ever want to deal with that person again, because I am extremely sensitive. (Extremely sensitive = outlier.)

    Yet, the minute men get any tools at all to balance the scales, there’s a problem. I find that fascinating.

    Don’t you?;)

    Mu’Min, I’ll be honest with you. A lot of women think that the playing field doesn’t need to be leveled at all because men already have the advantage in that they don’t have hearts. Now, of course that’s not true. Men have emotions, and can feel quite strongly, but because they don’t show them like women do, it often seems like they don’t.

    So yes, it is fascinating, but in a disheartening way. And when the apparent solution is for men to one-up women by using game, or for women to one-up men by using the Rules, I don’t blame people for being disgusted and wanting to opt out. Yes, it might work, yes, it might all be true, but to what avail? If your goal is a relationship where you can truly be yourself, it doesn’t matter if game will get you all the sex in the world: that’s not what you want. So by all means, let the people who want to use game use it, and use it well. And the people who don’t want to use it can hold out for what they want. They might not get it. But I think they already realize that, and are willing to accept the consequences.

    100 Mu’Min

    You know, there’s this undertone of “these guys just want sex from these women!” that I find, to be frank, disgusting. So long as no one gets hurt, what is the harm?

    If all the woman wants is sex, too, there is no harm. If the woman wants more, but gives in anyway, she’s a damned fool. If the guy is manipulating her and pretending to love her just to get sex, he’s a louse and a scumbag, but I don’t think anyone here is advocating that.

    Roissy is 100% right when he says that man has a birthright to enjoy sex w/beautiful women, at least to the best of his ability

    No one has the birthright to anything, and the sooner we all lose our bloated sense of entitlement, the better off our country will be.

    And again, we keep skirting the question: DOES GAME WORK?

    Who’s been skirting it?

    And no, I’m not talking about the needle in the haystack person, that’s a red herring.

    Not in the context of this discussion. DoJ was asking about outlier women.

    What is so wrong w/men wanting sex?

    Who here has suggested that it’s wrong?

    Like


  113. Hope,
    Good thoughts, as always.

    I think the issue that Game really highlights, is just how much the social and relationship and marital and sexual landscape has changed, and it puts a spotlight on a heretofore wholly neglected group, younger men. As Whiskey and others point out, all a guy had to focus on was being a good provider and a decent guy. Not anymore. If you’re those things today, you get treated like a Stop sign. I don’t like saying that but its largely true. And in a time where no one will jump all over any woman for “refusing to settle” its amazing how so many people, men and women alike, will read a guy the riot act for wanting the most delicious looking woman he can pull.

    And as for marriage-which I strongly support btw-remember, in the modern era, it was women who wanted out. Divorce stats don’t lie. Now that guys are starting to adjust we’re hearing about the whole deal about guys not wanting to commit. Yea, riiiiiight…

    Again, there are areas of concern w/Game as I learn more about it and some of its key founders and concepts. But there’s too much “there” there to totally dismiss it, and this is where I think a lot of people have their own problems w/Game, because they cannot simply out of hand dismiss it themselves.

    Hope, I’m w/you on what it takes to make a longterm thing, marriage work, but even there, Game plays a role, because women will still test you. I’m telling you, this I know from hardwon experience, not barbershop talk or internet theory. Now, one can quibble to *what* degree it should play a role. But it DOES ply a role.

    I remember when Viagra came on the scene back last decade, and all the handwringing and the like started, and hasn’t really stopped: why do men have to have that?!, that’s what I distinctly remember hearing mostly women saying, and in more recent times all the flapping around wrt insurance companies covering Viagra, etc but not birth control. Man, you would have thought Armageddon was nigh.

    I have always been very skeptical of the notion of “Equality” that has been pushed so hard by SOME women (want to be careful I emphasize this, LOL!); there has never been a movement toward equality, but of special interests.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  114. I have not found any typical women in the sense that they or anyone else can be categorized, yes there is a female sensibility and sexuality however those drives are all in combination with an individual pyschology that is often much more sophisticated than a sexist stereotype can define. I would say the same thing about men.

    this is the voice of a man who has been close to a lot of women. The men who believe most fervrently that “women are an alien species” are guys who haven’t been intimate with a lot of women. Women are most different from men in the initial pickup stages of seeking casual sex. After that stage, her individuality comes out and her particular personality shows itself — and that’s when the universal human similarities show themselves.

    this is useless in the face of the atheism problem. Once I’ve told a woman I’m an atheist, and they find it unacceptable, there’s no second chance.

    something for DoJ and all the guys who have trouble with the “spirituality” thing — just come up with a line where you refigure your atheism or skepticism as a spiritual committment, and talk about it in that way. Anyone who believes in something larger than themselves (i.e. anyone who thinks) should be able to repackage that as a “spirituality”. Just remember, you need to describe it as a passionate/emotional experience, an epiphany, not a dry analysis. If you’re an atheist who believes in evolution, talk about watching a plant in the woods and being overcome by the beauty of how perfectly adapted it was to its environment, blah blah blah. This kind of thing totally works.

    Like


  115. 101 Hope

    Having been places where other atheists and agnostics congregate, there are a few females in that mix. What others say here is true; waxing rationalism with females generally does not work. You have to get at their emotions. But spirituality is only one conduit. There are others.

    Yes. I still don’t know what conduit can work for me, though.

    One other thing that has occurred to me is, the spirituality issue may be one of the root causes of Asian males’ dating problems. East Asians tend to be less spiritual than whites (though you wouldn’t know it from my dad’s side of my extended family, all evangelical Christians, and even some missionaries among them…). Given the gender difference in this trait, this works in favor of East Asian females and against East Asian males.

    Like


  116. Elizabeth,
    I gotta address the “entitlement” piece.
    By all accounts, Roissy’s and others, there ain’t hardly no “gimme gimme” thing going on here or elsewhere, if anything its the other way around, where lots and lots of women feel THEY ARE ENTITLED to the best men available. I see it all the time in Black America, and from what I can tell it ain’t that different in White America, too. If a player is getting laid, you can best believe he done put in some serious work to make that happen. And I say that if a man works hard and does his due dilligence yea, he should be able to reap the reward.

    As for what women want, well I think the theory of Evo-Psych, as well as the actions of millions of women, speak to that quite well. Men are just more vocal about it. And again, I do not see that in itself as a bad thing.

    Of course there are other important things to life, but this venue isn’t devoted to them per se, though I do like when e kinda veer off and cover other topics too. But let’s not fool ourselves, that Sexual I’d thing is DEEP, a lot deeper than many of us would want to admit. Again, no problem there insofar as I’m concerned.

    And, I’m not indicting you, Elizabeth, as far as I’m concerned we’re brown. You ain’t done nothing to me. I guess I’m just putting the questions out there in a more rhetorical sense, because as I see the replies coming in from various quarters on the Web, I’m a bit concerned about that.

    Again: Zam’s point isn’t lot on me, nor is DOJ’s, although I think both are a bit misplaced here. Both are seeking something that may not be completely in line with the goal is here, which is for guys who ain’t gettin’ no action to get laid. That is a fundamentally incompatible idea or concept for the vast majority of the bulk and mass of women, because all they gotta do to get some action is spread their legs. I takes a little more work for a guy. Especially if they ain’t born like Zam.

    As for DOJ, even if he’s looking for the outlier, his social skills, at present, are such that his chances of meeting her are low to middling at best, and I’m being generous, no disrespect. Getting Game will at least put him in the running.

    More in a sec…

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  117. I think that the biggest problem with all of this is that it reduces the level of interactions between men and women to an adolescent game of hunt and chase and while that might be suitable enough for some, there are “higher levels of interaction between a man and a woman” to coin a phrase from Wynton Marsalis.

    Also to extend what I was saying about the differentials, people seek out mates for very different reasons and are turned on and/or repulsed for very different reasons as well.

    Some people seek out partnerships for the soley practical reasons, the comfort of someones presence, someone to split the bill and make the daily living situation a bit easier.

    Other seeks out intellectual stimulation primarily in a relationship.

    Others seek out emotional gratification only

    Others sexual gratification only etc.

    Like


  118. Mu, you tell it like it is! Respect…

    I think your points are still applicable for someone like DOJ. I don’t care what you *think* you’re looking for… I think you owe it to yourself to sample what’s out there first, because you will probably change your mind once you see the diversity of what womankind has to offer, and how things actually work. My ideas on what the perfect woman would be 5 years ago are fairly different than now. I wouldn’t claim that I know for sure now, either — I still need more experience.

    Anyway, if it’s all a big screening process, the more selective your screening, the *more* women you are going to have to meet to find one who passes your screening. If you’re OK with any girl who will open her legs, you can probably get by meeting only a small number of women. If you seriously want a beautiful, brainy girl, you’d better be working the numbers.

    Like


  119. MQ,
    The kind of psychobabble you quoted from my buddy Zam is just the kind of rap a lot of women want to hear, its a soothing balm to the ear and eyes. And as one who grew up in a home full of women I can vouch for a heck of a lot of what Master Roissy and others say here. In some ways, yes, women ARE “alien”, just as I’m sure we come accross that way to them, and guess what, THAT’S OK.

    This notion of resisting anything and everything that approaches any kind of meta understanding of life is not wise its in fact silly. For anyone to refuse to recognize the basic differences between men and women, especially in a sexual sense, is to refuse to recognize Reality in its most basic sense.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  120. 114 zorgon

    Intellectual, even nerdy, girls can definitely be found in bars. I had a date with one earlier this week. From appearances I would never have guessed — her real personality and interests were radically different than the stereotypes that her appearance immediately called to mind.

    Can they be found there? Yes.

    Is that the most efficient way to search for them? Hell no.

    Like


  121. Zam,
    I for one am certainly not against any “higher interaction” w/women of any stripe, not at all; what this site aims to do is something that just gets under the craw of many, and THAT’S TO GET AS MANY GUYS AS POSSIBLE LAID BY AS MANY CHOICE FEMALES AS POSSIBLE.
    And Amen to that.

    Having said that, let’s not front, Wynton done seen a good bit of both Higher Interaction and Hip & Peliv Action, too. They can co-exist, no doubt.

    Can I get an Amen?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  122. 121 zorgon

    Anyway, if it’s all a big screening process, the more selective your screening, the *more* women you are going to have to meet to find one who passes your screening. If you’re OK with any girl who will open her legs, you can probably get by meeting only a small number of women. If you seriously want a beautiful, brainy girl, you’d better be working the numbers.

    For whatever it’s worth, I pretty much don’t care about beautiful. The second-to-last woman I fell hard for was a skin picker, and would have been rather plain/borderline butterface looking even without that. But her mental energy captivated me for an entire year. (And, um… okay, I have to admit that I really liked how she touched me… it’s not all bad when the woman compulsively needs to do something with her hands…) I do want a woman in reasonable shape, and yes, that does exclude a lot of the most desperate (but even when it comes to fat women, I’m willing to very, very patiently support them in getting into shape; I only care about the long-term). But overall, my rating scale is almost orthogonal to that of most men.

    Like


  123. For anyone to refuse to recognize the basic differences between men and women, especially in a sexual sense, is to refuse to recognize Reality in its most basic sense.

    Oh, if only I could go back and have a “redo” on those dates I went on back in my delusional days when I figured that, on your first date with a girl, you should just treat her the exact same way you would treat a male friend… well, except for hoping (yes, hoping!) that she would be so nice as to kiss you at the end…

    Like


  124. 119 Mu’Min

    As for DOJ, even if he’s looking for the outlier, his social skills, at present, are such that his chances of meeting her are low to middling at best, and I’m being generous, no disrespect. Getting Game will at least put him in the running.

    Not denying this. I’m prepared to study and grow strong.

    However, there’s a lot of standard Game that I have to ignore since it filters out the girls I actually want while attracting those I don’t want to waste time on. As Clio noted, it’s really “day game” that matters to me.

    Like


  125. hope:
    people tend not to like being seen as objects. Men would probably not want to be taken as mere ATM machines or dildos, nor women as simply baby makers or moist holes. It is the loss of humanity and respect that he despises.

    being objectified is a part of humanity, like taking a piss or betraying a friend.

    Like


  126. “being objectified is a part of humanity, like taking a piss or betraying a friend.”

    or portaging deep into the arctic circle before realizing you’ve forgotten space snacks, google maps and tampons. humanity.

    Like


  127. on October 6, 2008 at 6:18 am Comment_Not_So_Much

    87 Mu’Min
    ****
    The idea that we are individuals bursting with exceptional specialness is sorely overrated, and here even the scientific realms, such as they are, are bearing this out. Yes, there is always something to be said for permutations, but the baseline remains a constant.
    ****

    ****
    First, Zam: I consider Zam to be a rare anomoly, which I completely and wholly accept. He is one of those rare men who was born w/The Gift. It is my view that no one should listen to his advice because they can never do what he does. No dis to Doug or any other man in the room, but if I were a betting man I’d lay serious odds that Zam has talked to, dated and bedded more women per capita over the past decade than anyone else here, present company included. As I’ve said before, he doesn’t keep phone numbers in a cellie or rolodex or blackbook, he uses spreadsheets. I’ve seen them.
    ****

    ****
    Because he’s kind of a freak, I ain’t in no way mad at Zam. Hey, some people’s got it, and he won the lottery in that regard.
    ****
    So Zamani’s success is just innate… and he’s a silly guy for believing the things he does. Cause you know, if his spectacular success wasn’t “innate”, but actually the result of his skill and understanding, then Mu’Min couldn’t dismiss him. How cool is that. A Grand Master questions his opinions and he dismisses the Grand Master. How very realistic and objective of him.

    Generalities are good only because sometimes you don’t know the individual well enough to interact with that person as an individual. So you use a general technique/understanding because it beats standing there with your mouth open. And it does. People should learn general techniques. I am all for it. Zamani has simply reached the point of excessive skill and understanding that he never needs to fall back on a general technique. Because that is what a generalization is. A fall-back that mostly works. Generalizations are a needed and necessary evil. They work… mostly. And if you are in a position where you usually fail, then mostly working is great.

    Main Stream Science’s opinions on the ‘uniqueness’ of individuals is completely untrustworthy. Scientist are pressured to conform just as much… more actually… as everyone else in this day and age. When people say “Science has proved”, what they are really saying is “Those who want to keep their job say”. Many great scientists do stand up to Main Stream Science, and the degree of petty visciousness visited on these scientists is extreme.

    Lately, Main Stream Science has destroyed James Watson, a great man of science, fired him from his own foundation, because he said people are different in a great many ways. Here is his statement:

    “We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things. The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity. It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science.”

    “This is not science.”

    “Everyone is alike” IS the position of Main Stream Science and sighting a difference in people is why Watson was fired. Not racial, nor individual, nor gender differences shall be tolerated. James Watson was a silly Grand Master for questioning this.

    What’s interesting in this specific case, though, is Mu’Min actually personally knows the Grand Master who is disagreeing with him. And Mu’Min still ignores him. But Mu’Min doesn’t hold his disagreement against the Grand Master. How cool is that. I do however hold Mu’Min’s disagreement against him. To a degree that actually surprises me.

    Like


  128. DoJ,

    my wife is formally and substantially an atheist and I’m nominally Evangelic-Lutheran (I value the rituals). My philosophy is transhumanism as yours seems to be, too.

    Intellectually, my wife and I have little in common, except for the atheism. I don’t connect with her on an intellectual plane at all – she thinks transhumanism is a bunch of crazy talk. But I don’t expect to. The only implications of the differences in our world views are long-term financial. I’m relatively stingy with money because I want to be able to afford life extension treatments when I need them, should they be available. But this isn’t a huge problem because when the first really effective life extension treatments might be on the market within the next 20-30 years, we will both benefit from them. And there is a good chance my parents will still be around at that time, making the inheritance at our disposal too early. I’m pretty convinced that the only people willing to turn their backs on effective, safe, and affordable treatments extending healthspan are religious wackos. If she’s still not interested, I will not be going to the grave with her.

    Like


  129. To Comment Not So Much,
    I’m not sure I follow the intent of your post, so perhaps you could clarify?

    All I’m saying is that, for Zam or anyone else to “just be yourself” may be all well and good for someone like *himself*, but for other guys, just “being themselves” will virtually guarantee yet another night alone. They need something more than that and somewhat played out platitudes of how everyone is a snowflake.

    Having known the man for more than a decade I can tell any and everyone here that Zam is NOT the norm in many ways, and trying to emulate him may not in fact be such a good idea for guys who have trouble talking to a fireplug.

    In the case of Roissy, there’s a set system where, if something goes wrong, one can go back and find out where and why, even take him to task on it. Not so for Zam.

    You and I agree on generalizations though, as well as the next part of your post…

    Because I agree w/you that Watson was railroaded out of his job, NOT for saying something that was scientifically invalid or wrong, but saying something that was politically incorrect. And lets be clear here, I’m Black, and am all for furthering researches into the connection between Race & IQ, and will have no problem should it be proven without a shadow of a doubt that Black folk didn’t win out in the intelligence lottery. The world will not explode, and so on. Maybe it will explain things about us as human beings, of maybe it will do nothing at all. But I’m all for the scientific effort.

    So yea, we agree on the long documented nature of the politicization of Science, no doubt.

    But I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here; Evo-Psych doesn’t speak much to variance in “g” between races, because “g” doesn’t really factor in much here. If that were the case, Princeton Herb would never need to write Roissy for help, and many of the guys here who it can be assumed are much smarter than the average, wouldn’t be here asking for advice, right? And, it has been shown and proven that past a certain point, being too smart, male or female, actually works against you in the Rumpy Bumpy Dept. So w/all due respect I think your analogy may not be apt.

    Again though, I need clarification on your post, particularly the “Zam” part. Thanks.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  130. Hope:

    Men would probably not want to be taken as mere ATM machines or dildos, nor women as simply baby makers or moist holes. It is the loss of humanity and respect that he despises.

    Frankly, my bachelorhood would have been a whole lot more fun, had more women been willing to take me for a mere dildo. 🙂 But I do resent the notion of being used as a mere ATM.

    Like


  131. hope: I think that is the primary objection — people tend not to like being seen as objects. Men would probably not want to be taken as mere ATM machines or dildos, nor women as simply baby makers or moist holes. It is the loss of humanity and respect that he despises.

    People love objectification when the price is right.

    People don’t like to be objectified as clogs in money-making machines — but for a monthly wage, they’ll do it.

    Women don’t want to be objectified as moist holes — unless it’s for an alpha male.

    Men don’t like to be objectified as ATMs — unless it’s for guaranteed lay.

    (And as Markku pointed out, men objectified as dildos is a moot point — most men would gladly do so for free.)

    Like


  132. Just want to address a few things and express some random thoughts.

    Taking it back to the original topic of this thread, the gal Roissy responds to is a perfect case in point of how women, not all, but a lot more than many of us are willing to admit, don’t give a damn about most guys. She makes clear that she has no intention of putting out, but, as Roissy calls her out on, she has no problem w/making Princeton Herb suffer. Blue balls is real. You think she cares, though? To ask the question is to answer it.

    It would be different if girlfriend simply told Herb, look Herb, you’re a nice guy and all that, but I have no intention of giving you any ass right now, probably not ever. So if that’s what you want, you might want to go elsewhere, no hard feelings.

    Now, fellas, tell the truth, how many women actually do that?

    And, how many times do women shoot down guys mercilessly like a fighter jet for simply saying hello and trying to start up a conversation? How many women have done that very thing, in THIS forum? And/or, have watched one of their girlfriends do it, and not say one damn thing about it-maybe even cosigned it?

    Again, to ask the question, is to answer it.

    And as for this “objectification” business, what a joke. The past few posters have made the point very, very well, that “objectification” whatever the heck that means, is part of life and part of being an adult is in dealing with things you may not be particularly crazy about.

    Earlier I took some flak for suggesting, strongly, that women are not the equals of men. One of the reasons why I say that is because men can and will put up with and accept far more unpleasantness in life overall far and away over most women. The proof is in the workplace. Women ain’t doing the sh*tjobs we all need to survive, bottomline, and no, I ain’t trying to hear the stuff about differences in strength and so on, because it don’t take no strength to pull the trigger in the army, and it don’t take much strength to operate equipment and machinery in heavy industry.

    And since I work in that field, I can tell you that every woman who was hired to work on the shop floor w/us was gone in a week; simply put, they ain’t too keen to work in extreme conditions, on their feet, operating machinery that could lop a finger or a hand or an arm off, to the tune of 60-plus hours a week.

    And again, I remember when “The Rules” came out, and it got nowhere near as much sheer scorn as any of the Game books or sites. In fact, you can’t even go to sites where women get together to talk shop and even fix your mouth to disagree; at least we all could get w/Roissy about banning someone-you try and disagree at those women’s sites, and report back the results. They’ll ban your butt w/the quickness, and then bust on you while you can’t come back to defend yourself-yet another reason why I say that men and women are not equal. Men are more committed to fairness than are women.

    Now again, for like the umpteenth time, I have some degree of criticism for Game and some of the voices within it. But they are like a pimple on an elephant’s behind when put up against the gazillion books, and sites, and this and that, giving women all kinds of advice and how to’s and edge in the dating world; the “Seven Sisters” alone, both in influence and sheer quantity, bears witness to this fact. Yet even the relatively small corner of the world in which Game emanates, is derided in many quarters.

    That has to give one pause, I know it does for me. It means to me that there’s a there, there.

    “S” says this site is a “guilty pleasure” for her. Perhaps next time she might consider pleading the Fifth.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  133. You men forget the implications of being objectified as a mere dildo. It means that you will be valued only for the optimal size, girth and shape of your penis. The average penis size is a lot smaller than the average dildo size.

    The price being “right” is still too expensive for certain people with integrity and character. In a money-worship culture where God is on the dollar and dollar is God, most people are mercenaries, and a few people are money atheists.

    Also, there are different casual sex implications for women vs. men — it tends to lower a woman’s market value (down to a point in Western society, though in other societies virginity is still number 1) and tends to raise a man’s market value (up to a point until a man contracts STDs).

    Like


  134. 135 Mu’Min

    Earlier I took some flak for suggesting, strongly, that women are not the equals of men. One of the reasons why I say that is because men can and will put up with and accept far more unpleasantness in life overall far and away over most women.

    Mu’Min, this is flat out wrong. Men might take more labor-intensive jobs, that’s true. Men might like to get in the dirt more. That doesn’t mean they’re stronger, at least not in the way that counts. The kind of strength that counts most in the world is character strength, the strength not to be broken by the world. My mother, grandmothers, and great-grandmothers all went through times that would have shattered most men into a million tiny pieces. They went through those times unscathed, and without complaint. Because the frontier doesn’t allow for any other kind of woman — or any other kind of man.

    Physical strength might be a gender feature. Emotional strength, courage, character — these are not. Of all things, the thing I abhor the most is cowardice. And I know that I’ve been willing to stand up, take risks, and defend people — often males — when none of the boys or men around me were willing to. Not just verbally. Physically as well. I know how to fight. You don’t grow up in a family like mine and not know.

    Now, I see you put the qualifier “most” in there, meaning you’re willing to grant that there are exceptions. But I still disagree with you. Not because I think women are stronger than men, but because most people, male and female, are weak. Especially in times like ours, when life is too easy and the setbacks are too small to build some real endurance.

    Women ain’t doing the sh*tjobs we all need to survive, bottomline, and no, I ain’t trying to hear the stuff about differences in strength and so on, because it don’t take no strength to pull the trigger in the army, and it don’t take much strength to operate equipment and machinery in heavy industry.

    Try owning and running your own homestead. Because that’s what my great-grandmother did. On her own. No man to help her. Try doing that, and get back to me. Unless you’re saying that farming isn’t one of those jobs we all need to survive.

    Men are more committed to fairness than are women.

    People who are committed to fairness do not judge a person’s worth by their genitalia. They judge each person they meet as an individual, which is the only decent thing to do.

    Like


  135. Hi Elizabeth,
    I kinda figured you’d take some exception to my views. That’s OK, good people can disagree.

    As I noted above, I’m not talking about strength, physically here. I think often that’s kinda used as a trope to silence those on my side of the debate.

    What I’m talking about goes beyond mere strength, Elizabeth. I’m talking about a certain kind of mental focus-the kind that forces you to focus on what you’re doing w/a machine rolling at maximum speed, in extreme weather conditions, everyday, 60 hours or more a week.

    I’m talking about the mindset that sends men out on expeditions to the Artic Circle, most of whom will never come back.

    And homesteads? Perhaps you missed what Whiskey recently said about Andrew Jackson, and I don’t recall reading any accounts of Mary Todd Lincoln helping Abe split rails.

    Now, again, yes, I do allow for exceptions because exceptions do happen in life, and guess what, Elizabeth, when guys run accross them, they welcome in the club. Of all the many jobs I’ve worked, I can only recount one where a female coworker was mistreated. And when it went down, all the other guys, present company included, lowered the boom on em.

    But what I reject most vociferously, is the kind of ideology that is at present killing us softly. It refuses to accept th world as it is.

    Holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  136. 135 Mu’Min

    “One of the reasons why I say that is because men can and will put up with and accept far more unpleasantness in life overall far and away over most women.”

    If this were true guys would stop complaining about overweight and/or old women and just date them.

    Like


  137. Anon,
    LOL. Touche’.

    But I think you know what I mean. Does this mean you’ll be joining the next deepsea Artic expedition?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  138. MQ, The kind of psychobabble you quoted from my buddy Zam

    I think the passage I quoted from him in 117 was not psychobabble at all — it struck me as very clear and matter-of-fact.

    This notion of resisting anything and everything that approaches any kind of meta understanding of life is not wise its in fact silly.

    I couldn’t agree with you more. But my point is that an overemphasis on the initial stages of pickup and casual sex is in fact a barrier to a true meta understanding of life.

    For anyone to refuse to recognize the basic differences between men and women, especially in a sexual sense, is to refuse to recognize Reality in its most basic sense.

    There are many differences between men and women, and you’ll notice that in 117 I referred to them. However, those differences are overlaid on a more basic humanity that make men and women surprisingly more similar than they at first appear. *All* refusals to recognize Reality are dangerous. Ignoring the particular humanity and personality of the woman you are with in favor of some broad stereotype about women being submissive or the like can be a recipe for disaster in a long-term relationship.

    Overestimating the differences between men and women is a characteristically adolescent way of thinking, at its idealizing extremes it can even get in the way of pickup (for instance, the bizarre belief that women are naturally unselfish and men are naturally selfish).

    Like


  139. 131 Markku

    my wife is formally and substantially an atheist and I’m nominally Evangelic-Lutheran (I value the rituals). My philosophy is transhumanism as yours seems to be, too.

    Intellectually, my wife and I have little in common, except for the atheism. I don’t connect with her on an intellectual plane at all – she thinks transhumanism is a bunch of crazy talk. But I don’t expect to. The only implications of the differences in our world views are long-term financial. I’m relatively stingy with money because I want to be able to afford life extension treatments when I need them, should they be available. But this isn’t a huge problem because when the first really effective life extension treatments might be on the market within the next 20-30 years, we will both benefit from them.

    Yes, I’m a transhumanist. I’m not dogmatic about it, though. As you mention, it really doesn’t matter if others agree with us or not right now, as long as they don’t stop us from developing the relevant tech. And I actually don’t care that much about personally benefiting from life extension, since I’m content with the lossy forms of immortality offered by creation of children, ideas, and enduring accomplishments.

    In fact, I’m not dogmatic about beliefs at all. All the women I’ve been most interested in have believed in some flavor of Christianity, and I’ve always been fine with that; arguably, I even prefer it because my positions on what kind of family to raise, etc. track much more closely with Christian rather than atheist practice.

    But they all have a problem with my cold rationalism.

    Maybe I’m just too brazen about it, and I’d be fine if I just tactically omitted some of my more disturbing thoughts, and was practiced in saying more comforting, “spiritual” things in their stead. This strikes me as dishonest, but it seems like others would just call it a basic social skill, without which I’m practically destined to continue failing.

    For instance, I was once asked:

    “Whenever people talk about the ‘greater good,’ it reminds me of that hypothetical in the Brothers Karamazov about whether you would be willing to kill one innocent person to create the perfect world. I hate the idea of ‘you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.'”

    My response:

    “…I’ve certainly thought about the hypothetical you describe. My own perspective is, if by not killing that one known innocent person, many other unknown innocent people are soon going to suffer premature deaths because the world hasn’t been made ‘perfect,’ the killing is morally defensible. Otherwise you’re privileging one person just because they were mentioned to you, without any reason to believe they deserve that privilege.

    But no real-world system should reward such behavior. It’s like torture — if there’s one guy who knows what it takes to stop the nuclear bomb from going off in 3 hours, but the only way I think the information might be extracted from him is torture, I’ll be willing to do it. But I will then demand to be given the full legal penalty for my action, even if it’s life imprisonment or the death penalty, and even if my judgment proves to be correct. A true patriot is willing to give up the rest of their life to save millions of people. Provide any legal loophole at all, and you will no longer have only true patriots being willing to engage in torture. And if the ‘true patriot’ is actually a dumbass who totally misjudged the situation, at least there’s no danger of them torturing any more innocents in the future; some other dumbass will have to be responsible for the next mistake.

    Almost all the time, when you kill someone, the biggest long run effect is… that person is now dead. A ‘perfect’ world containing anything resembling humanity is not possible as far as I’m concerned, so killing someone isn’t going to get you any closer. That said, I have no problem, at least in principle, with killing evangelical greater-good types hellbent on taking away freedoms that I value. Self-defense. Only tactical considerations (e.g. their being seen as martyrs can be expected to cause even greater problems in the future than just letting them be) will stop me from endorsing such action. In particular, I don’t think we have to leave fundamentalist Islam alone if they aren’t willing to extend the same favor to our culture (though I don’t think we have to bother them, either; the question is what is the most effective approach for defending what we hold dear).

    On a different note, have you heard of ‘framing effects’? A hundred people were asked, ‘Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as, follows: If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. If program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved and a two thirds probability that no people will he saved. Which of the two programs would you favor?’ 78 chose program A and 22 chose program B. But when the wording was changed to refer to the number of deaths (i.e. if program A was adopted, 400 people will die), the results were almost reversed even though the logical content of the question was identical!

    In the face of this, how much can you trust anyone to judge what the ‘greater good’ is?! (Yes, that means I can’t be trusted all that much either when I advocate a ruthless approach against fundamentalist Islam…)”

    I’m curious about everyone else’s thoughts on this. How much do I need to temper this kind of thinking around a woman I’m interested in? Is my only good option feigning equivalent discomfort with the “you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs” idea? Or is there an effective way to present what I really think, that I’m willing to wrestle with unfeeling Nature to create a world where she doesn’t have to break any eggs? In the latter case, how much am I still best off strategically omitting from my answer above? What should I rephrase in a less coldly logical, more emotionally appealing manner?

    This is the core of my spirituality problem. It’s not just the label “atheist,” it’s the whole way I think about moral issues and how I present myself.

    Like


  140. For futher clarification on my sucess with women..

    Theres nothing innate about my ability attract women aside from the fact that I don’t use any strategy. I simply just “do me” and the women that find that appealing do and the ones that don’t simply dont. What I do have is simply an understanding of women which many people whos perception of women is thwarted wont have and hence must use some sort of tactics. Again, theres nothing innate about me and I DON’T fit any of the molds in terms of what the modern women “supposedly” wants in a guy. Im slightly overweight, Im not Mr. Super attractive at allI don’t have a car, I make a meager income and I live in Philadelphia which is almost the murder capital of Philadelphia. I have dated and been with Doctors,, Models, Teachers etc. Most of the women I dated would be considered much more attractive than me etc.

    Guess why most of them said they liked me, even in spite of the fact that I wasn’t their typical “type”. Cus I was a descent guy, with descent conversation and that I seemed to genuinely like them as a person, was concerned about their well being, made them laugh and they felt emotionally comfortable/connected to me. Mind you, our conversations and interactions weren’t made of some sentimental counseling sessions but I did nurture a friendship with them which counted for much more than all the things that people here are saying that they want because a lot of women cant get that from men and its something that many of them desire.A lot of women want to understand men better.

    It’s interesting that the site is devoted to the idea of men being able to generate the interest of women and here I am stating that I might be more successful than most yet my explanations as to “how” are dismissed as some “natural talent”. Now if I was here with the same statistics under my belt but stating that I used this “technique” or that “approach” other than just being a regular guy, you all would be asking me to write a textbook….LOL

    So here you have a guy who isn’t a standout at all who has been with known and dated more women than possibly every guy on this forum yet my reasoning is being dismissed based on it being genetic????…LOL…That’s comical.

    Its not innate, its my ATTITUDE and my PERSPECTIVE concerning PEOPLE, women included that is the reason. I have other male friends who are just as ssucessfull who have the same persona and temepermant as myself, so again, theres a lot to be said for what Im saying but it starts in the mind and its relative to how people perceive women as a whole…so its not anything you can adopt.

    Several years ago I was working in a classroom setting with a group of boys in a teenage pregnancy prevention program. My supervisor at the time was a gentleman who has written several books on Black Male Female relationships and has counseled thousands of couples successfully. Hes a married man with children who described himself once as a player.

    One of the biggest problems he identified (along with feminism) that he felt was contributing to the problem of black male female relationships was the lack of familiarity that young black males had with females. He noted that this lack of familiarity caused a disconnect for them and their lack of understanding due to not being encouraged to develop friendships with women leads them to feel that they must manipulate women by the use of “Game”. He used those exact terms.

    What happens eventually is that an emotional disconnect invariably happens over time where the boy is not able to understand about the overall sensibilities of the women and relate to her as an individual person beyond the surface. He actually performed exercises with girls and boys that encouraged the concept of friendship in helping people relate normally to the opposite sex , appreciate their individuality, flaws and strengths but ultimately appreciate their humanity as a whole.

    This is something that I felt instinctively as a young person and have written about over the course of years. Genuine friendships with women assists you in becoming familiar with the psychology of women (and vice versa) and understanding differences as well as what you may or may not find appealing etc. Again, this requires you to recognize their humanity and their individuality and relate to them as something more than a conquest or a sexual tool. I realize that this sort of thing may be burned out of the average guy who then will need to manipulate women to get what he wants.

    The bottom line seems to be that a lot of the men in the world who don’t understand women, don’t genuinely like women as people, are afraid, intimidated or only see women as sex objects and have completely divorced themselves from the humanity of women to the point where all your really doing is discussing how to hunt down some “prey”. The idea that this is biologically this or that is aside the point because the word is EVOLVING. Consciously dehumanizing people is the modus of the serial killer, the random racist attacker, the rapist and the like. Im not equating the sexist attitudes I have encountered here with that same approach but I am stating that many men here seem to be utilizing that same sort of detachment in trying to obtain something from these women.

    Like


  141. MQ,

    Thanks for being clarity to some of these issues and I appreciate your kudos.

    Like


  142. Another example:

    I have a friend who is a very laid back, down to earth, sensitive and extremely nice guy. I grew up with him from childhood. Hes softspoken, very non threatening and extremely respectfull in general and especially with regards to women. He works as a therapist.

    This guy has women crawling all over him based on the fact that hes such a nice guy and that the women he met felt so “comfortable” around him and didnt feel threatened or preyed upon by him.

    Women actually may have appreciated his personality more than mine because Im more of a jokester and have alot of sarcasm etc. where he was more affable and self effacing etc. He had women literally fighting over him but he never used “game” attempted to manipulate them and was never so focused on “sexing them” that it interfred with his ability to relate to them and appraciate their personalities.

    Like


  143. Zamani, if you can write a textbook on how you do what you do, and if other guys can follow along and get the same results… I say, more power to you!

    You are probably right that not having female friends leaves you confused about what women are really like. I am one of three brothers, and my friends have always been overwhelmingly, almost exclusively, male.

    To this day I don’t think I have ever had a close female friendship where there was clearly no romantic interest. So when I see advice in Game circles like “bring an attractive female friend to the bar with you to stir up fake jealousy”, I throw up my hands in defeat.

    Like


  144. OK, I see the Battle is joined, LOL!

    Zam, my Dear Friend,
    I think its very, very important for us all to gain some clarity on some thins in the discussion, and hopefully this post will do just that.

    First, while you may be at turns, bemused and appalled by my characterization of you being for all intents, a “natural” I would caution you and anyone else not to dismiss that view so quickly. As one who has observed you in various settings over the years, I can say that you have a way and manner that is chockfull of charisma, and that isn’t something one can necessarily buy at the mall or off the internet. Yes, to an extent I suppose one can work at it, and it works, more power to em, but the issue here is by your own admission of sorts, you have something the vast majority of guys here don’t have. And I for one think that’s an accident.

    That you worked to develop a natural gift doesn’t negate that you DO have a natural gift, Zam. Just like I have a natural gift for Astrology, otherwise, how do you explain a Black guy from the hood mastering the ancient astrological systems of India?!-moreso than people who were born and raised there? True, I studied a lot. But one cannot simply ignore the strong chance that maybe I have something in me that speaks to the possibility that skills required to do that kind of astrology may be innate.

    And the same can be said of virtually everyone else here reading this now, and I for one do not see that as a bad thing in the least. Not one bit.

    Now…

    Having said that, I want to note a simple fact-some guys just aren’t as facile w/women as you are, Zam. In times gone by it would not have mattered, because quite frankly women, and men too, had fewer options and choices. We no longer live in such a world, and women have clearly indicated that they want a more socially attuned man.

    That’s where Game comes in.

    Now, I know you have your issues w/it, and believe me, I can relate. But it gives guys who neither have the time, ability, or patience, the nuts and bolts tools to from the dugout to Third Base.

    Which leads me to the next point, and which is really at the heart of the matter here. The real problem is that guys are “manipulating” women-and let’s be clear here-we’re talking, at least obstensibly, top shelf (or near it, or if nothing else, “1 to 3 points above the looks of the man”), women-FOR SEX.

    That’s the real issue here Zam, and let me explain to you why Mu says “Bullsh*t!” to that view.

    I say that because, women seek purely sexual relationships all the time. Its true. Moreover, unlike Game, women have this RIGHT, codified into Law, w/the Power of the State to enforce it. That’s what Roe v Wade was all about; The Pill was all about; and at least in part (and insofar as the Game Community is concerned, a whole lot more than that), what No Fault Divorce was all about. To say nothing of a myriad of social changes and views, mores and customs, to the point now where its seen in bad taste to even pretend to protest ANY sexual choices women make, regardless of the reason or the effect. You simply cannot go there, especially if you’re a guy.

    But the view is different when it comes to men-they must not have the right to pursue sexual relationships, first and foremost, w/choice women (I suppose it would be OK if the women weren’t so “choice” LOL!). It is Hypocrisy in Extremis on its face, a veritable Theatre of the Absurd in our time.

    I have given a considerable amount of thought as to why there is such a violent reaction from certain quarters, and have come to the conclusion that there coul be an Evolutionary reason behind it, though I have yet to fully figure it out. But it is I think, a good theory.

    Now let me address the “relationship” piece. Simply put Zam, this venue isn’t geared for that. Master Roissy has on numerous occasions, made that abundantly clear. This venue is for the express purpose of discussing aspects of Game as practiced and viewed by Roissy and others, to discussion relevant adjunct topics and issues, and to provide men w/Game tools so that they may go forth from this place and bust the maximum number of nuts with the beauty of their choice.

    That said, relationships born out of this scenario are not impossible, and I would always leave that door open. But if there are those among us, male or female alike, who seek such a thing, I think it should become clear by now, that they are in the wrong place.

    There are those among us who have certain advantages in life, Zam, be they genetic or later acquired. It matters not. What matters, is whether you are getting some degree or measure of Happiness, such as it is, in this life.

    For many men, Happiness lies right between a beautiful woman’s thighs.

    Why must that be so bad?

    😉

    Holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  145. 138 Mu’Min,

    You know, there are places in the world in which women are treated, in essence, as beasts of burden, doing all the heavy work, like farming, road-breaking, coal-heaving, while the men sit around apparently doing nothing in particular for long stretches of time. Many parts of Africa are like that; many parts of India used to be like that. I’m not sure about today with rising living conditions but I can remember seeing women doing heavy work with no men present at all in India. In peasant communities in China and southeast Asia, men and women work side by side doing the heavy chores of farming. And didn’t male and female slaves work side by side in the cotton fields before the civil war?

    The division of labour that has men doing more dangerous work than women is basically the product of the later stages of the industrial revolution, when labour laws were introduced to prevent women and children from going to work in coal mines or doing other heavy labour.

    And then of course there was having babies, which is rather labour-intensive (no pun intended) in itself.

    Of course women today have it easier than their female ancestors did, and I’m grateful for that, grateful that there are other jobs for me so that I don’t have to operate a crane somewhere, and grateful too that there are men who are willing to do these jobs. But please don’t make it sound as though women have never taken part in any of the heavy lifting of building a civilisation. That just isn’t true.

    Clio

    Like


  146. Zorgon Wrote: Zamani, if you can write a textbook on how you do what you do, and if other guys can follow along and get the same results… I say, more power to you!

    Zamani: I actually wouldnt have much interest in doing something like that because it would end up being too simplistic. I also dont think its possible to teach most people who have a certain ingrained perspective about the opposite sex to unlearn those ideas, especially when they make the individual feel empowered. In some ways you could easily replace whats being said around here with racial stereotypes although they wouldnt be as acceptable and be considered as innocent. I would encourage men to get to know individuals as individuals and hopefully people can learn to appreciate human interactions beyond the surface stuff as well.

    Zorgon Wrote: You are probably right that not having female friends leaves you confused about what women are really like. I am one of three brothers, and my friends have always been overwhelmingly, almost exclusively, male.

    Zamani: Yeah. Theres a natural curiousity that we all have concerning the opposite sex that is supposed to be satisfied by interacting naturally with them. That natural process of developing friendships during childhood and adolescence gets thwarted here in our culture because the popular cultures focus on division between the sexes and their exploitation of adolescent sexual values quickly turns boys into one track minded predators and women into defensive creatures etc.

    Wynton Marsalis once commented on the fact that he wanted to see young males explore their sexuality with women but didnt want to see them stripped of the ABILITY to make love to a woman and thats whats happening to them. By the constant devaluing of women and the obsessive focus on their sexuality soley we end up with people who lose the opportunity to experience romance and higher levels of engagment.

    Zorgon: To this day I don’t think I have ever had a close female friendship where there was clearly no romantic interest. So when I see advice in Game circles like “bring an attractive female friend to the bar with you to stir up fake jealousy”, I throw up my hands in defeat.

    Zamani: I always had female friends here and there growing up. It wasnt a problem for me that I couldnt have sex with every one of them because I didnt need to have sex with all of them, wasnt neccesarily into them in that way and I also found things about them interesting outside of them being female which is my whole point here..lol

    In the romance department, I was somewhat shy and awkward around girls as a kid but I found out that the more I pretended to be something I wasnt the less interested in me they were and the more I just relaxed and behaved normally the more receptive they were.

    Like


  147. 149 Zamani

    In the romance department, I was somewhat shy and awkward around girls as a kid but I found out that the more I pretended to be something I wasnt the less interested in me they were and the more I just relaxed and behaved normally the more receptive they were.

    This is fine if your normal behavior is not that of a cold rationalist, like me, or zorgon. But this is worthless advice to us. We’ve tried relaxing and behaving normally around women, ignoring their gender and treating them as individuals. It. Doesn’t. Work.

    We essentially have no choice but to strategize at least a little bit about how we present ourselves, to avoid driving all interesting women away. We have somewhat different goals — zorgon’s more interested in sex, I’m purely interested in a lifelong intellectual and emotional bond — but our geeky personalities leave us with very similar problems.

    Like


  148. 147 Mu’Min:

    I have given a considerable amount of thought as to why there is such a violent reaction from certain quarters, and have come to the conclusion that there coul be an Evolutionary reason behind it, though I have yet to fully figure it out. But it is I think, a good theory.

    Czar nailed it in another blog entry.

    Much of Game consists of adopting what are essentially the “natural” character traits of Alphas. They are natural extentions of the apha’s inherent genetic superiority.

    A beta donning the mannerisms and thinking patterns of an alpha can very often meet with success, but just as often the cracks in the facade can show, revealing to the woman his poor poor betatude. I believe the words Czar used were: It is a deep betrayal in evolutionary terms.

    The corresponding analogy for us men would be if we managed to bring some pretty young thing home with us, and just as she was disrobing, we discover she had been wearing a corset that hid her humongous flab, had padded her bra, had a glass eye, a prosthetic leg, and plastic surgery that hid her true age of 55.

    Imagine how you would feel?

    Like


  149. DoJ, I can see your frustration, but I think there is no logical, systematic way of picking a lifetime mate. Women, being stereotypically more irrational, perhaps utilize more intuitive decision-making mechanisms for mate-picking. Hence your usual cold rationality turns them off and leaves them suspicious of your motives.

    Here is an excerpt from an article on gut reactions and “instinct.”

    Experience is encoded in our brains as a web of fact and feeling. When a new experience calls up a similar pattern, it doesn’t unleash just stored knowledge but also an emotional state of mind and a predisposition to respond in a certain way. Imagine meeting a date who reminds you of loved ones and also of the emotions you’ve felt toward those people. Suddenly you begin to fall for him or her. “Intuition,” says Linhares, “can be described as ‘almost immediate situation understanding’ as opposed to ‘immediate knowledge.’ Understanding is filled with emotion. We don’t obtain knowledge of love, danger, or joy; we feel them in a meaningful way.”

    Encased in certainty, intuitions compel us to act in specific ways, and those who lack intuition are essentially cognitively paralyzed. Psychologist Antoine Bechara at the University of Southern California studied brain-damaged patients who could not form emotional intuitions when making a decision. They were left to decide purely via deliberate reasoning. “They ended up doing such a complicated analysis, factoring everything in, that it could take them hours to decide between two kinds of cereal,” he says.

    Bechara describes the phenomenon as an overall feeling that someone would be “good for you,” perhaps even irrespective of passion. “It’s tapping into your unconscious and triggering prior emotional experiences. We need to trust that this is a survival system that has evolved to our benefit,” he says.

    As choosing a mate is rife with unknowns, it’s not best arrived at by number crunching. Gigerenzer tells the story of how Ben Franklin advised his nephew, torn between two sweethearts, to list each woman’s qualities, place a numeric value on the importance of those qualities, and total each column. But when a friend of Gigerenzer did just that and calculated the winner, his heart sank. That’s how the friend knew he really wanted the other woman.

    Unlike brain-damaged patients in the article, you are not totally disconnected from your intuitive side. However, you devalue its effects on you. Emotions exert their pressures on you subtly and subliminally, but you have already defined yourself rigidly as coldly rational and do not see the ways in which you also act instinctively and intuitively.

    You might benefit from trying to analyze this aspect of yourself in a detached manner, and then realizing that many of your actions are driven by your more irrational side. Armed with greater understanding of yourself, you may begin to understand what motivates most women and how they perceive the world, and then be able to better establish rapport with them.

    Like


  150. Roissy and MuMin,

    I think you misunderstand me. I am not an ice queen, and I don’t want to be unfair to anyone. I’m in love with the guy. I care for him, and, God knows, I would want to fool around with him. But I’m not ready for that yet, and I’m still nervous about it. (I was honest with him about needing to go slow.) Of course, I have the natural worry that if I go too fast I’ll lose his respect and he’ll dump me. I have to delay gratification a little; that doesn’t make me a bad person.

    If it works out longer term between us, I have no doubt that there will be some wonderful nights.

    Now talking about my personal life on the internet has been fun but a little silly, so I’m heading out of here; thanks for all your help.

    Like


  151. Much of Game consists of adopting what are essentially the “natural” character traits of Alphas. They are natural extentions of the apha’s inherent genetic superiority.

    the natural character traits of a *certain kind* of “natural” — namely the cocky asshole type. Yet here is Zamani describing how he has been quite successful with women by using a completely different sort of behavior. And he is dismissed because he is simply a “natural” who one cannot learn from. Totally untrue — you can always learn by observing naturals. (Unless perhaps their gift is due to some kind of pure genetic chance, like extreme good looks or athletic ability).

    People here don’t want to learn from types like Zamani because Zamani’s methods don’t appeal to their pre-existing insecurities. When you don’t get laid a lot, you build up a lot of anger and resentment with women. Some varieties of ‘game’ give you the message that you can harness that same anger and resentment to give you more success with women. Which in a way can be true, if you measure success by casual sex.

    But it’s also true that you can have more success with women by developing a deeper level of friendship with them and sharing yourself more fully. The thing is, most “betas” believe they are *already* doing this. But they aren’t. They lack self-confidence and are deeply inhibited and fearful, so cannot participate fully in the flow of interaction. This is obvious to women and makes them less likable (Roissy’s excellent recent post “What You Can Learn From A Beta” makes this obvious, BTW — the picture in that post is someone who is lost in inhibition and fear, not someone who isn’t enough of an asshole).

    The key is building up the self-confidence and shedding the fear. If you can do that — and it’s not easy — then a wide variety of types of “game” will work with women. Zamani’s method has the benefit that you won’t have to work your way out from a whole other layer of distance and insecurity when you want a deeper, more lasting level of romantic connection.

    Like


  152. 153 – I have the natural worry that if I go too fast I’ll lose his respect and he’ll dump me

    Silly indeed.

    Like


  153. MQ and Zamani, wise words.

    But I could see the retort: befriending them and connecting them on a human level might get women too attached, could cause them to be less sexually heated and more inclined towards a romantic relationship, making them harder to “pump and dump,” which is not too conducive to the casual sex goals that the men in present company often have in mind. With divorce theft and antipathy towards having a family, why would a man seek long-term connections with a woman?

    Etcetera, etcetera.

    Like


  154. 152 Hope

    Unlike brain-damaged patients in the article, you are not totally disconnected from your intuitive side. However, you devalue its effects on you. Emotions exert their pressures on you subtly and subliminally, but you have already defined yourself rigidly as coldly rational and do not see the ways in which you also act instinctively and intuitively.

    Okay, I think I’ve oversimplified my self-description.

    When I play computer games, I tend to reload whenever one of my characters dies, or something else important goes wrong. At some level, I actually am deeply uncomfortable with breaking a few eggs. I want everything to work out without any “real” unpleasantness whatsoever.

    But in real life, I don’t get to reload. The best I can do, when something goes irretrievably wrong, is to try to understand what I did to make the unpleasant outcome more likely, and aim to avoid the same mistakes in the future.

    The thing is, I do still act instinctively and intuitively a fair bit — and this instinct and intuition has a tendency to relentlessly drive me to want to be closer to the woman I’m interested in. To the point where I’m pushing them away with all my attention.

    Like


  155. 156 Hope:

    It’s not only that. There are many men who if they had their druthers would prefer a serious relationship, but have become aware of how women devalue their manhood once the women extract commitment and/or marriage and/or kids. It’s not that men don’t value such things, but that they feel like chumps when women lift the drawbridges to their coochies and treat the men like disposable ATM/babysitters — all the while eyeballing the pool boy or their personal trainer. If not actively slobbing their knobs.

    For me, some of the best “Game theory” going on in the community right now has to do with training…er..I mean MANAGING your woman once you are in an exclusive relationship with her. That’s where all this theory matters the most. I daresay you (Hope) only have an inkling of the sorts of machavellian machinations even the most airheaded of females can pull on their unsuspecting mates, because you’re just not like most women.

    Like


  156. DOJ:

    The thing is, I do still act instinctively and intuitively a fair bit — and this instinct and intuition has a tendency to relentlessly drive me to want to be closer to the woman I’m interested in. To the point where I’m pushing them away with all my attention.

    Don’t be such a needy pussy, McFly.

    Your problem is that you’re attempting to find in your future mate a surrogate Mommy.

    Time to push away from the teat, son.

    Like


  157. MQ, I’m not trying to dismiss Zamani and would be happy to learn from him.

    I have known a few naturals. One even took me in as a “project” a few years back. (He certainly cleaned up my act somewhat.)

    you can have more success with women by developing a deeper level of friendship with them and sharing yourself more fully. The thing is, most “betas” believe they are *already* doing this. But they aren’t.

    I think we may be interpreting the phrase “being yourself” differently.

    I interpret that phrase to mean: behaving exactly the same way you would in a non-romantic social context. Which, in my case, largely means: “the same way I would around my geeky beta male friends”, seeing as that’s the primary type of friend I’ve ever had.

    And I can assure you, even amongst themselves, geeky beta males generally do *not* have “deep levels of friendship” where they “share themselves fully.” An example I recently used on another thread: the topic of women rarely comes up in discussion, whereas science, technology, money/business/finance/economics, and politics come up frequently. Some, depending on their non-geeky interests, will talk about cars or houses or travel or pets. Sports is a pretty rare topic. My comment was that I need to start more conversations with the words “So the other night I made out with this hot chick…” just to see what happens.

    In fact, I just recently started a conversation with them “So the other night I almost got raped by this really drunk hot chick…” (for the actual story, see Roosh’s forum) and their response could be classified as “what alien fantasy planet did this occur on?”

    Geeky beta males generally do not expose their emotional side to one another. They try to pretend that they don’t have one, or that they shouldn’t have one (more than a few would consider Mr. Spock a role model in this respect). So if success with women requires exposing your emotional side, and if “being yourself” to a geeky beta male means being your Mr. Spock “I like computers, people are weird” persona, you can sort of predict the outcome.

    I may be exaggerating a bit, but at least for *myself*, I very honestly spent a number of years of my life actually thinking “I like computers, people are weird.”

    I have changed: these days, I find computers annoying and frustrating.

    Like


  158. 156 – befriending them and connecting them on a human level might get women too attached, could cause them to be less sexually heated and more inclined towards a romantic relationship

    Hope, someone with your history really should know better.

    It is not like women get attached to nice guys only. The heat you are talking about can cause a much stronger attachment.

    Few women have what it takes to leave an alpha guy who treats her badly. The less he bonds, the more she’ll be intrigued.

    Contrast that with how betas struggle to keep the women they love in their life.

    It is revealing enough that 98% of the complaints women have about men and relationships is centered around alphas:
    – lack of monogamy/commitment
    – lack of emotional bonding
    – lack of monogamy/commitment
    – lack of supplication (remembering her birthday and shit)
    – lack of monogamy/commitment
    etc.

    Women rarely complain about betas (the “fucking fuck me, already” post on CL being one of the few exceptions – and I bet it wasn’t a 9 or 10 whining about his lack of assertiveness).

    Game is not just about one night stands.

    Like


  159. 159 Tupac Chopra

    Don’t be such a needy pussy, McFly.

    Your problem is that you’re attempting to find in your future mate a surrogate Mommy.

    Time to push away from the teat, son.

    Uh, “surrogate Mommy” is a pretty darn inaccurate description of what I’m drawn to. But anyway, you can see why I deliberately try to be more of a cold rationalist and act less on my instinct and intuition…

    Like


  160. 158 It’s not that men don’t value such things, but that they feel like chumps when women lift the drawbridges to their coochies and treat the men like disposable ATM/babysitters — all the while eyeballing the pool boy or their personal trainer. If not actively slobbing their knobs.

    Well put, Tupac, well put…

    Like


  161. When I play computer games, I tend to reload whenever one of my characters dies, or something else important goes wrong.

    DoJ, that sounds like you have a perfectionist streak, and a desire to control most situations. I have that exact same compulsion in video games (I have restarted entire characters upon finding out that I didn’t have the perfect build). I’ve often marveled at the way my husband does the exact opposite of this. He will just go on, taking the losses, and he thinks it’s more fun and more of a challenge when he’s fighting an uphill battle. More “epic,” he says.

    In real life, that kind of attitude gets more social mileage. We do not get to reload and replay, and this is very frustrating for perfectionists like us. You probably agonize over what you could have done differently and the smallest mistakes you’ve made in a given scenario. By the way, I also did the whole relentlessly wanting to be closer to the object of my affections thing, and it was a sad sight. Men do not like being stalked any more than women do.

    We perfectionists suffer from a lot of idealism, and we are often disappointed as a result. Ironically, I think we are also extremely harsh pragmatists at the same time, because we’ve been disappointed so much. You have to lower your expectations — it is a big hurdle to overcome for perfectionists. For example, with a mate, it is great if you are compatible and have the basic foundation of trust, intimacy and communication, but it is a tall order to expect one person to satisfy all of your intellectual and emotional needs for life.

    How to learn to “let go” and “let the chips fall where they may”? You are who you are, and you can’t exactly change it easily. But you can train yourself to be less internally anxious, to be less controlling, and to take more risks (I think East Asians are risk-averse as a cultural whole). There is the zen mastery ideal of total control over yourself, but you cannot control anything else but yourself.

    Take a step back and look at yourself from a different perspective, think about how your ego is not the most important thing in the world, and to quote a certain character in a sci-fi masterpiece, “disengage… disengage… disengage…”

    Like


  162. Hope: MQ and Zamani, wise words. But I could see the retort: befriending them and connecting them on a human level might get women too attached, could cause them to be less sexually heated and more inclined towards a romantic relationship, making them harder to “pump and dump,” which is not too conducive to the casual sex goals that the men in present company often have in mind. With divorce theft and antipathy towards having a family, why would a man seek long-term connections with a woman?

    Etcetera, etcetera.

    Zamani: Yes, of course if someone goal is simply to have sex with women with no attachments which is 50 percent of what all this dialougue is about here and the other 50 percent of it is a bunch of people who have experienced rejection, have been hurt by it (understandabley) and are now overcompensating for those insecurities.

    Like


  163. on October 6, 2008 at 8:08 pm Usually Lurking

    Women rarely complain about betas

    Unless they are married to them, then, the Hens won’t shut up about them. Mostly nitpicking and nagging.

    Like


  164. It is revealing enough that 98% of the complaints women have about men and relationships is centered around alphas:
    – lack of monogamy/commitment
    – lack of emotional bonding
    – lack of monogamy/commitment
    – lack of supplication (remembering her birthday and shit)
    – lack of monogamy/commitment
    etc.

    Zamani: Those are complaints that women make about all sorts of men. I know of men who had absolutely nothing, were unattractive as hell and geeky as hell and still behaved the same way. It has more to do with people (in general) being completely selfish and self serving within relationships and even general dating scenarious.

    Like


  165. OK. OK. Alright, now! Now we’re cookin’ w/gas!

    I notice that hardly anyone here has dealt w/my major point:

    WHAT IS SO WRONG W/A MALE GETTING SEX FROM A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN?

    And let’s be clear here-women seek purely sexual relationships ALL. THE. TIME. Happens all day, everyday in our time. And no one-no one-says a word about that.

    No one goes on and on about how she’s using some poor sap for his body and/or money. Nobody accuses her of being one tracked minded, predatory, and so on. She does what she do, and that’s that.

    But oooooooh, if a guy even fixes his mouth to say what I’ve just said, there be Hell to pay. What a crock!

    Listen…

    I have grown up in a household full of women. Have observed them, closely, all my life. I don’t claim to know all there is to know about women, but I know, by seeing firsthand, enough to know you should take what they say about what they do and why, w/a grain of salt.

    Now, before anyone starts flapping around and the howling starts, let me explain what I mean by that, and Hope above pointed to it, its that very often women themselves do not know what they’re doing in the moment they’re doing it. That sounds very unfair, but I’m tellin’ ya, just sitback and observe for yourself. This is why Zorgon and DOJ are so confounded by a lot of the things that women do, and actually I understand them a lot more than they give me credit for, because I too have a kind of cold analytical mindset; so, a lot of things women do do not make much sense to me at all.

    Until one applies Evo-Psych/Game reasoning. Then, Everything is Illuminated. Which again, doesn’t explain everything, but it damn sure do explain a lot, LOL.

    What amazes me in this discussion is accepting the simple fact that guys like Z and DOJ simply aren’t going to be as facile w/the ladies as Zam, and suggesting that they can be is as cruel as suggesting that a mutual friend of me and Zam’s, who barely stands 5 feet, can do on the basketball court what Shaq or Yao Ming can do. Just not gonna happen. That doesn’t mean that our friend can’t be a good Baller-he can. Especially if he understands the fundamentals of the game, and works at it.

    Its the same deal w/Z and DOJ, these guys have to work at this thing from a bit more of a shall we say, “by the book” angle? Doesn’t mean they stay locked there, hopefully they branch out from there and take it on their own, but you gotta start somewhere, and DOJ’s right, “just being yourself” ain’t gonna get it.

    Madam Clio, I thank you for the historical perspective. And I won’t even attempt to argue it. The point for me, all of us, is that we are living in the world NOW. Where life is, for better and worse, drastically different for both women and men. And in that world, as I’ve said before, not only do women have options, but they have preferences unencumbered by strictures of the past. And that choice invariably points in the direction of the male w/strong social skills. It just does.

    Finally, a word about Wynton. Of course, I have great respect for him, much of what he says I don’t disagree with, but I have to take what he says w/a bit of salt. Wynton ain’t hardly a squeaky clean dude himself, he’s got quite a few notches on the Olde Bedpost, hmm? So again, why knock other guys who trying to do the same thing? Oh yea, I know, I know, its because sooooo many women want a relationship. Well, newsflash, that is not always so. In fact, its a bit more the case than we all would like to admit.

    And I don’t have a problem with that, strangely enough. Its cool with me. She ain’t breakin’ the law, and so long as things are made clear upfront, she ain’t doing anything immoral either.

    So this is why when I read Zam trotting out the youngbucks as predator/young girls as defenseless, that ain’t the world I know, and I would dare say that’s true for a number of guys here. I can remember like it was yesterday quite a few gals in both junior high and highschool who were quite the mankillers. Had no shame to their game. And, as per usual, no one said a word.

    I think Zam’s reply to DOJ’s suggestion that he write a book, is most telling. And that only reinforces my proposition that Zam was born a true bonafide Booty Magnet that cannot be easily replicated. Men of lesser fortunes must labor to build up their social skills w/the goal, at least in part, being that doing so will lead to many Comforts of the Couch.

    OK, that’s it. I’ll hold here. By all means, Holla Back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  166. DOJ:The thing is, I do still act instinctively and intuitively a fair bit — and this instinct and intuition has a tendency to relentlessly drive me to want to be closer to the woman I’m interested in. To the point where I’m pushing them away with all my attention.

    Zamani: You have to have a balance and try to establish an equality in your repore with another person. You also have to remember that while every womAn will not always want that level of intimacy from a man there are also many that will. Your issues could be simply compatibility problems and not those of your approach per sey. There are women who found me to be too probing or easy going at times, but what I also noticed is that in a short time, I realized how incompatible I was with those women overall. Other times I encountered women who felt that I was too detached and not sentimental enough and my best experiences have been with women where there was a natural balance and fit, an even level of interest and understanding between us and a great affinity.

    Like


  167. on October 6, 2008 at 8:19 pm Usually Lurking

    I notice that hardly anyone here has dealt w/my major point:

    WHAT IS SO WRONG W/A MALE GETTING SEX FROM A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN?

    Mu, the problem is that you are crusading through Christian territory. You ain’t going to get much of a fight.

    Try Feministing or Feminste or something like that.

    Like


  168. It is not like women get attached to nice guys only. The heat you are talking about can cause a much stronger attachment.

    I did say “less heat” instead of “more.”

    they feel like chumps when women lift the drawbridges to their coochies and treat the men like disposable ATM/babysitters

    Basically a reiteration, with more elaborate scenarios and more drawn out versions of “divorce theft.” The results are the same, no?

    98% of the complaints women have about men and relationships is centered around alphas. Women rarely complain about betas.

    Kind sir, from whence did you pull that statistic? What about all the times girls complained about bad oral or crappy bedroom techniques? Or certain female commentators bemoaning modern men’s cowardice and lack of character?

    But let’s take this at face value. Women will complain about anything that they can find to whine about, and that is what gossip and other forms of female socializing are all about. Mutual commiseration. Seems similar to what happens elsewhere…

    I daresay you (Hope) only have an inkling of the sorts of machavellian machinations even the most airheaded of females can pull on their unsuspecting mates, because you’re just not like most women.

    I could be much more machiavellian than the typical airhead had that been the path I had chosen for myself. I am like most women, but I talk to men more than women and take the man’s viewpoint more often. That’s probably one of the more important differences.

    Like


  169. 167 – Zamani: Those are complaints that women make about all sorts of men.

    Think about it. Why would women complain about lack of commitment if any beta is more than willing to give her just that?

    If you don’t believe that 80% of women have sex with 20% of men – here is your evidence: They all complain about the same (small) crowd of guys who treats them like shit.

    The world is (over)filled with guys who would propose on the spot to girls as low as an 8, if they would show the least sign of interest. As a matter of fact, there are quite a few guys out there who propose despite the lack of interest.

    There is no such things as a “casual sex crowd” versus “old fashioned women”. If she is good looking and psychologically healthy, she will be attracted to the same kind of guy the other women are – and nothing will hold her back if she thinks she can have him. The fact that he has “gotten around” is not an obstacle, but a turn on. And hence the whining starts once she realizes that he will not sick to her either.

    Like


  170. Mumin: OK. OK. Alright, now! Now we’re cookin’ w/gas!
    I notice that hardly anyone here has dealt w/my major point:
    WHAT IS SO WRONG W/A MALE GETTING SEX FROM A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN? And let’s be clear here-women seek purely sexual relationships ALL. THE. TIME. Happens all day, everyday in our time. And no one-no one-says a word about that.

    Zam: Mu, how does your acceptance of purely sexual relationships fit into your muslim conservative republican, women need to watch their sexual habits, we need more marriages and less flings, women need to stop getting pregnant and conservative Im voting for John Mccain values system???…LOL. If your advocating for it to be a positive thing that men seek out purely sexual relationships and ignore the responsibility of mature love? (which as Cornel West comments, involves vulnerability and not just pleasure and power).

    I’m not oppossed too purely sexual relationships, if those setups are agreed to one both sides and it isnt a case of someone pretending to be interested in a relationship when they arent (which is often the case, especially when Game is involved).

    With regards to Wynton, he said that he encouraged boys to experience intimacy with women, which Im certain Wynton has experienced with women as well, what he is oppossed to is not sex and not sex outside of a relationship but what he calls “stunting the sexual development of boys” and freezing them into arrested development in their experiences with women where everything is about “knocking the boots” soley..

    Like


  171. 168 Mu’Min

    This is why Zorgon and DOJ are so confounded by a lot of the things that women do, and actually I understand them a lot more than they give me credit for, because I too have a kind of cold analytical mindset; so, a lot of things women do do not make much sense to me at all.

    I think you’re underestimating the amount of credit I give you. 🙂

    Incidentally, I asked a while back, what do you recommend as good books for a rationalist like me to learn astrology from?

    Like


  172. Czar:Think about it. Why would women complain about lack of commitment if any beta is more than willing to give her just that?

    Zam: Because men across the board from nerds to jocks stil often have the tendency to cheat or want to cheat or experience the variety of single women who are out there and will take almost anything.

    Czar: If you don’t believe that 80% of women have sex with 20% of men – here is your evidence: They all complain about the same (small) crowd of guys who treats them like shit.
    The world is (over)filled with guys who would propose on the spot to girls as low as an 8, if they would show the least sign of interest. As a matter of fact, there are quite a few guys out there who propose despite the lack of interest.

    Zam: One of the things that I have considered is that there are some guys who are only attracted to these cookie cutter sort of women that they have been brainwashed to find attractive and since alot of guys dont value an intellect or any other sort of depth in a woman, they keep chasing these same attractive dingbats who have no substance and are only drawn to the stupid jock types of the stereotypical macho men who are actually a good match for their dumb asses..lol. So alot of the guys here who have some smarts but are still drawn to chickenheads and bimbos (professional and do nothings) are basically out of there league and deserve whatever rejection they get for chasing them. What I have found is that not every women who is very physically attractive is hung up on her looks, and will only date a guy if he appears a certain way. I have met quite a few women like this. Also there are alot of nice guys who are simply assholes to women in relationships, so a guy being a so called “beta” isnt going to gaurentee good treatment and women know this.

    Czar: There is no such things as a “casual sex crowd” versus “old fashioned women”. If she is good looking and psychologically healthy, she will be attracted to the same kind of guy the other women are – and nothing will hold her back if she thinks she can have him.

    Zam: After talking with and getting know and dating hundreds of woman I would have label that as a stereotype that doesnt ring true from my experiences.

    Like


  173. UL,
    I prefer the term Jihadi, if you’re suggesting that I’m on some kind of Crusade. The latter word is derogatory where I come from. Thank you.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  174. 164 Hope

    By the way, I also did the whole relentlessly wanting to be closer to the object of my affections thing, and it was a sad sight. Men do not like being stalked any more than women do.

    Yes, I know. I was once on the other end of this, and had to change my phone number to escape.

    We perfectionists suffer from a lot of idealism, and we are often disappointed as a result. Ironically, I think we are also extremely harsh pragmatists at the same time, because we’ve been disappointed so much. You have to lower your expectations — it is a big hurdle to overcome for perfectionists. For example, with a mate, it is great if you are compatible and have the basic foundation of trust, intimacy and communication, but it is a tall order to expect one person to satisfy all of your intellectual and emotional needs for life.

    I’m not looking for a single person to satisfy all my intellectual needs, just enough of them to hold my interest; And… well, okay, I kind of do wish that for my emotional needs, but I’m enough of a pragmatist to know to not expect that, and try to negotiate something workable.

    How to learn to “let go” and “let the chips fall where they may”? You are who you are, and you can’t exactly change it easily. But you can train yourself to be less internally anxious, to be less controlling, and to take more risks (I think East Asians are risk-averse as a cultural whole). There is the zen mastery ideal of total control over yourself, but you cannot control anything else but yourself.

    Take a step back and look at yourself from a different perspective, think about how your ego is not the most important thing in the world, and to quote a certain character in a sci-fi masterpiece, “disengage… disengage… disengage…”

    For whatever it’s worth, I don’t think I have any problem at all with risk-taking. I’m not afraid to try something new and give it my all, and pick myself up as quickly as possible if it fails.

    But I’ve failed in the same way too often. It’s time for me to recalibrate my behavior in the face of what I’ve observed. You mentioned there were conduits other than spirituality to connect with a woman’s emotions. What do recommend I look into?

    Meanwhile, yes, I am prone to anxiety, but I’m able to mostly control it until things really are essentially hopeless. At that point, making a spectacle of myself may be a feature rather than a bug because it forces me to move on to something not so hopeless.

    Like


  175. on October 6, 2008 at 9:05 pm Usually Lurking

    To Crusade through Christiandom or Jihad through Muslim lands…either way, you are preaching to the choir.

    Still, Zamani asked an interesting question: how do you square the sampling of many young lovelies with Muslim beliefs?

    Like


  176. Q&A:

    1. What my personal political views are, Zam, are irrelevant to the discussion at hand: the fact of the matter is that the social lanscape has vastly changed from only three or four decades ago, less than half a century. Sex is no longer seen in the same way that it once was, no matter how o anyone else feels about it. Therefore, the question is insofar as this forum is concerned, what are men of today to make and more importantly, do about it? One soultion is to learn Game and then to apply it. Now, one could certainly disagree, as it appears you have. Fair enough. The the next question becomes, what’s the alternative? Well, you say, just be yourself. I say to that, that just being oneself IS the problem for many men. And so the debate continues…and btw, John McCain is hardly an Herb by all accounts, LOL!

    2. Zam, I think what you’re saying about “Chickenheads and Bimbos” may need a bit closer inspection. It is a known fact that people /too high an IQ actually have a harder time getting laid, and this is especially true for the males. In fact I saw one study somewhere, where the biggest John-group for prostitutes, were White males over a certain IQ number. Simply put, women don’t find really, really smart guys sexy, for whatever reason, hence Princeton Herb who wrote to Roissy recently.

    Reversing the question to focus on smart gals versus “chickenheads”, perhaps what might explain it is that the males are seeking other things from the latter type females? Perhaps things more along the lines of fecundity? Again, this points to Evo-Psych. Would be very interested in getting you or anyone else’s thoughts on this.

    3. DOJ-the book I would most recommend to you on Astrology is called The Moment Of Astrology, Geoffrey Cornelius. I think you’ll appreciate the way he writes.

    4. Dr. Czar, thanks for the comments.

    5. Y’all holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  177. UL,
    Thanks, I think, but I think we can clearly see evidence that all is not well in the pews, LOL! And as for Feministe, let’s just say they aren’t as fond of Free Speech like Master Roissy. Mu knows of this firsthand.

    As for my views of sexuality and Islam, the West has been presented w/a very narrow view of sexuality that is through the abhorrent and deeply dysfunctional prism of Wahabbism, which Mu does NOT subscribe to. There is nothing at all enjoying a well built woman, it is only Natural. Wrt Marriage, I don’t favor Poloygamy as Public Policy, and favor equitable splits of assets and the like in case of divorce, though I’m inclined to frown on it rather strongly.

    Islam for me is a guide, not a straitjacket. I attempt to use it to aid in my navigation of this Life. Also, I try to keep the words of the Wise Man Augustine in mind:

    Lord, give me chastity and give me constancy, but do not give it yet…

    😉

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  178. But I’ve failed in the same way too often. It’s time for me to recalibrate my behavior in the face of what I’ve observed.

    When you find patterns, you have already made progress. Awareness of the pattern is the first in the chain of events to changing it. In my opinion, one’s patterns first emerge in childhood. There is often seemingly casual reference to mommy or daddy issues, but these are very real early imprinting that echo throughout our lives.

    You mentioned there were conduits other than spirituality to connect with a woman’s emotions. What do recommend I look into?

    Psychoanalysis of her past: her parents, her family, her upbringing, her dating history, etc. It works, particularly when you use your own background as a lens and deflection to probe into hers. We can never truly know another until we understand that person’s childhood experiences. But be careful with discussing your mutual dating histories, as it can backfire, but it can just as easily give you both great insight into each other.

    This following might seem like pop-psychology babble, but I think that the childhood behavioral pattern model has some weight. For example, the stereotypical Asian perfectionist tendencies and relational anxieties often come from the well-meaning but overbearing Asian parents, who have high expectations of their kids and want them to be high-achieving in every way. They like to brag about their kids’ accomplishments but also brag in turn to their kids about others’ accomplishments in the attempt to push them harder.

    Asian kids often grow up to be cold in general towards people, but then become clingy as attachment grows. This is modeled after that ambivalence in the relationship with Asian parents — wanting to please them in many ways, but probably not getting a lot of emotional nurturing and affection.

    In a romantic relationships, patterns emerge in terms of interactions as well. One person is usually the chaser, the one trying to please the other, to try to close the distance, and the other is usually the more withdrawn and detached one, trying to get more space or get more independence. These are not necessarily male or female styles of interaction, and it can change over time. Someone who was once the chaser in the relationship can become the more withdrawn one over time.

    This determines that murky thing called emotional attraction. Absent this attraction, a woman does not want to have anything to do with a man. In my opinion, the reason why some say that women all behave the same way (lusting after unavailable men) is because they emulate a pattern that attracts such women, and therefore get to become intimate with more more of such women. Zamani’s method attracts a different subset of women, and thus his opinions are different.

    There are women who prefer the chase, and women who prefer to be chased — and women who prefer to be chased in the beginning and then to chase after the man made the opening move. The patterns will emerge sooner or later, however, and if you can pinpoint it for a woman, it may do you a bit of good. At the very least, you will be aware.

    Like


  179. 169 Zamani

    You have to have a balance and try to establish an equality in your repore with another person. You also have to remember that while every womAn will not always want that level of intimacy from a man there are also many that will. Your issues could be simply compatibility problems and not those of your approach per sey. There are women who found me to be too probing or easy going at times, but what I also noticed is that in a short time, I realized how incompatible I was with those women overall.

    Okay, but what if, when “being myself,” all women I’m truly interested in feel I’m incompatible with them, but it seems like if I change the way I present myself in ways that I won’t mind so much, at least a few of them would feel differently? I’m not claiming that every time I fall for a woman, I really am totally compatible with them. But I have every reason to believe that there are some women who really can be compatible with me for a lifelong relationship, that my current behavior is turning off.

    179 Mu’Min

    3. DOJ-the book I would most recommend to you on Astrology is called The Moment Of Astrology, Geoffrey Cornelius. I think you’ll appreciate the way he writes.

    Thanks a lot. I’ll take a look.

    181 Hope

    Psychoanalysis of her past: her parents, her family, her upbringing, her dating history, etc. It works, particularly when you use your own background as a lens and deflection to probe into hers. We can never truly know another until we understand that person’s childhood experiences. But be careful with discussing your mutual dating histories, as it can backfire, but it can just as easily give you both great insight into each other.

    So not just ordinary conversation about these topics, but learning and using the Freudian framework? Hmm, I’m rather uncomfortable with this. Freud had a terrible predictive track record.

    Like


  180. 171 Hope:

    Basically a reiteration, with more elaborate scenarios and more drawn out versions of “divorce theft.” The results are the same, no?

    The point, dear, was to disabuse you and others of the notion that a focus on game is itself indicative of poor character. As if we were all heartless vultures preying on innocent females. As if!

    I could be much more machiavellian than the typical airhead had that been the path I had chosen for myself. I am like most women, but I talk to men more than women and take the man’s viewpoint more often. That’s probably one of the more important differences.

    My point was that even the most “innocent” and naive female has within her a vast toolkit of “dirty tricks” to castrate her hubby. Observation and the commiseration of others has led me to conclude that this is evolutionarily hard-wired in most women. Even the bimbos.

    What this means is that the notion of a straight-shooting woman is based more on hope and belief, rather than reality (unless the man is willing to lower his standards significantly). So, someone like DoJ who is looking for a “good woman” is liable to get played as a patsy by his own naivete.

    The fact is women are compelled to mate with a high-status male and to later “trap” him into some sort of commitment. (Conversely, some women — the wild ones — will keep a beta around for when the cameras are rolling, i.e.,parents, etc., and will cuckold him later with an alpha).

    The women who choose to catch an alpha will be all eyes and smiles in the beginning of the relationship, but sooner or later the games begin. One of the most common is known in the community as the “open up to me” gambit. You know how it is, the female will start to act cold and withdrawn, and when pressed will complain that she feels her man doesn’t express enough of his feelings and that she really doesn’t know him.

    This is where someone like DoJ would get caught hook line and sinker. I won’t go into the specifics right now, but I strongly urge all the men reading here who want to learn better how to handle their relationships with women to get over to the Relationships Board over at fastseduction.com. In particular, look for a poster known as Franco a.k.a. Zarathustra_fi.

    Even better, buy his book:

    http://francoseduction.com/?page_id=17

    That guy pretty much changed my life in some ways. He fixed my head and got it screwed back on straight and did the job my father never did.

    Like


  181. DoJ 182 —

    I think you’d be far, far better off learning something about astrology than psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is yesterday’s news, and is like, really serious, grave stuff. There’s a sexy way to do almost anything, but the pitfalls are big. And it’s a drag.

    Astrology can be played with. That’s the way for you to approach it, if you do. Think of Elizabeth as your target girl. She doesn’t really believe it, but she likes the way it can make her feel.

    Think of it as a way to ask personal questions of a stranger pretty soon into the game, as she gives some concrete responses to your astrologically derrived personality generalizations.

    You’d maybe think I’d done this but I really haven’t. Just had it done.

    Anyway you can learn something about astrology and play with it while considering it basically for fun. You’re best off not telling girls it’s entirely just for fun though. Actually you’re best off working on not always thinking that way yourself, to yourself. Have some duality. If they ask whether you believe it or not, you can say that you’ve found that working with it can lead to personal insights, and even profound ones. You can’t quite explain how, but you’re kinda amazed.

    You should actually try to get to where you think that way in part, as a side of yourself. Sure you could step back and analyze. You could say it’s just a bunch of vague personality statements that the person then responds to and gives details, which allows you to respond back to perceptively. Or you could get inside the magic of the communication and way it can lead to feeling each other.

    Like


  182. 175 Zamani:

    One of the things that I have considered is that there are some guys who are only attracted to these cookie cutter sort of women that they have been brainwashed to find attractive and since alot of guys dont value an intellect or any other sort of depth in a woman, they keep chasing these same attractive dingbats who have no substance and are only drawn to the stupid jock types of the stereotypical macho men who are actually a good match for their dumb asses..lol.

    Ah, and here it is.

    Whenever I encounter someone who claims to be a ladies man, yet whose methodology conflicts in some substantial ways with what I know to be true, it usually means they’re avoiding the “hard cases”, i.e.,the hot chicks. And when pressed, they give you moralisms about such women’s supposed character flaws.

    I suspect the women you do best with are the recently broken-hearted. I imagine you were often the rebound, “in-betweener” guy on whose shoulder women love to cry …after their alpha exes wore them like a sock. That’s not to say you can’t get laid that way, however.

    So alot of the guys here who have some smarts but are still drawn to chickenheads and bimbos (professional and do nothings) are basically out of there league and deserve whatever rejection they get for chasing them.

    I don’t doubt that a significant portion of The Hotts have a distasteful sense of entitlement, but you are here talking about the wonderful individuality of women. Why are you now characterizing a whole class of women based solely on their looks?

    Like


  183. 184 dougjnn

    Anyway you can learn something about astrology and play with it while considering it basically for fun. You’re best off not telling girls it’s entirely just for fun though. Actually you’re best off working on not always thinking that way yourself, to yourself. Have some duality. If they ask whether you believe it or not, you can say that you’ve found that working with it can lead to personal insights, and even profound ones. You can’t quite explain how, but you’re kinda amazed.

    You should actually try to get to where you think that way in part, as a side of yourself. Sure you could step back and analyze. You could say it’s just a bunch of vague personality statements that the person then responds to and gives details, which allows you to respond back to perceptively. Or you could get inside the magic of the communication and way it can lead to feeling each other.

    If it works, I’m ready to try it. And I’ll think as dualistically as I can without giving up my integrity. I have no problem with the notion of different levels of description — just like biology is less exact but more useful for analyzing living things than trying to figure things out purely with chemistry and physics, I accept that inexact mystical concepts can complement logic and psychology in understanding and bonding with a woman.

    See my post #142, though. I don’t only need to start using astrology or something similar, I also probably need to soften what I communicate about my thinking.

    Like


  184. Tupac: Whenever I encounter someone who claims to be a ladies man, yet whose methodology conflicts in some substantial ways with what I know to be true, it usually means they’re avoiding the “hard cases”, i.e.,the hot chicks. And when pressed, they give you moralisms about such women’s supposed character flaws.

    Zamani: Well firstly physical attractiveness in women is somewhat relative in the sense of what one guy might think its hot another might think is average. As Mumin attested to I havent been with any women that would be vaguely considered unattractive in the least. I never claimed to a “ladies man” all I said was that I havent had a problem attracting a large amount of women who happen to be attractive and the reason wasnt because my “game” was tight. I never made any moral judgments about attractive women, I was talking about a certain “type” of women that SOME men go after where theres a combination of good looks but sorry personality. Honestly guys with those sort of women, they are going to only date a guy that they find physically attractive and I doubt seriously that any amount of game is going to help you..honestly, unless you have something else substantial to offer them. So it depends on what you consider to be “hot”. Mumin doesnt like the skinny barbie doll sort of woman. He likes natural but attractive, full figured and buxom women, does that mean hes dating down or not going after the real prize based on who’s criteria of whats attractive? Also with regards to the “hard cases” comments, I just dont look at it like that because I dont see me trying to get to know someone as a game…sorry.

    Tupac:I suspect the women you do best with are the recently broken-hearted. I imagine you were often the rebound, “in-betweener” guy on whose shoulder women love to cry …after their alpha exes wore them like a sock. That’s not to say you can’t get laid that way, however.

    Zamani: I really hate the simplistic assumptions and those easy categorizations. It seems that people here have real trouble dealing with the intricacies and the complexity of differing persona’s, I suppose its much easier to simply categorize men into these little boxes and presume that you cant judge what all women will do , think, feel and respond too. Anyway to answer your questions… I never deal with a women who is fresh out of any sort of relationship, irrespective of who the person was with or why they parted ways. I just dont do it.. Just not my thing. Actually all of the women I dated and then parted ways with, usually went on to hold me up as a standard later.

    Tupac: I don’t doubt that a significant portion of The Hotts have a distasteful sense of entitlement, but you are here talking about the wonderful individuality of women. Why are you now characterizing a whole class of women based solely on their looks?

    Zamani: Again I wasnt doing that. I dated a girl for a time who was a model for several years, was hit on by every guy in the industry you can think of etc. Shammar Moore was after her…but she wasnt impressed by any of that and hated aggressive men. She actually was drawn to shy guys, men much more reserved than myself. So I wasnt implying that all women who were “hot” were shallow, I was implying that alot of guys are drawn to women who are all sex appeal and nothing upstairs because in life you are often drawn to people who reflect your own inner world.

    Like


  185. 186 DoJ

    See my post #142, though. I don’t only need to start using astrology or something similar, I also probably need to soften what I communicate about my thinking.

    I actually went back and looked. I started reading.

    I read faster and faster and skimmed.

    I really skimmed.

    I skimmed so much that I really don’t know how you ended it. It was too complicated for that. It was had far too much complication / human interest ratio to be worth reading.

    Does that give you a clue?

    Oh, and btw. If you seemed to be a problem, I’d just zap you. As in kill you. Rather than read you all the way through.

    Like


  186. This is of course a comic book universe I’m describing.

    Like


  187. on October 7, 2008 at 2:58 am Comment_?????????

    ****
    The idea that we are individuals bursting with exceptional specialness is sorely overrated, and here even the scientific realms, such as they are, are bearing this out. Yes, there is always something to be said for permutations, but the baseline remains a constant.
    ****

    ****
    Because I agree w/you that Watson was railroaded out of his job, NOT for saying something that was scientifically invalid or wrong, but saying something that was politically incorrect. And lets be clear here, I’m Black, and am all for furthering researches into the connection between Race & IQ, and will have no problem should it be proven without a shadow of a doubt that Black folk didn’t win out in the intelligence lottery. The world will not explode, and so on. Maybe it will explain things about us as human beings, of maybe it will do nothing at all. But I’m all for the scientific effort.
    ****
    My point is that people who are very good at something, and can do something very well, should be taken seriously in the very area of their expertise. Not doing so is modern-idiocy.

    It leads to bizarre statements like the two quoted above. Okay, so Mu’Min believes intelligence could vary but personality profiles don’t?

    If one takes evolution seriously, then this is hardly possible.

    Aggression is a fast-evolving trait. Change involves adjusting testosterone and a few other hormones. Also, it’s not just ‘Maxed’, because more is quite often worse, rather than better. People MANUALLY adjust their testosterone all the time. Evolutionarily, adjusting testosterone is as easy as flipping a few switches. FAST evolution.

    Intelligence is a very slow evolving trait. That is, more is almost always better…. but more is difficult to achieve. Such extremely uphill ‘random changes’ would be very difficult to achieve. Certainly not as simple as “produce more testosterone” or “produce less testosterone”.

    Other ‘personality traits’ are perhaps harder to ‘evolve’ a change in than aggression… but certainly easier than an increase in intelligence would be.

    So if you acknowledge that intelligence can vary from North-Western Africans to Central Africans…. then you BY DEFINITION accept that personalities can vary far more. Or did you even think that ‘blacks’ were one race? Look at a globe. An area that size having a homogenous population? Is a Fin-Skinned Fin the same as a Russian Slut? Cause they are both “white”?

    Oh, and everyone should read the different posts on Roissy’s Fin ex-girlfriend.

    Like


  188. 188 dougjnn

    I skimmed so much that I really don’t know how you ended it. It was too complicated for that. It was had far too much complication / human interest ratio to be worth reading.

    Does that give you a clue?

    Oh, and btw. If you seemed to be a problem, I’d just zap you. As in kill you. Rather than read you all the way through.

    This is of course a comic book universe I’m describing.

    That wasn’t the kind of feedback I was looking for, but okay, I get your point.

    But ignoring the length issue. Is it wise for a rationalist atheist to reveal exactly how they think when they’re asked about a moral dilemma? The answer appears to be no in some cases. Which leads to the question, how should I be softening my response?

    Like


  189. Is it wise for a rationalist atheist to reveal exactly how they think when they’re asked about a moral dilemma?

    Are “moral dilemmas” typical of conversations you have with women? I would steer far clear of any such topic.

    Like


  190. 145 Zamani

    This guy has women crawling all over him based on the fact that hes such a nice guy and that the women he met felt so “comfortable” around him and didnt feel threatened or preyed upon by him.

    This is an important point. I hear a lot of complaints from self-described “nice guys” about how women don’t like them. But there’s a difference between being a genuinely nice guy — the kind of person anyone feels comfortable with — and being a “nice” guy who is really only nice to the girl he’s interested in because he wants to get in her pants. I’ve dealt with a lot of the latter kind, most of whom turned incredibly nasty once I told them I wasn’t romantically interested in them. A few of them turned into stalkers, and I walked in on one telling his buddies that I needed a man to “show [me] who’s boss” by raping me.

    Yeah. Such a nice guy.

    It’s always important to look at how someone who’s interested in you treats other people, not just you. In college, I would never go on a second date with a guy who was rude to waiters, bartenders, etc. — I really can’t stand people who treat others like they’re something low just because they’re working in service jobs.

    179 Mu’Min

    It is a known fact that people /too high an IQ actually have a harder time getting laid, and this is especially true for males….Simply put, women don’t find really, really smart guys sexy, for whatever reason…

    It depends. Obviously we can’t measure the IQ of Julius Caesar, who is long dead, but he was a genuinely brilliant man — in politics, in war, in law, and in writing. He was also handsome, charming, charismatic, and powerful. In other words, he knew how to interact with people, how to dazzle them.

    He had no trouble getting laid. Much to the dismay of his foes, since he tended to cuckold them. 🙂

    Men who are brilliant in more “human” areas — law, politics, business, the arts, etc. — generally don’t have problems with women. I think the high IQ types who have problems with women are found in fields that emphasize a lot of cold reason, like the hard sciences. But I don’t think their troubles are the fault of their high IQ. More the fault of their low EQ. They have a harder time interacting with women in the emotional, intuitive way that appeals to many women.

    Like


  191. Zamani is clearly doing an enormous amount of thinking on each and every relationship, so I think his “be yourself” is a bit silly….. unless yourself is an analytical machine. Zamani, other guys perhaps aren’t as observant as you… you ten years ago were probably less observant than you now.

    Did you start out using game, and then “stop” after you didn’t need to rely on generalities anymore?

    It strikes me that while Zamani has focused an enormous amount of will on understanding and interacting with women, he has let men become a fuzzy generalized shape in the distance.

    Zamani now isn’t Zamani ten years ago, isn’t other men right now. Merging them all into one fuzzy figure that just has to ‘be itself’ is an extreme disservice to THIER individuality.

    Alot of men here aren’t even close to your level right now, and you do them no service by kicking the crutch out from underneath them. If you don’t like the crutch they have, then by all means, replace it.

    Zamani wrote:
    ****
    I was kicked off a site for predominately women for daring to challenge their assumptions concerning what all “Black Men want” and again there were mostly a bunch of individuals on that site who were unhappy in their interactions with the opposite sex and instead of turning inward, instead of addressing how their home environment and their parental interactions affected their relationship choices decided to project everything outward and stereotype.
    ****
    Okay, I hear you. How does messed up parental interactions cause women-man relationship trouble?

    I’m sure understanding these problems would be helpful to all men.

    Like


  192. So not just ordinary conversation about these topics, but learning and using the Freudian framework? Hmm, I’m rather uncomfortable with this. Freud had a terrible predictive track record.

    Actually, no, I’ve never approached it with any framework. Just conversation with emotional weight behind it. For most women, you either connect on that level or you don’t, so breaking it down systematically does not necessarily work as well as just going with the flow of the natural conversation.

    I also probably need to soften what I communicate about my thinking.

    I think that is not your problem. There are men who are completely unapologetic about their absolute rationalism and hard atheism, and they come across as what can only be described as irrationally confident. And women are attracted to that confidence even if it’s not spiritually framed.

    As others have mentioned, it is more a mindset than a set of techniques. Some men can rant off on some really nerdy and geeky stuff and get women more than interested, while others can talk about macho stuff all day and make women yawn. Humility was probably ingrained into you by your heritage though, so that’s going to be a hard one to unlearn.

    The point, dear, was to disabuse you and others of the notion that a focus on game is itself indicative of poor character.

    The result is mostly what I emphasized. That is, even though the men engaging in game might be of average or exemplary character, they are still pursuing women for the short-term rather than the long-term. And in those cases, it’s just not worth it to them to get to know the women as individuals, as MQ and Zamani suggested.

    I think that the suggestion that people who do not want marriage should avoid marriage altogether is a good one, actually. I’m very much about the live and let live, as I’ve been preached at more than enough times about my own odd choices. But there is something about a lifelong romantic bond while young, in the mid to late teens and early to mid 20s, that is appealing across most cultures and seems timeless. Romeo and Juliet, Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights, etc.

    Like


  193. Elizabeth 193–

    Men who are brilliant in more “human” areas — law, politics, business, the arts, etc. — generally don’t have problems with women. I think the high IQ types who have problems with women are found in fields that emphasize a lot of cold reason, like the hard sciences. But I don’t think their troubles are the fault of their high IQ. More the fault of their low EQ. They have a harder time interacting with women in the emotional, intuitive way that appeals to many women.

    Exactly right.

    Sometimes you do get these basic emotional/sexual things right despite your own personal — blockages.

    Like


  194. @ Elizabeth 193 – you can tell a lot about a person – male or female – in how they treat someone who can’t do anything for them.

    Like


  195. 195 Hope

    But there is something about a lifelong romantic bond while young, in the mid to late teens and early to mid 20s, that is appealing across most cultures and seems timeless. Romeo and Juliet, <Pride and Prejudice, Wuthering Heights, etc.

    That’s the appeal of that story? A lifelong romantic bond forged while young? Strange. I thought it was Mr. Darcy. 😉

    “Lifelong,” alas, was not that long for poor young Romeo and Juliet. I’ve always thought it was funny that people considered that such a great love story, considering that it ended with the suicides of the romantic protagonists.

    Of course, I’ve also always thought that Mercutio is the character who makes the play, so I didn’t much care what happened after he died. 🙂 Shakespeare apparently said that he had to kill off Mercutio because he was taking over the play. Frankly, I think he should’ve forgotten about Romeo and Juliet (boring), and done a play about Mercutio and the Nurse. 😀

    Like


  196. Hello Elizabeth,
    Before I begin, I just want you to know that Mu is a Man of his Word: I have located & acquired The Queen, after some doing. I may watch it tonight if not it’ll be on the morrow, but in any event I will be back w/a full report in due course.
    Now…

    Your citation of JC answers your own question, Elizabeth. High IQ in males almost invariably means being very facile with inanimate things and concepts, hence a great deal of the trouble Zorgon and DOJ have and why I said it is not wise for them to attempt to emulate someone who has “people smarts” or “EQ” as you put it, like Zam. Again I repeat: the highest number of Johns, as a group, are White males over a certain raw IQ number. It makes perfect sene as to why, at least in part, such men would be be viewed favorably as mates or even short term sexual partners, because they lack the strong social skills women consistently choose when given that choice.

    And that goes back to a point I’ve been consistently building on of late that we really must at some point focus in on; women over the past four decades can now freely choose whom thy want to be with, and when they choose, they want a man who has strong social skills. That’s a fact, Elizabeth. Princeton, MIT, Stanford, UPenn, you name it, are places chockfull of guys who ain’t getting NOTHING, because the women don’t choose them, they choose the jocks, or the humanities guys, etc.

    Even Tom Wolfe has written about this, I Am Charlotte Simmons. Its a powerful read, as is usual for Wolfe. I highly recommend it.

    Now, why is that so important? Well, its because, as Whiskey points out, because it just goes to show how drastically the social landscape have changed.

    On his blogsite, Whiskey surveys two men of the same age, racial background and locale, the same town, the only differences being, that one was born in 1949 and the other nearly a half century later, in 1998. Please go to his site and read up on that study. I think its veey instructive.

    Simply being a smart guy who is reasonably well adjusted w/the promise of a high paying stable job JUST AIN’T ENOUGH. And this is why I said what I did about what women say and what they actually do. Simply put, women want a guy who can talk sh*t, and please don’t misunderstand me here. What I man by that is a lot of the banter that makes up part of Game. Zam can do that. DOJ and Zorgon, really can’t.

    But 50 years ago, both these men had a real shot at getting a wife. Today they have a real shot at being akin to 40 Year Old Virgins.

    All social change, “progress”, real or imagined, comes at a price. We never asked what would happen to men like DOJ and Zorgon. Maybe there’s something Evolutionarily speaking to learn from that, too.

    Finally, a word about “nice guys”, because I think its fair to say that many men here have been put in what Chris Rock called “The Friend Zone”.

    Being a nice guy, from what I have observed, anomalies like Zam aside, is almost a guarantor of you being put in The Friend Zone, locked away there, forever, to never copulate w/that female. And no matter how we want to get away from it, sex is hugely important to males. It drives them in ways I honestly believe women are simply incapable of fully understanding. Well, most of them anyway. I always hold out the possibility of exceptions.

    I disagree strongly w/those men who are Sore Losers, but still in all, they were Losers nonetheless, Elizabeth. At the end of the day-and you of all people should know this, having coached and possibily even played sports yourself, you don’t get anything for winning a Moral Victory. You either win, or you loose. True, there’s something to be said about losing w/grace and honor. It just doesn’t say as much when compared to the knuckleheads who consistently get more ass-and let’s be clear here-more QUALITY ASS-than the proverbial toilet seat.

    Meanwhile, there you sit, with your nice guy Moral Victory.

    Its a Changed World. And I truly fear for the DOJs and Zorgons of the world.

    Holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  197. 193 Elizabeth

    Men who are brilliant in more “human” areas — law, politics, business, the arts, etc. — generally don’t have problems with women. I think the high IQ types who have problems with women are found in fields that emphasize a lot of cold reason, like the hard sciences. But I don’t think their troubles are the fault of their high IQ. More the fault of their low EQ. They have a harder time interacting with women in the emotional, intuitive way that appeals to many women.

    No disagreement here. But I’m willing to invest essentially unlimited effort into working on this problem.

    It’s still not very clear how I should spend this effort, though… it’s so difficult to sort out what in the PUA literature is actually worthwhile for me when it denigrates a balanced marriage, whereas that’s my goal…

    195 Hope

    Actually, no, I’ve never approached it with any framework. Just conversation with emotional weight behind it. For most women, you either connect on that level or you don’t, so breaking it down systematically does not necessarily work as well as just going with the flow of the natural conversation.

    Okay. Well, I already try to do that, but I may approach it in too nerdy/literal a manner? I suppose this depends on the woman, but this seems to be a problem at least some of the time.

    I think that is not your problem. There are men who are completely unapologetic about their absolute rationalism and hard atheism, and they come across as what can only be described as irrationally confident. And women are attracted to that confidence even if it’s not spiritually framed.

    Agreed… but this doesn’t seem to apply so much to the thoughtful women I’m most attracted to.

    As others have mentioned, it is more a mindset than a set of techniques. Some men can rant off on some really nerdy and geeky stuff and get women more than interested, while others can talk about macho stuff all day and make women yawn. Humility was probably ingrained into you by your heritage though, so that’s going to be a hard one to unlearn.

    I probably do need to practice talking about and writing about my interests in a more compelling manner. I’m wondering how I should go about this.

    Like


  198. I hear a lot of complaints from self-described “nice guys” about how women don’t like them. But there’s a difference between being a genuinely nice guy — the kind of person anyone feels comfortable with — and being a “nice” guy who is really only nice to the girl he’s interested in because he wants to get in her pants.

    A very important point. Being genuinely nice — in the sense of open, welcoming, and generous to others, from a position of personal power and self-confidence — is very challenging and difficult. It takes a lot of inner game. It can also be very attractive to women, very attractive. “Nice guys” who bemoan their lack of success with women are very rarely, if ever, this kind of “nice”. If I was going to learn from a natural, I’d rather learn from this kind of natural.

    Zamani is clearly doing an enormous amount of thinking on each and every relationship, so I think his “be yourself” is a bit silly….. unless yourself is an analytical machine.

    Many guys are naturally thinkers, but don’t turn their attention to thinking about the people around them or about their own personality. Are you sure you’re not taking “be yourself” to equal “do no work on yourself”, or just “be selfish and not attentive to the needs of others”?

    So this is why when I read Zam trotting out the youngbucks as predator/young girls as defenseless, that ain’t the world I know

    I don’t see Zamani as doing this. I see him more as saying certain types of game are bad spiritually for the men who use them, not that they victimize helpless women.

    Men who are brilliant in more “human” areas — law, politics, business, the arts, etc. — generally don’t have problems with women.

    there are plenty of introverted, geeky, fearful lawyers, businessmen, and even occasionally politicians out there (although it’s hard to make it in politics without being an extrovert, which helps with women). They do somewhat better with women, but I think that’s more because they are surrounded by hot women in the workplace than anything else. Also, they’re very well paid. Some women specialize in targeting well paid but geeky lawyers and businessmen and marrying them. Not very good marriages usually.

    Like


  199. 199 Mu’Min —

    I think you said at one point that you didn’t go to college?

    The referenced post is at a high level college ability.

    Are you a Malcolm? Prison at an earlish age?

    Anyway, respect.

    Yeah Tom Wolfe is great. He’s likely to be read for this age long after the rest are forgotten. Charlotte Simmons wasn’t one of his best I don’t think, but a worthwhile read. He is in fact getting to be too long in the tooth to do that kind of thing as best it can be done.

    Like


  200. Comment Game: Did you start out using game, and then “stop” after you didn’t need to rely on generalities anymore?It strikes me that while Zamani has focused an enormous amount of will on understanding and interacting with women, he has let men become a fuzzy generalized shape in the distance.

    Zamani: Well no I didn’t start out using game. If I was interested in someone romantically/sexually I would let them know, either directly or subtly depending on our communication. I just communicated with the women and behaved like I normally do and saw how she responded. If she didnt she didnt, if she does she does.

    As for my perception of men being fuzzy, its very much an individual thing, but I also see and experience alot of mistakes alot of guys make with women and the results. I think that this generation (especially) of men have bought into the idea that your sense of masculinity has to carry with it a level of antagonism towards women. If you wanna see a guy proclaiming how masculine he is, be sure to listen for all of the bravado concerning how many women he has bedded and simultaneously mistreated.

    Game to me (in many of the contexts I hear them here) still implies that you have to trick someone into liking you because your looks, personality etc. arent enough on their own merit which says alot about the self esteem of the person doing it as well as their lack of regard for the person they are ‘getting over on”.Its corny.

    Comment Game: Alot of men here aren’t even close to your level right now, and you do them no service by kicking the crutch out from underneath them. If you don’t like the crutch they have, then by all means, replace it.

    Zamani: I don’t think I removed a crutch from them, I think that I replaced that crutch with something more substantial which was the idea of finding someone who is going to genuinely like them in the long run for being genuine and the opportunity to experience something outside of a superficial roll in the sack with some dumb hot chick. Alot of the guys might possibly be attractive to alot of women by being who they are without the facades you know?

    Zamani wrote:I was kicked off a site for predominately women for daring to challenge their assumptions concerning what all “Black Men want” and again there were mostly a bunch of individuals on that site who were unhappy in their interactions with the opposite sex and instead of turning inward, instead of addressing how their home environment and their parental interactions affected their relationship choices decided to project everything outward and stereotype.

    Comment Game: Okay, I hear you. How does messed up parental interactions cause women-man relationship trouble?I’m sure understanding these problems would be helpful to all men.

    Zamani: Well the core of how we relate to the opposite sex and a great deal of our choices and experiences with the opposite sex are connected to our parental relationships and our early home environment, specifically the parent of the opposite sex. Most peoples relationships with the opposite sex mirror either the relationships that their parents had and/or the ones they had themselves with the parent of the opposite sex. Astrology can give one very intimate details concerning how these things are all connected.

    Aside from Astrology giving great insight into the extremes of individuality between each person we meet (which is why Im against all the stereotyping here) it will also show you the ties between our parental complex and our partnerships. It can also inform one alot about why people have so much angst with the opposite sex etc.

    So overall my point has been that every guy is as unique as every women and there will always be people out there who will appreciate you for who you are at your core etc.

    I also for the millionth time have seen that there are a surplus of women (I have met or talked with maybe a thousand of them) who do like GENUINELY nice guys. They might not like someone who is PRETENDING to be nice or someone who is CORNY and nice but they also dont like guys who are aggressive and CORNY either and they are just as numerous. They like a man who is sensitive, appreciates them but also has his own mind, opinions and is generally a balanced healthy person.

    Like


  201. MQ Wrote: A very important point. Being genuinely nice — in the sense of open, welcoming, and generous to others, from a position of personal power and self-confidence — is very challenging and difficult. It takes a lot of inner game. It can also be very attractive to women, very attractive. “Nice guys” who bemoan their lack of success with women are very rarely, if ever, this kind of “nice”. If I was going to learn from a natural, I’d rather learn from this kind of natural.

    Zamani: Guys who have genuine confidence don’t need to display arrogance or the pretense of lack of interest in order to gain a women’s attention. True confidence will carry with it the sort of intelligence that is aware of the fact that irrespective of how happy I am with myself, there is always the possibility that this other person may not find me appealing and that doesn’t change anything about who I am. Nice guys who are successful with women are not ego driven and insecure and therefore don’t need the constant superficial feeling of success of bedding a woman down who was captivated by your pretense (usually short term). The fact that they are not so self focused and are able to actually “RELATE” to a woman in a natural fashion is what ultimately appeals to her naturally and is what makes you much more attractive as a person.

    Like


  202. 200 DoJ:

    it’s so difficult to sort out what in the PUA literature is actually worthwhile for me when it denigrates a balanced marriage, whereas that’s my goal…

    “You want a 50/50 relationship? It means she owns you.” — David D.

    Okay. Well, I already try to do that, but I may approach it in too nerdy/literal a manner? I suppose this depends on the woman, but this seems to be a problem at least some of the time.

    “Origin of the logical.– How did logic come into existence in man’s head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made inferences in a way different from ours perished; for all that, their ways might have been truer. Those, for example, who did not know how to find often enough what is “equal” as regards both nourishment and hostile animals–those, in other words, who subsumed things too slowly and cautiously–were favored with a lesser probability of survival than those who guessed immediately upon encountering similar instances that they must be equal. The dominant tendency, however, to treat as equal what is merely similar–an illogical tendency, for nothing is really equal–is what first created any basis for logic.

    In order that the concept of substance could originate–which is indispensible for logic although in the strictest sense nothing real corresponds to it–it was likewise necessary that for a long time one did not see or perceive the changes in things. The beings that did not see so precisely had an advantage over those who saw everything “in flux.” At bottom, every high degree of caution in making inferences and every skeptical tendency constitute a great danger for life. No living beings would have survived if the opposite tendency–to affirm rather than suspend judgement, to err and make up things rather than wait, to assent rather than negate, to pass judgement rather than be just– had not been bred to the point where it became extraordinarily strong.”

    – Nietzsche, The Gay Science


    I probably do need to practice talking about and writing about my interests in a more compelling manner. I’m wondering how I should go about this.

    “The model(s) — paradigms — men use to tolerate their
    existential presence tells you more about them than the content of
    their message.
    Trust more in a man’s moods than in his thoughts.

    Assertion: The better a man feels the less complex his models.
    The worse he feels the more complex his models. The real question —
    do complex models explain more of reality than simple ones? Or is
    complexity a poor model for describing the issue of models? Or am I
    misusing the concept?

    What we need to look at is elegance.
    The weaker a person is the more binary his models. What do I
    really mean by this? As a rule weaker people think primarily in
    discrete one dimensional binary terms. They are stuck in a fascistic
    state of mind. This must be expected since their defenses are
    primitive.
    Look at what has been done to the whole brain model. Weak
    minded people say that there is a left brain and a right brain.
    This type of “mind” does not even recognize that they are talking
    about a model. A stronger person says, a model of the brain is…
    A stronger and more knowledgeable person says, “a model of the
    brain based on Herrmann’s work consists of 4 factors and not 2. The
    whole brain model has 4 primary components. They are left cortex,
    right cortex, left limbic system, and right limbic system.” Which
    person is stronger? Which person is in a better mood? Do my
    assertions concerning moods, weakness and model complexity apply? If
    they do apply how do they apply? Or is my model simply based on poor
    observations and definitions?
    Which model of the brain will sell more books and to whom? This
    might help us understand my model better. I will predict that the two
    brain model will sell more books and the people who buy and believe it
    will be more right brain and less left brain. A person high in
    mathematical ability and analytical reasoning would find the book a
    joke. A whole brain person might be interested in the book, buy it,
    but not believe it.

    What sells is the model — not the product. The facts are that
    most of us live in a one dimensional, model discrete (yes/no)
    universe.
    Some people can even tolerate *maybe*. How many people can
    tolerate a multi-factor interacting model? Very few. It would
    require that they specify conditions of when, who, where and how.
    This is too much for most people. Their tolerance for existential
    presence is low.
    Politicians and advertisers rely on the fact that most people
    only respond from a yes/no matrix. As people become more complex they
    add maybe. As they become more complex they add more and more
    factors. Sooner or later they become organic and they look simple
    again. Complexity becomes a simple art form
    .

    — Christopher S. Hyatt

    Like


  203. 199 Mu’Min

    I have located & acquired The Queen, after some doing.

    Excellent! It really is a great movie with spectacular performances.

    High IQ in males almost invariably means being very facile with inanimate things and concepts, hence a great deal of the trouble Zorgon and DOJ have and why I said it is not wise for them to attempt to emulate someone who has “people smarts” or “EQ” as you put it, like Zam.

    You’re acting like men who are wired to do well with inanimate things and concepts are the only ones with high IQs. They’re not. Plenty of men with high IQs have verbal or artistic brilliance, as opposed to scientific or mathematical brilliance. It’s not the high IQ that’s the problem. As I said, there have been a lot of genuinely brilliant men — not merely smart, but brilliant — like Caesar (Alexander Hamilton was another) — who had no trouble attracting the ladies. It’s not the intelligence that detracts from certain men; it’s the lack of social skills. Now, there might be a specific kind of intelligence that correlates with a lack of social skills. But certainly not all intelligence. So it’s not really fair to say that women don’t find intelligence sexy. What they don’t find sexy is a lack of intuitive, empathetic social skills.

    Speaking personally — I would have no use, romantically, for a man who did not have a blazing intellect.

    That’s a fact, Elizabeth. Princeton, MIT, Stanford, UPenn, you name it, are places chockfull of guys who ain’t getting NOTHING, because the women don’t choose them, they choose the jocks, or the humanities guys, etc.

    Mu’Min, I went to an Ivy, and there was plenty of hooking up going on there. Sure there were guys who weren’t getting any, but there are guys like that everywhere.

    And it wasn’t just the humanities people hooking up. From what one of my best friends told me — she was a chemical engineering major — the enginerds hooked up as much as anyone else. They were just incestuous about it. They did it with each other. 🙂

    Simply being a smart guy who is reasonably well adjusted w/the promise of a high paying stable job JUST AIN’T ENOUGH.

    Actually, it would be, if these reasonably well-adjusted guys with the stable jobs would stop going after the beauties and settle down with plain girls or, God forbid, fatties. If 98% of guys are aiming for the same 10% of women, there are going to be a lot of guys left out in the cold.

    Not every man can have a beautiful woman, or even a pretty one. There are just not enough attractive women to go around. You seem almost affronted that women won’t “settle” for Mr. Reasonably Well-Adjusted. Well, why won’t men “settle” for the 60-70% of women who aren’t pretty? Why should a beautiful woman who has good-looking, wealthy men throwing themselves at her settle for Mr. Reasonably Well-Adjusted? I’ve said it on this site before: people tend to mate on their level. If a guy wants to try to improve his chances through game, by all means, he can try. But if he’s aiming for women who are out of his league, he has no one to blame but himself if he fails.

    Simply put, women want a guy who can talk sh*t, and please don’t misunderstand me here.

    Simply put, women want men at their level or above it. They’re not going to cast their eyes downward. If everyone here is so determined to talk about the hard facts of life, then there’s a hard fact of life. Here’s another: you have no one to blame but yourself if you’re aiming too high and fail. It’s like applying to an Ivy League school with straight B’s on your transcript.

    All social change, “progress”, real or imagined, comes at a price. We never asked what would happen to men like DOJ and Zorgon. Maybe there’s something Evolutionarily speaking to learn from that, too.

    This isn’t about progress. It’s about high standards that might be unrealistic. Not all men can bed beauties; not all men can have the number of sex partners that Casanova did; not all men can hook a brilliant outlier. I’m not talking about DoJ or Zorgon, necessarily (although DoJ has admitted to having quite high standards). People who are holding out for standards that are almost impossibly high are taking the chance that they will fail. Now, I have high standards myself, so I don’t hold that against people, so long as they are willing to accept the risk and not blame others for their failure.

    In other words, if you’re a reasonably well-adjusted guy with a stable job, but you’re also short, fat, and ugly, chances are you are not going to end up with a beautiful woman. No matter how good your “game” is. (Or score with loads of beautiful women, if that’s your goal.)

    You might, on the other hand, have a perfectly good shot with the chubby woman who works in the cubicle next to you. (Or score with lots of chubby women.)

    If DoJ were willing to relax his standards, I doubt he’d have trouble finding a nice girl. But he’s stated that he’s really only interested in the brilliant outliers. And there just aren’t that many brilliant outliers. So already, there’s a scarcity problem. Next there’s the problem of whether he’ll click with the brilliant outliers who cross his path. He’s selective about what he wants, which substantially reduces the pool of potential mates. Again, there’s nothing wrong with this, so long as he realizes the risk and is willing to accept it. He doesn’t seem like a blaming-the-world type, so I think he probably understands this. The guys who really need to get a clue are the ugly fat ones who are bitter because gorgeous women aren’t falling into bed with them.

    Being a nice guy, from what I have observed, anomalies like Zam aside, is almost a guarantor of you being put in The Friend Zone, locked away there, forever, to never copulate w/that female.

    No. Guys get locked in the Friend Zone when they try to backdoor their way into a woman’s heart by starting out as friends. Guys who have a romantic interest in a girl need to make that clear from the start. Otherwise, girls will classify them as friends.

    You can be a nice guy and still telegraph sexual/romantic interest, you know. By, say, asking her out on dates, instead of trying to be her hangout buddy. 🙂

    Like


  204. Doug,
    Thank You. Let’s just say, that Malcolm is more than a book, some speeches and a bunch of slogans to me.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  205. 201 MQ:

    Very wise observations, but I have to ask: what on earth would have given so many men the opposite impression?

    Like


  206. 40 Mu Mu

    ,i>she does not know how to reconcile that Wanton Lass Within w/her more politically conscious facade.

    Sorry, wrong again. I am decidedly a-political. Will not vote in this election or any election in the foreseeable future, and the women women politicians are more uselessly schizoid then their male counterparts.

    203 Tupac

    You have redeemed yourself only slightly by quoting Nietzsche. By the way, here’s a big head’s up…I’ve said this 100 times here, but no one seems bright enough to pick up on it. EQUAL DOES NOT MEAN SAME in regards to men and women. Please, someone get i!!!!

    Feminism was a means to an end; a concerted and successful effort to destroy the family, thereby removing people’s natural purpose, strength, and power and making us all consumers of each other and everything under the sun that anyone might want to sell us. As such, we are easily brainwashed and hypnotized for “evil” purposes. How can we wake up if we don’t know we’re asleep? I ask you! But as usual, no one is listening to little old crazy Sara. x_X

    Sorry, this is not about wood or the hardness of of it, but that is what “they” want you to believe it is ALL about.

    Like


  207. Mu:

    But 50 years ago, [DOJ and Zorgon] had a real shot at getting a wife. Today they have a real shot at being akin to 40 Year Old Virgins. […] And I truly fear for the DOJs and Zorgons of the world.

    Now, now. Don’t fear for me! Let’s see..

    1. I’m fairly certain I could have had a wife, but I ditched her because it was a screwed-up relationship. Anyway, I’m not looking for a wife any time soon.
    2. I’m not a virgin.
    3. I’m still young, and I’m fairly athletic.
    4. I’m not going to claim to be an accurate judge of male appearances, but I think I’m at least solidly above average, and the frequency with which I am approached by women seems to be increasing. Heck, I’ve been told “you’re super hot” by a solid 9… (looking back: oh, how I screwed that one up…)
    5. I really, honestly think I am finally cleaning up my act. It would have been unthinkable a few years ago for me to be cold approaching women in significant numbers; making out with random women I just met; etc. I’m a changed man from the guy who once would sit there for hours with a number, too scared to actually dial the digits, overanalyzing every single possibility of what might happen on the call.

    And, most importantly, I’m enjoying myself.

    So don’t worry about me!

    Like


  208. 192 zorgon

    Are “moral dilemmas” typical of conversations you have with women? I would steer far clear of any such topic.

    I find such things interesting. I tend to be attracted to women who also find such things interesting. So I’d rather not steer all conversations away; I like saying thought-provoking things, and hearing them.

    But I need to stop inflicting collateral damage in the process.

    Since nobody seems interested in giving me pointers here, though, I guess I’ll have to use trial and error.

    203 Tupac Chopra

    “You want a 50/50 relationship? It means she owns you.” — David D.

    I really don’t give a fuck what others think. I know what I want here, and I’m going for it no matter how much of a pussy that makes others think I am.

    As people become more complex they add maybe. As they become more complex they add more and more factors. Sooner or later they become organic and they look simple again. Complexity becomes a simple art form.

    Not disagreeing with this. I am but a beginner, though, and as Mu’Min pointed out, I need to learn “by the book” for now. Maybe later I can create my own art form.

    204 Elizabeth

    If DoJ were willing to relax his standards, I doubt he’d have trouble finding a nice girl. But he’s stated that he’s really only interested in the brilliant outliers. And there just aren’t that many brilliant outliers. So already, there’s a scarcity problem. Next there’s the problem of whether he’ll click with the brilliant outliers who cross his path. He’s selective about what he wants, which substantially reduces the pool of potential mates.

    The annoying thing, of course, is that I think I could have clicked better with some (though not necessarily all) of those outliers if I presented myself differently. Spirituality is one dimension of this; I think there are a few others that I need to work on as well to click better with any woman I find interesting, before I’m in a good position to start considering individual differences. The pool of potential mates still seems large enough, as long as I stop driving away women who I actually am compatible with.

    Meanwhile, I probably should make more of an effort at staying friends with some of the outliers I don’t romantically click with, once I’ve truly accepted the situation (though not before that). Zorgon is right about the disadvantages of just confiding in geeky friends.

    Again, there’s nothing wrong with this, so long as he realizes the risk and is willing to accept it.

    Yup. Though it does help to be a guy (so age doesn’t work against me so much) and to not care much about beauty.

    Like


  209. on October 7, 2008 at 6:13 am Comment_Stuff

    “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”-Aristotle

    Just how much of a lady killer would Ceasar have been if he had been an engineering cubicle monkey who didn’t interact meaningfully with any women or men for hours at a time? Or spent all his time in a multi-billion dollar factory making sure the machines hum?

    How much was Ceasar the Lady-Killer a direct result of the habits of mind of Ceasar the leader and inspirer of men?

    People talk about EQ. And I’m sure such a thing exists. But then it is magnified out of all proportion by the jobs the engineering inclined take compared to the jobs a ‘talker’ takes.

    +8 hours a day. The habits of mind pile up.

    Zamani wrote:
    *******************************
    Several years ago I was working in a classroom setting with a group of boys in a teenage pregnancy prevention program. My supervisor at the time was a gentleman who has written several books on Black Male Female relationships and has counseled thousands of couples successfully. Hes a married man with children who described himself once as a player.

    One of the biggest problems he identified (along with feminism) that he felt was contributing to the problem of black male female relationships was the lack of familiarity that young black males had with females. He noted that this lack of familiarity caused a disconnect for them and their lack of understanding due to not being encouraged to develop friendships with women leads them to feel that they must manipulate women by the use of “Game”. He used those exact terms.

    What happens eventually is that an emotional disconnect invariably happens over time where the boy is not able to understand about the overall sensibilities of the women and relate to her as an individual person beyond the surface. He actually performed exercises with girls and boys that encouraged the concept of friendship in helping people relate normally to the opposite sex , appreciate their individuality, flaws and strengths but ultimately appreciate their humanity as a whole.

    This is something that I felt instinctively as a young person and have written about over the course of years. Genuine friendships with women assists you in becoming familiar with the psychology of women (and vice versa) and understanding differences as well as what you may or may not find appealing etc. Again, this requires you to recognize their humanity and their individuality and relate to them as something more than a conquest or a sexual tool. I realize that this sort of thing may be burned out of the average guy who then will need to manipulate women to get what he wants.
    *****************************************
    Quoted from Zamani. Here is useful advice.

    Doing this will also ‘wear out’ any damaging sterotypes/behaviours you may have picked up from parental interactions.

    Zamani says it will work, and I can see how it will work. Now, it can go wrong, and Zamani with his advanced abilities doesn’t talk about that. Male-female straight-up simple friendships are harder in practice than theory.

    MQ:
    **************************************
    People here don’t want to learn from types like Zamani because Zamani’s methods don’t appeal to their pre-existing insecurities. When you don’t get laid a lot, you build up a lot of anger and resentment with women. Some varieties of ‘game’ give you the message that you can harness that same anger and resentment to give you more success with women. Which in a way can be true, if you measure success by casual sex.

    But it’s also true that you can have more success with women by developing a deeper level of friendship with them and sharing yourself more fully. The thing is, most “betas” believe they are *already* doing this. But they aren’t. They lack self-confidence and are deeply inhibited and fearful, so cannot participate fully in the flow of interaction. This is obvious to women and makes them less likable (Roissy’s excellent recent post “What You Can Learn From A Beta” makes this obvious, BTW — the picture in that post is someone who is lost in inhibition and fear, not someone who isn’t enough of an asshole).
    *****************************************
    More along Zamini’s line

    Like


  210. Elizabeth:

    It’s about high standards that might be unrealistic. Not all men can bed beauties; not all men can have the number of sex partners that Casanova did; not all men can hook a brilliant outlier.

    Believe me, I get it… I don’t expect something for nothing. If I want something of value, then I expect to have to offer something of value in exchange for it. I’m far too much of an economics geek to believe in free lunches.

    But to say that geeky betas can easily get themselves a lower-quality woman — sorry, but my experiences were otherwise. Let’s skip entirely past the high school and college phases of my life, when I basically didn’t date, and look at about 3 years ago (age 23) when I finally did start getting dates on a semi-regular basis, mostly from online.

    It was seriously depressing. After a ridiculous amount of effort (think: replying to dozens of profiles) to actually score a date, we might spend an hour at the coffeeshop, then part ways. No kiss; I was certainly too chicken to ever go for one. But, I would reassure myself, the conversation went just fine. No huge awkward silences or anything.

    Then I would try to follow up to see if we could set up a date #2. In a few cases, there would be an outright “no.” In most cases, the woman would just, as far as I could tell, disappear from the face of the planet — calls went unanswered, voicemails went unreturned, emails received no reply.

    This didn’t just happen a few times. It happened at least a good 15 times in a row before I finally got myself a second date. Yep, apparently I was such a loser — the date went so poorly from her point of view — that after spending, say, just an hour or two with me, she was already convinced that spending further time with me “to get to know me better” (that’s how I saw things at the time — in Game jargon, I thought it was comfort before attraction, whereas Game teaches that you need attraction before comfort) would be a waste of her time.

    Now, looks-wise and clothes-wise I was geekier at the time. I still had my glasses (Lasik was definitely a godsend, BTW). I went to the gym only occasionally and was slightly overweight. But the people meeting up with me had already seen me or a picture of me, so that wasn’t the sole issue.

    The women ranged from attractive to, well, less than attractive, so that wasn’t it.

    Status-wise, I had a high-paying job at a well-known computer company and a degree from a top school. Didn’t (and don’t) drive a fancy car or own a fancy house or whatnot, but I figured I should compare favorably status-wise to other guys my age.

    And yet… no second dates. None whatsoever, for quite a long time. There was a period where I started to get seriously depressed about my dating prospects. “I know I’m a good guy, so why do I keep getting absolutely nowhere?”

    Like


  211. Since nobody seems interested in giving me pointers here, though, I guess I’ll have to use trial and error.

    I don’t know if you’ve read The Game by Neil Strauss, but one of the big takeaways: all the Game in the world was a total failure when he finally met his “The One” and tried it on her. She was completely impervious to it. It was his non-Game personality that she actually liked.

    Yet, if he hadn’t gotten Game, he never would have met her in the first place. The whole process taught him social skills, got him out meeting people he never would have had a chance to meet otherwise, etc.

    That’s sort of how I see it at this point. No, I don’t think the pursuit of casual sex will result in lifelong love. But I absolutely believe in self-improvement, and to me, that’s a big part of what Game is: identifying your problems and working to fix them.

    For example, I’ve been thinking a lot more carefully lately about body language and trying to correct some of my obvious mistakes. I’ve always stood up straight (and I’m tall anyway), but I was making a number of other “amateur mistakes” in my body language, and now I’m noticing them and actively trying to fix them. I think that’s a good thing regardless of what happens with women.

    I probably should make more of an effort at staying friends with some of the outliers I don’t romantically click with, once I’ve truly accepted the situation (though not before that).

    For me, once it’s clear it’s not going to work out romantically, I immediately lose all interest in talking to her. There were a few times in the past where I tried to continue talking, and the results were… let’s just say horrifically bad.

    The weird thing about “let’s just be friends” that I didn’t get when I first heard it and its variants was that it doesn’t mean what it says. I knew it meant rejection. What I didn’t understand was that it does *NOT* mean she wants to be friends with you. It means she’s kind of creeped out by you and finds interacting with you awkward at best.

    Like


  212. Elizabeth,
    Girl, I can see why mortal men flee from you! And I say that w/all sincerity. You gotta a brain, gal. Mu like.

    OK…

    First, I think we’re at a point in our Discourses Elizabeth, where why actually starting to agree on a number of points. First, we agree that there could be more than one way of assessing/measuring IQ, and that one of those ways is in the social skills arena. But no matter how one slices it, Mr. Pocket Protector or the 21st Century equivalent, certain co-ed programs aside, by and large, get nothing.

    Which brings me to your next point. About “settling”. If anyone here knows about that its me, because I hear women say it all the time in Black America. There women have made it clear that they would rather be alone (of course they’ll have the occasional hot Mandingo thing w/a Ghetto Alpha, but that don’t count) than to “settle”-and let’s be clear here. In no way am I suggesting that they should “settle”-what I am saying, is that we all should prepare ourselves for the fallout and the downsides of what will surely come of a radically reordered society.

    You spoke above of how not all men can get beautiful wives, and I agree this is true. But half a century ago, guys understood this because that was what the societal cues were-family, church and so on kinda “nudged” him into accepting the more plain gal. And besides, as Whiskey astutely pointed out, he lived in a smaller town, where he didn’t get notions of a larger, bosomy, breathless world. I trust you get my point here.

    But in today’s world where there are what seem to be unlimited possibilities, in a culture that loves a winner and forgets a loser, and at a time when even the Plain Janes have the means and environment to go after the Top Guns of the world (Alpha guys, however defined), what’s a guy to do? I mean, really? Sure, what you say makes perfect sense to me-until I step outside my door. And see things w/my male eyes. Who wins?

    As a legal eagle, I am sure you have contemplated the limits of Freedom. Though I’ve never been to law school, and may never go, I have however spent many nights contemplating the very same thing. And I have concluded that there are limits. At the very least, there are costs, Freedom ain’t free, somebody’s gotta pay. And by all accounts, it will be a not insignificant number of guys.

    Again, don’t get it twisted, I’m a huge fan of Freedom of Choice, and I surely ain’t givin’ mine up, by hook or crook. But what I am saying is that we need to seriously consider what it can mean in its totality, the good and the bad.

    Why? Well, because men tend to be violent, that’s why. And I don’t want to have to contemplate anyone having to contend w/Cho 2.0, w/a Ruger 9mm pistol in one hand and a Kalishnakov in the other. Because he kept getting shot down by the co eds at school. And he wasn’t taught how to cope w/rejection from females. And don’t get it twisted Elizabeth, a lot of women are brutal in shooting guys down. We can laugh and joke about that if we wanna, we can act like it don’t happen if we wanna, we can pretend like it don’t exist if we wanna, we can rationalize it if we wanna, but in the World of near unlimited Freedom and Choice deviod of any overarching structure like that which Whiskey chronicled on his site, the prospects of more Chos grows w/every passing year.

    And keep in mind, this is less than a decade after Sep 11-when the hijackers, including if I recall alright, Atta, went to Vegas to live it up, including some really raunchy lapdancing, before going all out.

    And I mean this in all seriousness. We are now living in an era that has turned up its nose, if not turned its back, on those things that Whiskey spoke of, w/the assumption that things like Civility that grew up in the Western tradition will just continue unabated. No one seems to be giving serious thought to the real downsides this new environment does and will have-and please don’t get it twisted, in no way am I romanticizing the past. I don’t think Whiskey was either. Life was far from perfect back then. But at least you knew exactly what was expected of you, and if you fell off the wagon there were folks around to scoop you back up.

    Which takes me back to your point about otherwise bitter guys needing to settle for les than pretty girls or “fatties”. Well, its true, all men won’t get the hot babe. Back in the day this was clearly understood. But we got rid of all that, remember? Women didn’t have the choice to choose who they REALLY wanted to bed them down, right?

    So that’s that aspect of the thing. But there’s another.

    Its clear that White men, at least White men of a certain class anyway, are really turned off by “fatties”. I put it that way because its a word that can mean different thing to different people. As a Black man, most of the gals most White guys would consider “fattie” probably-and I’m being careful here-wouldnt be at all to me.

    But the point, Black guys like Mu aside, is that it is vitally important that the woman be sexually appealing to the man if he’s to make a move, especially in terms of something like marriage. Men are hardwired for this, and I’ve always found it interesting that we dare not question the hardwiring of gay men or for that matter lesbian women, but we expect straight men to alter their biology because we don’t like what I just said and will repeat:

    MEN NEED TO BE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO THE WOMAN IN QUESTION OR NOTHING-NOTHING-HAPPENS.

    Period. And for many White men, she can’t be fat. Whatever that means. Bottomline.

    So, am I affronted? Just a little. But maybe not for the reasons you might expect. I’m affronted because no one gave any of this stuff any serious thought, the day after tomorrow. I’m affronted by the notion that Male Sexuality is thought of and spoken about as if its a disease or a pathology, something to apologize for and make excuses about and to swept under a rug, while no one better not fix their mouth to even ask the most innocent questions of the sexual proclivities of anyone else.

    I’m affronted when I’m told that men should just have to deal w/the harsh reality of rejection when boys learn this as soon as they enter grade school, and will have to endure in many ways and to a degree unimaginable to most women. I’m affronted when I’m told what the vast majority of men know, from their own direct experience and the indirect experience of their peers, that women will hardly marry or screw, down-and that guys, but never gals, should “stay within their league”.

    Having said all that, I don’t disagree w/many things that you said Elizabeth. The little problem is, that we no longer live in the world where what you said, and what I cosigned on, is largely possible, or even desired, anymore. Women have demanded, and gotten, Choice. And men are learning to adapt.

    The question becomes, what do we do about the Losers of the Game?

    Holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  213. 212 zorgon

    I don’t know if you’ve read The Game by Neil Strauss, but one of the big takeaways: all the Game in the world was a total failure when he finally met his “The One” and tried it on her. She was completely impervious to it. It was his non-Game personality that she actually liked.

    Yet, if he hadn’t gotten Game, he never would have met her in the first place. The whole process taught him social skills, got him out meeting people he never would have had a chance to meet otherwise, etc.

    That’s sort of how I see it at this point. No, I don’t think the pursuit of casual sex will result in lifelong love. But I absolutely believe in self-improvement, and to me, that’s a big part of what Game is: identifying your problems and working to fix them.

    My perspective is pretty similar now. I never went through a horrible experience like the one you described where nobody wanted even a second date with you, but then, that’s because so far I’ve pretty much only consciously approached women who’ve already shown friendly interest in me. Time to bite the bullet and start practicing my social skills on lots of women I don’t already know, even though this will make both my early rejection and “I don’t think we’re actually compatible” rates skyrocket.

    No, I haven’t read The Game, or almost any other PUA literature, really; my exposure to the concept has mostly been limited to this blog.

    For example, I’ve been thinking a lot more carefully lately about body language and trying to correct some of my obvious mistakes. I’ve always stood up straight (and I’m tall anyway), but I was making a number of other “amateur mistakes” in my body language, and now I’m noticing them and actively trying to fix them. I think that’s a good thing regardless of what happens with women.

    I know my body language is somewhat awkward. I tried to have the second-to-last woman I was interested in tell me when it bothered her… uh, yeah, that’s just as ridiculous as it sounds. I’m wondering what’s the best approach for working on this on my own.

    For me, once it’s clear it’s not going to work out romantically, I immediately lose all interest in talking to her. There were a few times in the past where I tried to continue talking, and the results were… let’s just say horrifically bad.

    The weird thing about “let’s just be friends” that I didn’t get when I first heard it and its variants was that it doesn’t mean what it says. I knew it meant rejection. What I didn’t understand was that it does *NOT* mean she wants to be friends with you. It means she’s kind of creeped out by you and finds interacting with you awkward at best.

    Yeah, sometimes I lose all interest in talking to the woman as well when romance is no longer a possibility. And sometimes the woman will remain totally creeped out for the foreseeable future. (Unless my most recent romantic interest has an unusual sense of humor, I probably managed to creep her out for the rest of the millennium. Which is unfortunate because I think I could eventually really value her friendship.) But one of my better friends today is a woman who I once had romantic interest in, almost ten years ago. And her support was a lot more helpful than that of any of my guy friends when I tried to come to terms with my most recent romantic failure. Even one more friend like her would be a major boon to my life.

    Like


  214. Earlier Elizabeth and I were discussing “The Friend Zone”. In light of more recent comments relating to this statement, I’d just like to comment a bit further.

    I think its fair to say that if there’s one sentence, one grouping of words and syllables, its the following:

    “Let’s be friends”, or words and/or iterations to that effect.

    It is a declaration by the lady in question that she has no sexual interest in you at all.

    Elizabeth says the reason for this is due to men trying to ah, “backdoor” (Freudian deal happenin’ there? Things that makes one go, Hmm…;) ) their way into a relationship/sexual encounter w/the lady. She goes on to say, that a woman who already sees you as a “friend” isn’t likly to see you any other way.

    Now, this is a very interesting statement. If its true, as Elizabeth says, it proves yet again how women and men are not equal, because men see ALL “friendships” involving women as having the very strong potential, and hopefully goal, of sexual relationships.

    On the other hand, it can serve as yet another example of what I’ve been saying for sometime now, that so often women say and do two different things. And often they are wholly contradictory.
    Whatever the case, what I would say to Elizabeth in response is that should a man show, upfront, that he has a sexual interest in a woman, chances are extraordinarily high that he will be shot down-somewhere around 90%. Now, if his Game skills are tight, and/or he’s a Booty Magnet like Zam, his hit/miss ratio improves significantly, at least by a third. Still, neither is a sureshot against getting shotdown, and even the best of em strikeout all day sometimes.

    So the idea of showing interest, “telegraphing” Elizabeth put it, sounds great in theory, but more often than not, sucks in practice. According to Evo-Psych, there are clear and present reasons for this. Of course, we like to believe otherwise. The Pretty Lie, Lives On.

    At any rate, men do not like to hear anything w/the word “friend” in it unless he’s already acquired and secured the Booty. After that it’s cool. Before that, its certain death.

    But let me tell you a much deeper reason as to why so many men the world over, throughout the Galactic Quadrant, reviles this phrase from women:

    Because its a LIE. And women lie. Quite a bit, in fact. Don’t believe? Observe how women act among themselves. To a woman, the stuff that goes down between them involves someone somewhere lying to them. Usually another woman. Hence, the gossip, she said, she said.

    This isn’t meant to say that men don’t also lie, they most certainly do. But men tend to hold each other more to certain codes of conduct when dealing w/each other. For example, a men who welches on loans and the like, his word and rep is shot. This is a big deal for men. As the great philospher Tony Montana said so eloquently, all I have in this world is my word and my balls, and I don’t break em for nobody.

    In fact, a man’s word and rep are so important to who and what he is, that women often bank on it. There is no corresponding factor for women.

    Equals? You tell me.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  215. Mu,

    I think you have to analyze why a women gives someone the friend speech. Yes its often an expression of her lack of interest in a guy, romantically and sexually. I have also known women to give a guy the friends speech who she was dating and was actually interested in at one time.

    So your lamenting the fact that boys face rejection from girls as kids? Thats life, in the same way that most women will face being cheated on no matter how attractive, intelligent she is, she always must face the anxiety that there is some new pussy around that her guy might find more appealing. Thats Life too right??

    Some women genuinelly are earnest about wanting a friendship with a guy because many of them do value their associations with the opposite sex beyond romance and physical gratification however, alot of men get the friend speech after she was initially interested in them and the guy fucked up, either because of his attitude or his persona or something he did.

    So your offended by a women who states that she would like to be friends as opposed to continuing to date or have sex with a guy she doesn’t find attractive.

    Most men also encounter women who they dont find attractive but they are not upfront about it because they often will still have sex with the girl knowing that they have no romantic interest in her and that she is “feeling” them and then lo and behold they “dissapear”. As a guy with alot of female friends, this is something that happens ALL THE TIME with women, especially those who are earnestly seeking a romantic relationship with the guy. I have also noticed that the men who do this stuff dont neatly fit into any of those Alpha/Beta categories either.

    In fact, I would say that theres a rare man who knows that he has a womens interest in him and whos sexually available who wont sleep with her knowing that he has no intentions of possibly even sleeping with her again much less becoming romantically involved with her irrespective of her feelings. Again this happens ALL THE TIME.

    Like


  216. I’m affronted when I’m told that men should just have to deal w/the harsh reality of rejection when boys learn this as soon as they enter grade school, and will have to endure in many ways and to a degree unimaginable to most women. I’m affronted when I’m told what the vast majority of men know, from their own direct experience and the indirect experience of their peers, that women will hardly marry or screw, down-and that guys, but never gals, should “stay within their league”.

    Mu’Min, I understand what you’re saying here and I agree that many women, and in fact society at large, have become nastily unsympathetic to men’s courtship struggles and dilemmas. But – when you speak of being “affronted” that men need to learn to deal with rejection, because they do so as soon as they enter grade school – I want to add that, in the same way, women learn the importance of their looks almost from the day they’re born. That’s why I get exasperated when Roissy and the boys here go on about how women don’t understand the importance of beauty and youth to men. Believe me, we do. It’s almost impossible not to.

    We try to soften this fact of life for each other when talking amongst ourselves, but that’s a kind of code, a lie that everyone understands. We don’t expect men to share this pretense; just that they not rub our faces in the truth too brutally. Men also try to protect their geeky friends from being forced to recognise the truth about their awkwardness and shyness, even when a bit of truth at the right moment might save them a good deal of misery, or even help them to learn to refine their approach to women.

    Clio

    Like


  217. Um, yeah, Clio, but really outlying women can still find somebody because femininity is a state of being. Masculinity is performative. The completely disparate experiences of disabled men and disabled women bear this out.

    Like


  218. Mu – I agree with you on many points of the “friendship curse”. I have almost exclusively male friends, and have most of my life. I make it pretty clear from the beginning that I am not interested in a sexual relationship with them, however, many confess to me that they still hold out hopes that someday I will “come to my senses” and sleep with them.

    (I have very few female friends – I just don’t relate to the average girl things – endless shopping, gossiping, etc. I don’t think that makes me better or worse, just different.)

    As for “staying in your league” – I don’t think anyone should ever adopt that attitude about anything, and especially not when trying to find a mate/sex partner.

    Like


  219. I want to add that, in the same way, women learn the importance of their looks almost from the day they’re born. That’s why I get exasperated when Roissy and the boys here go on about how women don’t understand the importance of beauty and youth to men. Believe me, we do. It’s almost impossible not to.

    We try to soften this fact of life for each other when talking amongst ourselves, but that’s a kind of code, a lie that everyone understands.

    So Clio, here’s what I don’t understand…if so many American women really do get this, why don’t they do anything about it? I understand that some people are more genetically gifted than others in the looks department, but there’s still a lot of homeliness that comes about primarily from laziness. I hate to keep bringing up the Eastern European example, but I can’t help it: I’ve rarely if ever seen an Eastern European woman leave her house in chinese sandals or flip-flops, even to go to the laundromat. Or why they let themselves get pear-shaped and flabby in their 20s or younger. I’m convinced that they’ve not just told each other a reassuring lie, but that they’ve started to believe it. Which is why it’s almost a service for us to rub their faces in it. because I notice that in cultures where a woman’s face IS rubbed in it, the women don’t let themselves go to quite the same degree and have a better understanding of the reality of sexual politics. Maybe women in America ARE painfully aware of these things, but given that they are lying to themselves to the point that they are justifying being fat and making euphemisms for being fat like “real woman,” then the prescription is harsh reality.

    And the guys here are not just targeting women with these harsh realities. We often take guys to task here and introduce them to the harsh reality that being a politically correct nice guy beta is not going to get them laid or even get them respected by the women they want to impress. Just look at the grief David Alexander gets on any given day for example.

    Like


  220. on October 7, 2008 at 3:45 pm Usually Lurking

    And it wasn’t just the humanities people hooking up. From what one of my best friends told me — she was a chemical engineering major — the enginerds hooked up as much as anyone else. They were just incestuous about it. They did it with each other.

    This is, in general, simply not true. Time and again we find Mathematics, Physics, and Comp Sci majors get laid the least with places like MIT being an extreme example. Basically, the most logical guys get laid the least. Whiskey once linked to the surveys that backed this up.

    If 98% of guys are aiming for the same 10% of women, there are going to be a lot of guys left out in the cold.
    and
    Not every man can have a beautiful woman, or even a pretty one.
    and
    Well, why won’t men “settle” for the 60-70% of women who aren’t pretty?

    Elizabeth, the average girl is not average looking. The average girl (who is not fat) is a 6, not a 5. This is a good thing. Girls want to be pretty and guys like pretty girls.

    However, over half of all White women (and well over half of Black women) are overweight. And half of those overweight women are officially obese. This is FIVE TIMES GREATER than it was in 1981 when we had already been get fatter for a while. Basically, the average girl has eaten (and drank) herself out of the running, thus, drastically reducing the pool of attractive girls. Fortunately, the average guy is almost equally fat. But, as we all know, adding 20% more to the average guy is not the same as adding 20% more to the average girl.

    Like


  221. on October 7, 2008 at 3:50 pm Usually Lurking

    Guys who have a romantic interest in a girl need to make that clear from the start.

    Good for you Elizabeth. Guys need to learn this early and often. Except I would change one thing:

    Guys who have a sexual interest in a girl need to make that clear from the start.

    Guys are not, at first, pursuing romance. We all know what they are pursuing.

    One thing hat I will say about the Nice Guy is that many of them are not trying to backdoor into anything. They are being as nice to her as they would be to anyone else. I always thought that the son in Arrested Development was the perfect example of this. He was nice and sweet to everyone, not just the girl(s) that he was interested in.

    Like


  222. 212 Comment_Stuff

    “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.”-Aristotle

    Just how much of a lady killer would Caesar have been if he had been an engineering cubicle monkey who didn’t interact meaningfully with any women or men for hours at a time? Or spent all his time in a multi-billion dollar factory making sure the machines hum?

    How much was Caesar the Lady-Killer a direct result of the habits of mind of Caesar the leader and inspirer of men?

    People talk about EQ. And I’m sure such a thing exists. But then it is magnified out of all proportion by the jobs the engineering inclined take compared to the jobs a ‘talker’ takes.

    +8 hours a day. The habits of mind pile up.

    Yes, this is a very important point. I would be in even worse shape than I am right now if I didn’t have to regularly spend at least some time talking as a teaching assistant. Specialization may be economically advantageous, but it has some really ugly side effects.

    Like


  223. Simply put, women want men at their level or above it. They’re not going to cast their eyes downward. If everyone here is so determined to talk about the hard facts of life, then there’s a hard fact of life.

    this attitude is typical of women, and it can be in its way rather arrogant and entitled. It’s the exact counterpart to men aiming up in looks, looking for a younger, more beautiful partner.

    The quotes in 205 are fantastic, thanks Tupac — I remember that section from the Gay Science, it’s a perfect thing to drop in here. Nietzsche, BTW, was horrible with women — in his personal life, perfect prototype of the beta nerd.

    Who is this Christopher Hyatt person?

    Like


  224. Well, why won’t men “settle” for the 60-70% of women who aren’t pretty?

    To follow up on UL’s point: there are not that many “average” girls out there. Obesity in a woman (at least to me) is viscerally repulsive and I would rather be alone if I were an average guy and that’s all I had that’s available to me.

    When I visit Eastern Europe every year, I take note of the fact that beautiful girls are few and far between, but the average, ordinary girls I see there, from their teens well into mid-high 30s, are slim, miodest, feminine-acting, and dressed in flattering clothes.

    (Interestingly, I noted a similar phenomenon a few months ago when Mrs. PA and I we toured small towns in New England.)

    It seems that those normal girls have largely disappered in the US by morphing into unkempt, slovenly waddling marshmallows.

    Like


  225. 224 Usually Lurking

    Guys are not, at first, pursuing romance. We all know what they are pursuing.

    Not always true. I know I’m a counterexample, and I also have no reason to believe I’m alone in this.

    One thing hat I will say about the Nice Guy is that many of them are not trying to backdoor into anything. They are being as nice to her as they would be to anyone else. I always thought that the son in Arrested Development was the perfect example of this. He was nice and sweet to everyone, not just the girl(s) that he was interested in.

    Elizabeth made a pointed observation about how many “nice guys” simply weren’t, once she rejected them romantically; I’ve observed the same phenomenon.

    Like


  226. 210 zorgon

    I like the positive attitude!

    211 DoJ

    The annoying thing, of course, is that I think I could have clicked better with some…of those outliers if I presented myself differently. Spirituality is one dimension of this….

    See, I’m not sure this is something you can or should present yourself differently on. Spirituality is important to a lot of people, and they’re going to feel betrayed if they find out their partner has been faking it or misleading them. It’s not really something you can “speak to them in their own rhetoric” on, politician-style, if you don’t believe it. You’d probably be better off finding someone who has compatible beliefs (or lack of beliefs) to your own, or else someone for whom it isn’t a huge deal. Female atheists and agnostics do exist, especially in the sciences. I would get in quite a few debates with them in college. 🙂

    212 Comment_Stuff

    Just how much of a lady killer would Ceasar have been if he had been an engineering cubicle monkey who didn’t interact meaningfully with any women or men for hours at a time?

    Uh, if he had been an engineering cubicle monkey, he wouldn’t have been Caesar. Caesar was most definitely not an introvert. Introverts tend to go into fields that don’t require much human interaction. It’s no surprise, then, that they have a harder time dealing with people, but that’s not the fault of their jobs. Generally, they chose those jobs because of the lack of need for human contact. The jobs might make human interaction even harder because there aren’t people around, but the introverted personality was already in place before the job was taken.

    How much was Ceasar the Lady-Killer a direct result of the habits of mind of Ceasar the leader and inspirer of men?

    Caesar was a leader and inspirer of men, and lady-killer, because of his personality traits. He didn’t have those personality traits simply because he stumbled into a leadership position. No Roman politician ever had a less promising start than Julius Caesar. Though he came from one of the oldest, most aristocratic families in Rome, he grew up very poor. His father was not a famous man, so Caesar wasn’t inheriting a great political legacy. By the time he was 17, he was an exile with a price on his head. And yet even as a young, penniless man, he had no trouble attracting women — because he was handsome, charming, brilliant, and exceptionally brave. Though in exile, he joined the Roman army in the provinces, and he won the Roman equivalent of our Medal of Honor, the Civic Crown, for saving the lives of his comrades in battle.

    Caesar became a leader — and a lady-killer — because of his extraordinary personality. He did not develop his personality after he became a leader, and he had plenty of women well before he held his first political office.

    214 zorgon

    For me, once it’s clear it’s not going to work out romantically, I immediately lose all interest in talking to her.

    And believe me, women sense this. Which is one of the reasons why guys should not try to take the backdoor to romance by becoming her friend. Men should only try to befriend women if they want to be friends. Otherwise, the result is usually an ugly situation.

    Like


  227. DoJ, your last name seems to suggest that you are of Chinese ancestry. Do you speak any Chinese, or are you thoroughly Americanized?

    I happen to have a slightly older cousin around Elizabeth’s age who is a virgin and has never been romantically attached. She is tall, slender and pretty (when I was younger, my relatives gushed over her looks and said I was ugly), but she is extremely shy and withdrawn. She is so shy, in fact, that she won’t even get on a webcam (which is apparently very popular in China these days) without covering up her face.

    Just throwing it out there. I think she might be doomed to never even have a real romantic relationship if she doesn’t get out from under her mother’s overprotective wings. She lives with her mother (her father, my biological uncle, died of lung cancer a few years ago) and works as a banker. My mother has suggested getting her moved out here, too.

    Like


  228. 215 Mu’Min

    Girl, I can see why mortal men flee from you!

    Ha!

    And I say that w/all sincerity. You gotta a brain, gal. Mu like.

    Er, thanks. I think. 🙂

    But half a century ago, guys understood this because that was what the societal cues were…he lived in a smaller town, where he didn’t get notions of a larger…world.

    Like so many things, this is something that can be blamed, in large portion, on the entertainment industry, in which the so-called “girl next door” or “geeky girl” is played by a girl like Alyson Hannigan. That is, by a girl who is quite pretty, but not intimidatingly beautiful. It is no more realistic for a guy to expect to land a girl like Alyson Hannigan than it is for a girl to expect to land a guy like Brad Pitt. And yet somehow some guys think they are being realistic and not asking for too much by expecting Alyson Hannigan instead of a genuine beauty.

    But in today’s world where there are what seem to be unlimited possibilities…and at a time when even the Plain Janes have the means and environment to go after the Top Guns of the world…what’s a guy to do?

    Guys can stop thinking they’re being realistic by wanting the merely pretty instead of the beautiful, for one. And by the way, the Plain Janes cannot get the Top Guns. The majority of adult Americans are overweight. That means most of the Plain Janes are carrying extra poundage these days. And the “alpha men” are not sleeping with them. They’re sleeping with the beauties, with the pretty girls, and with the girls who aren’t conventionally attractive but have a special kind of allure — the Scarlett O’Hara-type woman (first line of Gone With the Wind: “Scarlett O’Hara was not beautiful”) that the French call “belle laid,” that is, “beautiful ugly woman.”

    Who wins?

    No one playing out of their league can win. An average man pursuing a beautiful woman is like a junior varsity high school football team playing against the Super Bowl champions. There is only one word for this: Slaughter.

    As Gerald O’Hara told his daughter Scarlett when he was warning her away from Ashley Wilkes: “Like marries like.” If you are going for someone unlike you in a significant way, you are not going to win. Unless you’re aiming downward. And you still won’t win, because chances are, you’ll get bored with someone beneath you pretty fast.

    At the very least, there are costs, Freedom ain’t free, somebody’s gotta pay. And by all accounts, it will be a not insignificant number of guys.

    The culprit here isn’t freedom. It’s unrealistic expectations. For all the men here who believe they can’t get a woman, I triple dog dare you to go out today, to the mall or someplace where youngish females go, and ask out a girl who is chubby, bespectacled, and alone. I’d be willing to bet that you’d have a much higher success rate with that kind of girl than you would with the hotties at the bars.

    This isn’t about not being able to get a woman. It’s about not being able to get a sought-after woman. The Tom Bradys of the world aren’t monopolizing every woman alive: they pay attention to the good-looking ones only. There are plenty of women out there who do not have mates.

    Why? Well, because men tend to be violent, that’s why. And I don’t want to have to contemplate anyone having to contend w/ Cho 2.0…because he kept getting shot down by the co eds at school.

    The Chos of the world get shot down for the same reason that they shoot up their schools — because they are vile, contemptible psychos. Girls aren’t miracle workers. The “love of a good woman” can’t save a vile, contemptible psycho. This is an excuse, Mu’Min. The same way “America is evil” is an excuse for vile, contemptible psychos to fly planes into skyscrapers. The answer to the terrorists of the world, be they school shooters or Al Qaeda, is not to love them. It is to destroy them. Ruthlessly and without regret. Because people who have any decency in their souls do not act that way. There are lots of men in the world who do not have mates, men who have been constantly shot down and treated cruelly by women. The vast majority of them don’t go on killing rampages, because they are human beings with a brain, a soul, a heart, and a conscience. Instead, they have coping mechanisms, like hiring prostitutes or looking at porn, both things, incidentally, that I don’t have a problem with. (Ooh, a guy likes naked ladies doing naughty things. Big screaming deal.) I think it would make a lot of sense to legalize prostitution.

    A lot of women are brutal when shooting guys down.

    Yeah. So? A lot of men are brutal when they’re shooting women down. A lot of men are brutal about women in general — have you ever listened to a guy talk about a fat girl and how she basically doesn’t even deserve to live? Even guys who aren’t much to look at themselves?

    The world is often cold and unkind. It is not a soft, dewy place filled with rainbows, fluffy bunnies, dreams that come true, and expectations that are never, ever disappointed. Life is not a Disney movie. People are going to be mean. People are going to be brutal. People are going to do nasty, terrible things to each other. But we are all in control of our reactions to that. Most of us — including most men — do not choose to go on violent rampages against people who just happen to be around that day. Men are not raging, unthinking beasts who only grow a brain and a conscience when their loins are satisfied. The Chos are anomalies. Because they are psychos.<

    No one seems to be giving serious thought to the real downsides this new environment does and will have…in no way am I romanticizing the past.

    Most people in the past married people in or near their hometowns. They did not go to the Big City looking for the Perfect Mate (or the Perfect One Thousand and One Lays). They settled down, got responsible jobs, had children, and led quiet, responsible lives. They did not think they could Have It All. The difference now is not freedom but expectations. We have a consumer culture that requires people to be dissatisfied so they’ll buy more and more and more to get what they “truly” want. And we have a youth-crazed, youth-driven, youth-obsessed culture that thrives on CONSTANT EXCITEMENT!!!!11!1! rather than a culture encourages the adult virtues, which are rather boring but are required in order for civilization to survive.

    And our ancestors did not have crippling expectations of marriage. They did not expect passion to last forever. They did not expect a One True Love. They did not demand of marriage what we demand today — that it be a union of two people who are perfectly compatible sexually, passionately, romantically, characteristically, and intellectually. Marriage can survive freedom just fine. What it can’t survive is the heavy burden of unrealistic expectations. A woman who will be a good mother and lifelong companion is not necessarily going to be an Eternal Sex Goddess. A man who will be a good father and lifelong companion is not necessarily going to be a Sexy Brilliant Leader of Men.

    This isn’t about female choice. This is about everyone under the age of 50 wanting to be Peter Pan, wanting to never grow up. It is what happens in decadent, privileged societies when life gets so easy and so comfortable that people forsake responsibility to enjoy the pleasures of “eternal” youth. It is what happens when people forget how to be adults. And it has happened to societies where there was never any such thing as feminism.

    In other words, my friends, it is time for us to take the keys to the kingdom back from the children.

    Its clear that White men…are really turned off by “fatties.”

    And women, including fatties, are really turned off by ugly, gangly, awkward men. But guess what? Most men are not athletic and suave, and most women — in America, at least — are not slim. Fact of life. If these people do not adjust their standards, a lot of them are going to be alone. And that is no one’s fault but theirs.

    I don’t much care one way or another what men are hard-wired for or what women are hard-wired for. The world is not going to change to suit them. Gorgeous women are not going to start throwing themselves at Mr. Beta Provider who has an Adam’s apple larger than his muscles. Alpha men are not going to start chaining themselves to the Really Good Woman who will be their One True Love. This is not the way of the world, and the world is not going to change for us. So everyone who is not high enough on the looks/social/talent/wealth/whatever scale to get exactly what they want — i.e., 99% of people — can either relax their standards, dismiss their expectations, and try to find happiness with the people who are actually available to them, or they can be alone. But that is a choice they are making, and it’s not a choice they should blame the world for.

    The difference between us and our grandparents is not that our grandmothers didn’t have a choice. No one forced my grandmothers into anything; they married my grandfathers of their own free will. The difference between us and our grandparents is that our grandparents were realistic and did not expect the world to gratify their every adolescent desire. We are not realistic, and we throw tantrums when the world pays no attention to our “needs”. We need to suck it up and grow up. Not take away people’s freedom of choice. Without freedom of choice, there is no freedom, and without freedom, a society is not worth saving.

    And Mu’Min, I’m not just talking about men. Women who are fat, women who are plain, women who are just not that pretty, need to accept that the hot men are never going to go for them.

    In other words, everyone, male or female, needs to grow the hell up.

    The question becomes, what do we do about the Losers of the Game?

    Well, for one, scorn them mercilessly until they learn to be realistic. Stop teaching them that they can have everything just because they want it. We need to get rid of our youth-driven, tantrum-and-therapy culture and rediscover the power of shame.

    So if Loser Boy is crying that Head Cheerleader won’t date him, you don’t say, “Sorry, bro. Girls are bitches, aren’t they?” You say, with all the disdain you can muster, “And you thought you had a chance with her…why?”

    And when Fat Girl is crying that Star Quarterback won’t even look at her, I don’t say, “What a jerk. Everyone knows that true beauty lies within!” I say, “There’s no reason he should. You’re not much to look at. Actually, scratch that. You’re too much to look at.”

    There’s nothing wrong with compassion. There is something wrong with enabling. And when the entire society is enabling people’s faults, people are not going to even try to improve. We need to stop feeding the beast with our misplaced compassion.

    Our society used to be a lot harder. No one shot up schools then. Our problem isn’t too little compassion. It’s too much. The psychos prey on us because we let them. Sixty years ago, Cho would’ve been pummeled by every man in that class before he had the chance to raise his gun.

    The world doesn’t owe anybody anything. To get what you want, you must earn it. That is a lesson children should have pounded into their brains from day one.

    Like


  229. Well! Looks like Mu done hit the Main Vein of Truth. Mmm-Umm!

    So, let’s build on that…

    See, there’s another reason why Men throughout the Universe (and fellas, please don’t leave Mu hangin’ on this), and its because of the way Men view Friendship.

    Actually, to women like Elizabeth and perhaps Hope, we are very intelligent and highly trained academically, this should come as no surprise at all; History is replete w/accounts of just how special and important Friendship is to Men. A Homey is a Homey for Life.

    Zam is w/o question one of the best friends I’ve ever known in this world.
    And no matter how much we may differ-and when it comes to Matters of the Poon, we most definitely do-Zam knows I got his back let Doc Holliday had Wyatt Earp’s. We Homies like that.

    Women come and go, but he’s been there w/me thru he good times, and the bad times. Sure, women have friends, but it ain’t the same thing. It ain’t the same thing.

    So when women give the Dear John type speech, then has the nerve to turn around and try to put dude in the Friend Zone, its almost like breakin’ on your Momma. And that ain’t cool. Not at all.

    More soon. Wait for it.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  230. 217 Mu’Min

    It is a declaration by the lady in question that she has no sexual interest in you at all.

    I never use the “let’s be friends” line for that reason. I don’t use coded phrases, I say what I mean: “I’m not romantically interested in you.”

    That doesn’t preclude friendship if the guy wants to give it a shot. But it does let him know what he wants to know without being condescending. People say “let’s be friends” to be nice, but the truth is that it’s a phrase that leaves little room for dignity.

    Now, this is a very interesting statement. If its true, as Elizabeth says, it proves yet again that women and men are not equal…

    It proves that women and men are not the same. Equality does not mean sameness.

    And it is true. I’m not looking for sexual tension in a friendship. Which is why women adore gay men. 🙂

    …should a man show, upfront, that he has a sexual interest in a woman, chances are extraordinarily high that he will be shot down…

    Isn’t it better to be shot down sooner rather than later, before you invest a lot of time in pretending to be a friend? If a girl sticks a guy in the “friend” category, she most likely does not see him as boyfriend/hookup/husband material at any point in the future. (The exception to this is childhood friends. People often fall in love with their childhood friends, although there are usually “sweetheart” tendencies in the relationship that are clear from the beginning, even when the children are quite young.)

    The Pretty Lie, Lives On.

    The pretty lie is that women often fall in love with their male friends. They don’t. Women, like men, can “befriend” a man in with ulterior motive of inspiring a backdoor romance — but if that’s the case, they weren’t really ever interested in friendship.

    Friendship = platonic love. Not sexual interest or romantic love. And platonic love can exist between men and women. I have a lot of guy friends. More guy friends really than girl friends. And there is nothing romantic or sexual whatsoever about their interest in me, or my interest in them. A lot of them are happily married to women who are also my friends.

    But men tend to hold each other more to certain codes of conduct…

    Er, Mu’Min? I’m pretty sure if a woman welched on a loan, she’d be held accountable for it, too. If she lied to her friends, she’d be held accountable to it. Women gossip with each other. When they are gossiping about a friend, it is usually complaining, not lying. Women like to “get things off their chest.” This is not lying.

    And I’m guessing guys occasionally complain about each other, too.

    Like


  231. Women come and go, but he’s been there w/me thru he good times, and the bad times. Sure, women have friends, but it ain’t the same thing. It ain’t the same thing.

    My husband is my best friend, and according to him I am also his best friend. We’ve been together through the good times and the bad times. We have lunch every day together and talk about pretty much anything and everything. So it can be the same thing.

    Friendship is not necessary to romance, and certainly not needed for sex, but friendship is nice.

    Like


  232. 229 Elizabeth

    See, I’m not sure this is something you can or should present yourself differently on. Spirituality is important to a lot of people, and they’re going to feel betrayed if they find out their partner has been faking it or misleading them. It’s not really something you can “speak to them in their own rhetoric” on, politician-style, if you don’t believe it. You’d probably be better off finding someone who has compatible beliefs (or lack of beliefs) to your own, or else someone for whom it isn’t a huge deal. Female atheists and agnostics do exist, especially in the sciences. I would get in quite a few debates with them in college. 🙂

    Maybe I’ve just been unlucky so far. It’s just that there’s a pretty significant gender difference in spirituality, at least — I’m likely to remain unlucky. (Though I’ll certainly keep my eyes peeled for exceptions!) And I fear that what I consider as dishonesty, others treat as a display of social skill. (I’m confident that Obama, deep down, doesn’t have much belief in Christianity…) It’s really frustrating when I’m totally fine with them being different from me, but even when it isn’t a huge deal for them, they’re disappointed in what I have to say.

    As Hope astutely noted in comment #164, I’m an idealist under my rationalist exterior, and I tend to be most attracted to others who radiate a certain sort of sensible idealism… this tends to coexist with some appetite for spirituality in women. But perhaps it’s enough to train myself to state my actual beliefs in more compelling terms when I’m asked “is there something more,” and study the astrology book recommended by Mu’Min just so I can take the lead in providing something fun to do in this vein. I think this would have been good enough for the second-to-last woman I fell for, and I can just accept the most recent one as incompatible without panicking.

    Like


  233. on October 7, 2008 at 5:00 pm Usually Lurking

    Not always true. I know I’m a counterexample, and I also have no reason to believe I’m alone in this.

    DOJ, my point is that men pursue “romance” because of sexual attraction. I guess it is possible to pursue someone that you are not sexually attracted to, but, those guys aer the exceptions.

    Like


  234. There’s nothing wrong with compassion. There is something wrong with enabling. And when the entire society is enabling people’s faults, people are not going to even try to improve.

    This is done on SO many different levels, starting in grade school – EVERYONE gets an award, EVERYONE makes varsity – there are no losers. If we taught kids that disappointment was a part of life, you deal with it an move on, and it is OK, this country would be a better place.

    Of course, most of the posters here will say we can blame feminism for this. I can’t say I would disagree with that assertion 100%, either.

    Like


  235. on October 7, 2008 at 5:07 pm Usually Lurking

    Elizabeth made a pointed observation about how many “nice guys” simply weren’t, once she rejected them romantically; I’ve observed the same phenomenon.

    I believe her.

    Like


  236. 230 Hope

    DoJ, your last name seems to suggest that you are of Chinese ancestry. Do you speak any Chinese, or are you thoroughly Americanized?

    I was born in the US and am thoroughly Americanized, but I speak enough Mandarin to not be totally doomed if I got lost in China. 🙂

    I pretty much can’t read or write Chinese, though. (On the other hand, I’m not averse to putting serious effort into learning it.)

    I happen to have a slightly older cousin around Elizabeth’s age who is a virgin and has never been romantically attached. She is tall, slender and pretty (when I was younger, my relatives gushed over her looks and said I was ugly), but she is extremely shy and withdrawn. She is so shy, in fact, that she won’t even get on a webcam (which is apparently very popular in China these days) without covering up her face.

    Just throwing it out there. I think she might be doomed to never even have a real romantic relationship if she doesn’t get out from under her mother’s overprotective wings. She lives with her mother (her father, my biological uncle, died of lung cancer a few years ago) and works as a banker. My mother has suggested getting her moved out here, too.

    I am totally open to being set up with someone who could click with me! No webcam needed, I’m much more comfortable getting to know someone purely via emails initially.

    But if she’s not comfortable writing emails in English, that’ll make it very difficult for me to get to know her.

    Like


  237. 224 Usually Lurking

    I agree with you about sexual interest. I tend to use “romantic” because I’m not interested in no-strings affairs. But whatever a guy’s interest is in a girl, if it has a romantic/sexual nature, that needs to be made clear. Guys (and girls) should not try to mask what they’re doing as “friendship.” Friendship is too important to be used as a convenient mask.

    As for nice guys — I wasn’t talking about genuinely nice guys, people who are friendly to everyone. I was talking about loser guys who pretend to be “nice” to try to get a girl, and then when they don’t, they turn nasty and bitch about how all girls really just want assholes. That’s not true. Girls, like people in general, like genuinely nice, caring people. What they don’t like is fake-nice that’s really creepy nasty manipulation.

    226 MQ

    What’s entitled about wanting someone at your level? That’s being realistic. It’s saying, “I want someone like me,” and being honest about what you are. There’s nothing at all wrong with wanting someone you have a lot in common with. Those tend to be the relationships that works.

    It’s when people start looking way above them, not around them, that the trouble starts. And no, there’s nothing wrong with looking up, so long as you realize there’s a high probability of being burned, and you don’t blame others for your own failures.

    227 PA

    To follow up on UL’s point: there are not that many “average” girls out there.

    Average is nothing more than a word that describes what is common, typical, or ordinary.

    Today it is common, typical, or ordinary to be fat. For the first time in history, there are more overnourished people in the world (not just in America) than undernourished.

    Fat is the new average.

    Also, there’s nothing wrong with having high standards and preferring to be alone rather than not having your standards met, provided you do not blame other people for that and get bitter. It’s not the high standards I have a problem with, it’s the blame game. If you’re going to shoot for the stars, by all means do it. But if you fall out of the sky, that’s not the stars’ fault, it’s yours.

    Like


  238. on October 7, 2008 at 5:14 pm Usually Lurking

    It is no more realistic for a guy to expect to land a girl like Alyson Hannigan than it is for a girl to expect to land a guy like Brad Pitt.

    I think that the equivalent of Alyson Hannigan would be someone like Michael Cera or Paul Rudd.

    I triple dog dare you to go out today, to the mall or someplace where youngish females go, and ask out a girl who is chubby, bespectacled, and alone. I’d be willing to bet that you’d have a much higher success rate with that kind of girl than you would with the hotties at the bars.

    But you are asking guys to pursue sexually girls that are not sexually attractive. Again, the average girl is sexually attractive (even with glasses, which is actually a turn on to some guys). Guys pursue girls for a reason: they are sexually attracted to them. That sexual interest does not prevent romantic feelings from being felt, quite the opposite. But, it is damn near pointless to pursue girls that are not sexually attractive.

    I understand that you may be challenging a guy who is also fat, so, he may not have a leg to stand on, but, she is still not representative of some average lonely girl. She is only the average, now, since so many people are fat.

    Like


  239. on October 7, 2008 at 5:15 pm Usually Lurking

    The “love of a good woman” can’t save a vile, contemptible psycho. This is an excuse, Mu’Min. The same way “America is evil” is an excuse for vile, contemptible psychos to fly planes into skyscrapers. The answer to the terrorists of the world, be they school shooters or Al Qaeda, is not to love them. It is to destroy them.

    Holy Shit, Elizabeth! Good for you.

    Like


  240. @231 Elizabeth

    “Jolie-laidE” tends to mean “Hot Chick who does not take care of herself to French standards” not “pretty ugly woman.” The je-ne-sais-quoi is a bit of cultural hand-waving they’ve foisted on us. OTOH, the French prize sexiness in the AVERAGE woman, which is partly where “jolie-laide” comes from.

    Like


  241. 235 DoJ

    I’m confident that Obama, deep down, doesn’t have much belief in Christianity…

    I think a lot of politicians are like this. I can understand it if they’re the kind of person who believes organized religion is necessary to hold society together, so I don’t really blame them for it. Not all sacred cows need be destroyed. There are useful illusions that make civilization possible — the idea of justice, for example. True justice is rarely possible, but it’s a necessary ideal, something to strive for, even if we can never really reach it.

    236 Usually Lurking

    I think all DoJ is saying is that he isn’t interested in no-strings relationships. It’s not sex that he lacks interest in, it’s lack of commitment. A lot of men who want families and don’t like playing games are like it. Nothing wrong with it, and it doesn’t mean they don’t care for sex. It just means they don’t care for being casual; they want romantic love, not just sex.

    237 QT

    I would say “you can have it all!” feminism has definitely contributed a lot to our overly-entitled environment. But it’s not the only cause. I think that kind of feminism is more a symptom of the problem than the cause of it.

    Like


  242. The Chos of the world get shot down for the same reason that they shoot up their schools — because they are vile, contemptible psychos. Girls aren’t miracle workers. The “love of a good woman” can’t save a vile, contemptible psycho. This is an excuse, Mu’Min. The same way “America is evil” is an excuse for vile, contemptible psychos to fly planes into skyscrapers. The answer to the terrorists of the world, be they school shooters or Al Qaeda, is not to love them. It is to destroy them. Ruthlessly and without regret. Because people who have any decency in their souls do not act that way.

    Shit, I never thought I’d say this about a female lawyer, but you fucking rock. At least as far as this topic goes.

    Like


  243. 241 Usually Lurking

    I think that the equivalent of Alyson Hannigan would be someone like Michael Cera or Paul Rudd.

    Paul Rudd is a good parallel, because he’s good-looking, but not incredibly handsome. (But I actually think the same of Brad Pitt, which is why I used him. Now, Clark Gable, Paul Newman, and Cary Grant — those were men who were incredibly handsome. Male actors today are not nearly as good-looking as they were back in the middle of the 20th century.)

    I don’t really get the Michael Cera thing. He looks like a nice guy, he’s certainly not ugly, but he’s cute in a teddy bear kind of way, not a sexually charged kind of way.

    But you are asking guys to pursue sexually girls that are not sexually attractive.

    And basically what I’m saying is that girls think the same way of gangly, geeky guys that guys think of fat, squat, bespectacled girls. (I agree that glasses can look good on people. But those tend to be people with defined features, not flab.)

    In other words, what people find sexually attractive is not always what they can get.

    242 Usually Lurking

    Holy Shit, Elizabeth! Good for you.

    Thanks. 🙂

    243 Eurosabra

    “Jolie-laidE” tends to mean “Hot Chick who does not take care of herself to French standards” not “pretty ugly woman.”

    Just going by what my dictionary (which includes foreign words and phrases) tells me. 🙂 Unfortunately, I don’t know French, and I’ve never been to France. So unless I’m talking about French history, which I know pretty well, I’m not speaking from any great depth of knowledge.

    But this —

    OTOH, the French prize sexiness in the AVERAGE woman, which is partly where “jolie-laide” comes from.

    — goes along with the idea of a “beautiful ugly woman,” that is, someone who is not conventionally beautiful, but is sexy. Sexiness is a trait independent of facial features, and I think it’s an underrated one in women. I’ve seen lots of women who have quite plain features ooze sex appeal. Typically, however, these women have very good bodies and loads of charm.

    I actually think a lot of men prefer women like that — the Scarlett O’Haras of the world — to the great beauties, who, complimented on their appearance from birth, never really saw the need to develop sexiness.

    Like


  244. on October 7, 2008 at 5:38 pm Usually Lurking

    Most people in the past married people in or near their hometowns. They did not go to the Big City looking for the Perfect Mate (or the Perfect One Thousand and One Lays).

    This isn’t about female choice. This is about everyone under the age of 50 wanting to be Peter Pan, wanting to never grow up.

    Elizabeth, until recently, I never even heard of a guy moving to some city so that he could be in the city (to meet some future girl or girls). Some guys moved there because they had to for a job, but not out of some social reason.

    However, I have known a ton of girls that moved to the city to be in the city.

    Like


  245. on October 7, 2008 at 5:40 pm Usually Lurking

    Most men are not athletic and suave, and most women — in America, at least — are not slim. Fact of life. If these people do not adjust their standards, a lot of them are going to be alone. And that is no one’s fault but theirs.

    Traditionally, women really only care that their man not be shorter than themselves, and, for men, that the woman not be fat (granted, he probably never would have even thought about that).

    Like


  246. Elizabeth:

    And yet somehow some guys think they are being realistic and not asking for too much by expecting Alyson Hannigan instead of a genuine beauty. […] So if Loser Boy is crying that Head Cheerleader won’t date him, you don’t say, “Sorry, bro. Girls are bitches, aren’t they?” You say, with all the disdain you can muster, “And you thought you had a chance with her…why?”

    I think you are being much too generous in writing this all up to unreasonably high expectations.

    Again, speaking for myself a few years back — I went on dates with some fairly plain women, as well as some attractive ones. (I was in the “I’ll take what I can get” category. Only in rare cases would I ever turn down a date.) Either way, it didn’t seem to help. The outcome was the same: rapid rejection and no second date.

    And no, I was not a “vile, contemptible psycho.” On my worst days I still *never* would have contemplated violently taking it out on the rest of the world.

    Instead, I was simply a geeky, awkward guy who didn’t really know what he was doing. And that, by itself, for the vast majority of women, was enough to cause them to run away as fast as they could.

    Yes, I was an outlier in my level of social awkwardness (my theory is undiagnosed Aspergers), but we’re talking not talking about me at age 15, we’re talking about me at age 23, when I no longer had much trouble with normal social interactions with other guys.

    I can see this leading in two directions.

    A. Women are just genuinely not very interested in smart, geeky, socially awkward “nice guys”, even if they are “not unattractive.” This speaks ill for our society if you believe that a society full of alpha male wannabes is a Hobbesian society.

    B. Women are right to reject those guys purely because of their social awkwardness, and that’s their real problem; if they were more socially competent, then they could get a reasonable girl without having to become alpha. The real failing is with those guys’ upbringing, i.e., how did our society and/or their parents let them get socially awkward in the first place?

    You seem to be drawing a conclusion more along the lines of (B). My experience leads me to reject conclusion (B): if you fix the social awkwardness in a guy like the old me, I believe that will get you female friendships, but not much in the way of female relationships or sex.

    That leads me to conclusion (A): women are not just repelled by such guys’ awkwardness, but also by their geekiness, by their “nice guy” status, and *perhaps even by their intelligence*, at least if that intelligence manifests itself primarily in geeky areas.

    Certainly, being brilliant with computers or math gets you no points with women. “I was doing calculus at age 10” or “I was programming computers at age 2” are true in my case, but they did not win me any women.

    Like


  247. on October 7, 2008 at 5:44 pm Usually Lurking

    The difference between us and our grandparents is … Without freedom of choice, there is no freedom, and without freedom, a society is not worth saving.

    And Mu’Min, I’m not just talking about men. Women who are fat, women who are plain, women who are just not that pretty, need to accept that the hot men are never going to go for them.

    In other words, everyone, male or female, needs to grow the hell up.

    Elizabeth, first off, you are killing it.

    But, once thing I will say for all of the “unrealistic” people is that it would be so much easier for them to grow up if they werent fed a constant stream of Politically Correct lies their entire childhood. Then, one day, someone say, “all that PC stuff is bullshit and you now need to grow up”.

    Like


  248. UL:

    it would be so much easier for them to grow up if they werent fed a constant stream of Politically Correct lies their entire childhood.

    I didn’t buy into PC. What has shocked me is the extent to which PC has seeped into other areas of life that most PC critics persistently fail to mention. Everyone talks about the kind of PC where we can’t say “firemen” any more, or we can’t say “Merry Christmas”, but no one ever warned me that everything Hollywood has to say about sex and relationships was complete BS.

    Who is telling young guys that the real-world Michael Ceras do *NOT* get the hot girl?

    As a young, adolescent male, where *was* I supposed to get dating advice? From my parents? No, I’m from a repressed German Catholic family where such topics basically aren’t discussed. From my friends? Talk about the blind leading the blind.

    I did actually run into “Speed Seduction” online back in high school, and read through a bunch of the material, but it was so abstract to me that I was wasting my time. I needed much more “foundational” advice. But suppose I had some of the foundational stuff more under control — say I was 25th percentile in social skills and the like rather than 5th percentile or perhaps worse. Do we really want young guys who are not “naturals” to wander through their dating lives aimlessly until they happen to run into Game or somesuch by chance?

    Like


  249. on October 7, 2008 at 6:02 pm Usually Lurking

    But whatever a guy’s interest is in a girl, if it has a romantic/sexual nature, that needs to be made clear.

    Right on.

    I was talking about loser guys who pretend to be “nice” to try to get a girl, and then when they don’t, they turn nasty and bitch about how all girls really just want assholes.

    I hear ya’.

    I think all DoJ is saying is that he isn’t interested in no-strings relationships.

    Right, and I completely understand that. But, unless he is some kind of truly unusual creature, those “romantic” feelings are born from his sexual attraction to her. He will not pursue “romance” with every girl he is attracted to, but he will be attracted to (at least, initially) every girl he pursues for “romance”.

    Like


  250. on October 7, 2008 at 6:07 pm Usually Lurking

    And basically what I’m saying is that girls think the same way of gangly, geeky guys that guys think of fat, squat, bespectacled girls.

    I understand that, but, my point is this: girls taking an interest in things like how much muscle mass a guy has (and, I understand that you are not being extreme here) is relatively new. For evidence, simply read any biography of any mathematician or physicist from 100 years and look at the pictures inside. Their wives, their brothers and brothers’ wives, their friends and friends’ wives, etc. These guys, 1.) were not high-status with the exception of one or two and 2.) married to reasonably attractive women (i.e. not fat, not unkempt).

    And these guys were super-geeky 90lb weaklings.

    So, the girls being interested in looks beyond his height and some basic hygiene is a fairly new thing. But what the average guy is attracted to, today, is really no different. Yes, a few will pine for some Pamela Anderson type girl, but most are attracted to average non-fat girls.

    Like


  251. on October 7, 2008 at 6:08 pm Usually Lurking

    …but no one ever warned me that everything Hollywood has to say about sex and relationships was complete BS.

    When I say PC, that is exactly what I am talking about.

    As a young, adolescent male, where *was* I supposed to get dating advice? From my parents? No, I’m from a repressed German Catholic family where such topics basically aren’t discussed. From my friends? Talk about the blind leading the blind.

    Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. And, in my experience, the guys that did best came from one of two situations:
    1.) they had an older sister who had a lot of “boyfriends”
    2.) they had older cousins and uncles who had no problem doling out the politically incorrect advice.

    Do we really want young guys who are not “naturals” to wander through their dating lives aimlessly until they happen to run into Game or somesuch by chance?

    Nail on fucking head. If they (guys and girls) were simply given the straight dope on how all of this works, everyone would be better off.

    Like


  252. 252 Usually Lurking

    Right, and I completely understand that. But, unless he is some kind of truly unusual creature, those “romantic” feelings are born from his sexual attraction to her. He will not pursue “romance” with every girl he is attracted to, but he will be attracted to (at least, initially) every girl he pursues for “romance”.

    Seeing as how I’ve been known to develop romantic interest in someone before even knowing what they look like, I think you can safely classify me as a “truly unusual creature.”

    I also believe I’m not as unusual as you seem to think.

    Like


  253. This is done on SO many different levels, starting in grade school – EVERYONE gets an award, EVERYONE makes varsity – there are no losers. If we taught kids that disappointment was a part of life, you deal with it an move on, and it is OK, this country would be a better place.

    Of course, most of the posters here will say we can blame feminism for this. I can’t say I would disagree with that assertion 100%, either.

    The everyone gets an award mindset isn’t exactly feminism, although there’s no conflict with it. It’s leftist egalitarianism run amuck, with a decidedly female “lets all cooperate all the time” slat to it.

    There is though something to be said for trying to avoid the syndrome where school through high school creates extreme winners and complete losers, perhaps around activities that are not so lifetime important (football) for anyone but maybe the quarterback and wide receiver. My solution to that is to have a lot of different kinds of competitive activities, rather than making everyone a pretend winner in each of them. It’s not a perfect solution, in that some may not win at anything, but avoids celebrating mediocrity. In life some don’t win at anything either, and well that’s life.

    Like


  254. 254 Usually Lurking

    Nail on fucking head. If they (guys and girls) were simply given the straight dope on how all of this works, everyone would be better off.

    Yeah, if I had only known in high school that I had to work on my social skills then to have a reasonable shot of attracting women, my life probably would have been significantly better so far. Instead I thought it was enough to show how unselfishly and intensely I could love them… I could not have been more wrong.

    Like


  255. QT 237 —

    This is done on SO many different levels, starting in grade school – EVERYONE gets an award, EVERYONE makes varsity – there are no losers. If we taught kids that disappointment was a part of life, you deal with it an move on, and it is OK, this country would be a better place.

    Of course, most of the posters here will say we can blame feminism for this. I can’t say I would disagree with that assertion 100%, either.

    The everyone gets an award mindset isn’t exactly feminism, although there’s no conflict with it, and it comes out of the same overall worldview. It’s leftist blank slate egalitarianism run amuck, with a decidedly female “lets all cooperate all the time” slat to it. As opposed to the good ole masculine rubric of rough and tumble competition, and picking yourself up and dusting yourself off from it forges men.

    There is though something to be said for trying to avoid the syndrome where school through high school creates extreme winners and complete losers, perhaps around activities that are not so lifetime important (football) for anyone but maybe the quarterback and wide receiver. My solution to that is to have a number of different kinds of competitive activities, both sports and non sports, rather than making everyone a pretend winner in each of them. It’s not a perfect solution, in that some may not win at anything, but avoids celebrating mediocrity. In life some don’t win at anything either, and well that’s life.

    Like


  256. DoJ 257 —

    Instead I thought it was enough to show how unselfishly and intensely I could love them…

    It’s actually a big mistake to EVER switch completely into this mode, including after you have won her exclusive love.

    It’s a mistake if you want to keep it.

    But it’s not entirely a mistake. It’s great to show that side. It’s great to be intermittent about that.

    The best is to be that way. But then to withdraw it if e.g. she starts sh*t testing you, or getting more and more demanding, which I promise you she will if you persist steady state in “unselfish intense love”.

    It’s the unselfish bit you have to get rid of. Selfish intense love is a killer. You need to be demanding from time to time as well.

    I promise you if you aren’t she will be to take up the slack after awhile, and you’ll be dancing more and more and getting less and less. They can’t help it. Not all women do it as soon or as easily or as much. But if you don’t keep challenging her love, it will fade.

    It probably will some anyway, absent high drama and jealousy and on and on, but it will much more and more quickly if you “smother her” with utterly reliable “unselfish intense love”.

    Like


  257. on October 7, 2008 at 6:34 pm Usually Lurking

    I also believe I’m not as unusual as you seem to think.

    I am not saying that you are unusual. Nor is it that unusual nowadays for people to “meet” online and get started from there. However, for any traditional meeting (i.e. you see her at some cocktail party or get-together with friends), you will likely only pursue those that you are sexually attracted to.

    Like


  258. on October 7, 2008 at 6:38 pm Usually Lurking

    It’s leftist blank slate egalitarianism run amuck, with a decidedly female “lets all cooperate all the time” slat to it. As opposed to the good ole masculine rubric of rough and tumble competition, and picking yourself up and dusting yourself off from it forges men.

    Right on.

    There is though something to be said for trying to avoid the syndrome where school through high school creates extreme winners and complete losers…

    Remember, this is a relatively new thing. Historically, America (and, by my count, most Western nations) had neighborhood schools. You literally had a school per neighborhood before 1920. So, you did not have hundreds of kids competing with one another. And, you had almost no chance at staying anonymous. Everybody knew everybody. And these places were, basically, small and intimate.

    But, again, centralizing schools was a big-government idea. More Leftism.

    Like


  259. @ dougjnn 258- I agree.

    HOWEVER I would say that the burden here should not rest in the schools or any institution. Rather, I blame parents.

    I probably see this more since I live in the semi-rural midwest, but dads still take their sons hunting here. Self-esteem is not solely decided by one’s school age peer group so much when you actually have parents that bother to do things with you other than organized sports (which I am all for, by the way).

    Like


  260. As a young, adolescent male, where *was* I supposed to get dating advice?

    Most of my guy friends are engineers and I am the first female they have ever had a lengthy conversation with about dating.

    I do tell them they need to take the lessons learned during this phase of their lives, see if there is anything useful there, and then FORGET IT HAPPENED. The spectre of your dateless, nerdy self does nothing but hamper you. Who cares who that person was? It doesn’t have to be that way going forward.

    For some reason, this is very, very difficult for them to do.

    Don’t even get me started on the dating advice dispensed to me by multiple generations of third world, Catholic women.

    Like


  261. OK, I’m having three distinct problems w/this conversation. I’m pressed for time, so I’ll only mention one of them right now:

    We are stll arguing on the assumption that ONLY THE MEN WANT SEX. And I say that is utter, complete Bullsh*t. In today’s world, where women can and often do choose w/o reprisal, they want purely sex, too. So I don’t think it does any of us any good to continue this discussion along the lines Zam mentioned before about predatory boys and girls ads victims. Its simply not true, in fact, if anything it may be the reverse in the main.

    So, I’m approaching this discussion w/this proposition: that both men and women want a purely, at least mainly, sexual union w/someone. Now, women have the social and even legal means to pursue that. Men do not. At least, not yet.

    No matter where you fall politically the truth of the matter is that women in our time have a legal right to pursue, regardless of outcomes, sexual relationships, w/o censure or rebuke. Not so for guys in our time, now. Heck, even in this forum of all places, guys are taken out to the woodshed for wanting to hookup. So, I really wish we’d stop making this Asymmetrical assumption here.

    More later.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  262. on October 7, 2008 at 7:11 pm Usually Lurking

    I do tell them they need to take the lessons learned during this phase of their lives, see if there is anything useful there, and then FORGET IT HAPPENED.

    For some reason, this is very, very difficult for them to do.

    It is difficult to take something generic and apply it in a specific way. I think that for most guys it is much easier to get specific advice and see if it actually applies.

    This is why Game is so popular and useful. It offers specific, applicable advice.

    Like


  263. 259 dougjnn

    The best is to be that way. But then to withdraw it if e.g. she starts sh*t testing you, or getting more and more demanding, which I promise you she will if you persist steady state in “unselfish intense love”.

    It’s the unselfish bit you have to get rid of. Selfish intense love is a killer. You need to be demanding from time to time as well.

    Well, I think I’ve managed to learn that lesson. However screwed up the one true LTR I’ve had may have been, I certainly was consistent in standing up for myself, and eventually gained more control over the relationship than I wanted.

    I was just saying that I wish I knew something in high school.

    Like


  264. 248 Usually Lurking

    …granted, he probably never would have even thought about that.

    True. Widespread obesity is a new problem. It’s not really something that’s been faced in the past.

    There’s a book that came out a few years ago — French Women Don’t Get Fat — that has some pretty interesting observations about the food culture in France versus the food culture in America. One point the author, a Frenchwoman who has also lived and worked in America, makes is that in France, people tend to buy their food in open-air markets on the day they need it. I.e., they buy food fresh, they buy the kind of food you get in an open-air market (not processed junk), and they buy only enough for that day. Also, they walk everywhere they can, and they don’t bother with gym memberships.

    If Americans made those two changes in their lifestyle, I think we’d see some amazing results. Unfortunately, a lot of our cities don’t afford that opportunity (especially for pedestrians). I’m happy to say that mine is an exception. I buy a tank of gas maybe once a month. I hate formal exercise; my “exercise” is pretty much walking everywhere and stretching twice a day, but it works for me.

    249 zorgon

    Yes, I was an outlier in my level of social awkwardness (my theory is undiagnosed Aspergers)…

    This is why I think it might be hard to generalize your experience to the average geeky man. A little social awkwardness isn’t painful to deal with. Most people have a little awkwardness, even the ones who seem smooth and confident. But social awkwardness in high levels is actually very painful for women to be around. Women tend to be tuned into other people’s emotions, and when they’re with an extremely socially awkward man, they are flooded with that awkwardness. It’s not pleasant to be around at all. People just don’t want to be around people who make them feel physically ill with pity.

    I’ll give you a comparison. I know one guy who looks pretty much like the stereotypical geek: tall, gangly, skin that isn’t so great, pretty goofy looking, totally into gaming and that sort of thing. Very smart. But he’s friendly and he knows how to put people at ease, and he’s married to his high school sweetheart (who is short, overweight, and plain, but, like her husband, very friendly and fun to be around). They’re quite happy, and I think they’re a good example of people who found someone they had a lot in common with, i.e., someone on their level. They started dating just a few weeks into high school (they were both in band). They were never ones to obsess over the unattainable — he never had a cheerleader fixation, and she never had a jock fixation. They were just happy with each other.

    I know another guy who is tall, athletic, and handsome. But he’s also an undiagnosed Aspergers type, and he can’t read social cues to save his life. So he’s constantly offending women (who are initially attracted to him) without even realizing he’s doing it. It doesn’t help that he also has traits of love-shyness, and is constantly ignoring pretty, friendly girls for spectacular beauties.

    He is worlds away better looking than the first guy. He was even asked to do some modeling. But he hasn’t yet learned to work on his social awkwardness, and it’s affected him profoundly.

    250 Usually Lurking

    I agree. Political correctness needs to die, and parents/schools need to stop sheltering children from the realities of the world. I actually heard a teacher say in earnest the other day that the purpose of school is to program children in how to get along, not to teach them knowledge. I wanted to throttle her.

    253 Usually Lurking

    I don’t think that what females are attracted to is new. (Read the collected works of Jane Austen if you doubt me!) But since women are now able to support themselves, and since the infant mortality rate so low, there isn’t the pressure to get married off very young to whoever will have you or whoever’s available. Women are now acting more like men because women can now afford to act like men. And, incidentally, a lot more men are able to go after what attracts them, instead of being pressured to find a girl with a huge dowry, regardless of what she looks like.

    Like


  265. Real quick, On Feminism…

    There can simply be no doubt about the fact that we now live in a Feminized Society. Life has radically changed since the 60s, some will see that for the better others the worse. My problem though, is that there can never be any legitimate critique of Feminism, lest one be tarred a rabid Sexist or a jilted Misgoynist. It reminds of the Israel Lobby and how they’ll tag anyone who disagrees w/anything wrt Israel an Anti-Semite.

    Its infantile and intellectually dishonest.

    It is simply impossible to deny the hug influence Feminism has had on our society, in nearly every way; even the way boys are raised is touched by this. And this is highlighted by the Zorgons and David Alexanders of the world, who never talk to their dads about Women, about Sex. Its sad.

    To suggest that Feminism is to blame for every jot and tittle is ridiculous of course. But dammit, Feminism IS the cause of much of what we see today, INCLUDING GAME. Which is only responding to what women want.

    Holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  266. 256 dougjnn

    My solution to that is to have a lot of different kinds of competitive activities…

    YES. At my junior high, these were the extracurricular activities available to girls:

    1) Sports
    2) Cheerleading / Drill team
    3) Choir
    4) Band
    5) Yearbook

    And these were the extracurricular activities available to boys:

    1) Sports
    2) Choir
    3) Band
    4) Yearbook

    My high school, on the other hand, had everything, including things like knowledge bowl and debate — things that competitive guys who aren’t into sports enjoyed greatly. I was much happier in high school, where there were extracurricular activities that suited my interests, than I was in junior high. I think the same was true of a lot of kids.

    262 QT

    Rather, I blame parents.

    Again, YES. There are a lot of parents who don’t seem interested in any kind of parenting that requires more than shuttling Junior to his endless practices and lessons. Families need time together. Also, for crying out loud, kids just need some time to play and be creative, wild, and inventive. I really hate hyper-parenting, especially since it doesn’t involve much parenting at all.

    As for dating advice, I think a lot of the problems today stem from the fact that so many people don’t have older siblings or young uncles/aunts or even older friends who will show them the ropes. A lot of people are leading sterile, isolated, anonymous lives, and that doesn’t help much with social skills.

    Like


  267. But dammit, Feminism IS the cause of much of what we see today, INCLUDING GAME. Which is only responding to what women want.

    Exactly, I’d say the battle of the sexes has turned into an intellectual arms race, and after radical feminism on the side of women, the rise of Game has become the latest response on the side of men. It’ll be interesting to see what movement women respond with on their side.

    Like


  268. on October 7, 2008 at 7:50 pm Usually Lurking

    There’s a book that came out a few years ago — French Women Don’t Get Fat — that has some pretty interesting observations…

    I am quite familiar with that book and what is interesting is that at the time the book was published, major media outlets were finally publishing stories that the French were absolutely getting fatter.

    The book should be titled: Wealthy Parisian Women Don’t Get Fat.

    But, make no mistake, the average Frenchman has gotten quite fat.

    I actually heard a teacher say in earnest the other day that the purpose of school is to program children in how to get along, not to teach them knowledge. I wanted to throttle her.

    You know, she is right. I mean, feel free to hit her, but she was being honest. That is a central purpose in your typical public school. If more teachers were like her and said these things on CNN, maybe we could change some things.

    Read the collected works of Jane Austen if you doubt me!

    Jane Austen wrote about the Wealthy and their social practices while she practiced the piano and tended to servants. What the “average” Englishman, or Scot or Irishman did was quite different. When you saw that your daughter had the chance to marry either a coal miner or an accountant, you better believe that you encouraged her to marry that accountant. The fact that he was not terribly suave interested you little.

    …there isn’t the pressure to get married off very young…

    or, at all.

    Women are now acting more like men because women can now afford to act like men.

    Women are not acting like self-entitled girls, not men. If Paris Hilton, Brittany, Lindsay and all the rest are exaggerations of what girls are fascinated with, then they are acting almost nothing like men.

    Just look at how the average Pro Athlete acts. He has the world at his fingertips and he acts nothing like them. Nor do any girls act like them. He may get into fights, gamble, do hard drugs, fuck around, but they have little in common with how your typical girl acts. (The fights are different, the gambling is different, the drugs are different and the fucking around is different).

    Like


  269. Women are now acting more like men because women can now afford to act like men.

    Who said this? OMG We can “afford” to, or we don’t know any better? Or we’re hypnotized into submission? The entire society now mimics the lifestyle of homosexual men. How healthy is that? We all have dicks now. Hooray! Gotta run….

    Like


  270. 271 Usually Lurking

    But, make no mistake, the average Frenchman has gotten quite fat.

    Yes, absolutely. The “obesity epidemic” (I hate that phrase, but I’ve yet to hear a better one) has spread around the world. But her advice is good all the same. 🙂

    You know, she is right. I mean, feel free to hit her, but she was being honest.

    It wasn’t the honesty that bothered me, it was the fact that she believed in it. She’s a loyal foot soldier.

    Jane Austen wrote about the Wealthy and their social practices while she practiced the piano and tended to servants.

    Eh, not really. She was a minister’s daughter, which meant that she was a “gentleman’s daughter,” but she was nowhere close to wealthy. Her family was actually rather poor; her parents even let rich relatives adopt one of her brothers so that there would be fewer mouths to feed. She spent her adult life visiting one relative after another because she didn’t have any money or property of her own. After her father died, she was utterly dependent on her brothers for support. It was a very depressing, wretched way to live — which is why I think it’s so good that women can have careers today, so that they can support themselves, and not have to be a burden on others.

    Aside from Emma Woodhouse, Jane’s heroines were mostly members of the poor English gentry, women who were pressured to make a “good match” in marriage, a good match meaning someone who could support them economically. And yet Elizabeth Bennet, the heroine who was probably most like Jane, and whose life circumstances certainly resembled Jane’s own, rejected the advances of a “marriageable” man, because she found him odious and knew she couldn’t marry a man she didn’t love and respect.

    Women have always wanted their Mr. Darcy. There’s a reason Pride and Prejudice is such a famous and well-beloved book. 🙂

    Women are not acting like self-entitled girls, not men.

    I mean they’re acting like men in the sense that they’re pursuing what they’re attracted to, that’s all. Forget women; I don’t think men are even acting much like men these days. As I said, I think we’re all acting like a bunch of spoiled children.

    Like


  271. Seeing as how I’ve been known to develop romantic interest in someone before even knowing what they look like

    DoJ, it strikes me as funny how similar we are in some ways. I tended to do the same in my life. I fell in love with my husband long before knowing what he looked like. There are some definite problems with Internet-facilitated relationships, though, especially because of how much of the relationship is “virtual” and exists only in our minds.

    It can be difficult for idealists like us to face reality and to reconcile the lovely vision we built up in our minds with the flesh and blood human being. It took me a while to start accepting the shortcomings and flaws in human communications and relationships. I’ve been living with the same man for about 7 years now though, so I don’t have that problem these days. But in the beginning, there was a lot of “wait a minute, he’s not like I imagined…”

    I think you might benefit from casting a wider, more random kind of net to catch your outlier fish. You are probably right now only talking to girls you are firmly interested in, but what you should do is talk to a lot of different girls and see where it leads. Someone who might not seem initially interesting might prove compatible down the road. Also, start local, then expand outwards to maybe some miles away. The long-distance thing sucks; been there and done that.

    My cousin’s English, alas, is not very good. I threw it out there because I worry about her.

    Like


  272. on October 7, 2008 at 8:34 pm Usually Lurking

    She was a minister’s daughter, which meant that she was a “gentleman’s daughter,” but she was nowhere close to wealthy.

    I said that she wrote about the wealthy.

    Women have always wanted their Mr. Darcy.

    And, yet, somehow, they usually married Mr Average. That has changed.

    Forget women; I don’t think men are even acting much like men these days.

    True enough. But most guys in this country recoil at the idea of being metrosexual and still want to act like men. Which is why they are so attracted to shows like “Deadliest Catch”, “Ice Road Truckers” and Ax Men. As well as any show that show men doing something in Alaska or, hell, Football.

    A world of No Excuses, No Complaining, Just Results.

    I don’t know if you watch “Mad Men” on AMC, but it is a great example of how men acted before Feminism and Leftism took over. Yes, yes, they cheated on their wives, but the lines drawn between men and women were clear and men knew how to act like men. Now, men get sued and pay child support and alimony. They used to make up the Town Fathers, now they beg the courts to allow them visitation “rights”. We are so lucky that we get to “visit” our children.

    Elizabeth, we are not trained to act like children, we are trained to act like girls (“sit still”, “behave”, “quiet”, “put away those toys”. “why do you want to play with guns anyway?”). Boys are not allowed to be boys and, so, men are not allowed to be men.

    However, girls are absolutely allowed to be girls and they are usually allowed to be women (unless it is blatantly obvious that all they care about is getting married and having children, then some of the other “women” will look at them with derision).

    Like


  273. It is simply impossible to deny the hug influence Feminism has had on our society, in nearly every way; even the way boys are raised is touched by this. *** To suggest that Feminism is to blame for every jot and tittle is ridiculous of course. But dammit, Feminism IS the cause of much of what we see today

    I agree.

    There’s a reflexive tendency in our society to say that “of course it isn’t just X that’s to blame” no matter what. Strictly speaking in a complex world that’s almost always true, but it also tends to quickly diminish focus. As well how often did feminists say “of course men and ‘the patriarchy’ aren’t entirely to blame”?

    Like


  274. Elizabeth

    As I said, I think we’re all acting like a bunch of spoiled children.

    The wasp New England and frontier ethic of self reliance and “try, try again” has been replaced by leftist concerns for ever more victim groups everywhere, social constructs, and blank slate radical egalitarianism, or at least pretend stabs in that direction.

    No wonder there are so many children running about.

    Like


  275. 276 dougjnn —

    I’m quoting Mu’min @ 268 in the referenced post.

    Like


  276. 267 Elizabeth

    This is why I think it might be hard to generalize your experience to the average geeky man. A little social awkwardness isn’t painful to deal with. Most people have a little awkwardness, even the ones who seem smooth and confident. But social awkwardness in high levels is actually very painful for women to be around. Women tend to be tuned into other people’s emotions, and when they’re with an extremely socially awkward man, they are flooded with that awkwardness. It’s not pleasant to be around at all. People just don’t want to be around people who make them feel physically ill with pity.

    I’ll give you a comparison. I know one guy who looks pretty much like the stereotypical geek: tall, gangly, skin that isn’t so great, pretty goofy looking, totally into gaming and that sort of thing. Very smart. But he’s friendly and he knows how to put people at ease, and he’s married to his high school sweetheart (who is short, overweight, and plain, but, like her husband, very friendly and fun to be around). They’re quite happy, and I think they’re a good example of people who found someone they had a lot in common with, i.e., someone on their level. They started dating just a few weeks into high school (they were both in band). They were never ones to obsess over the unattainable — he never had a cheerleader fixation, and she never had a jock fixation. They were just happy with each other.

    I know another guy who is tall, athletic, and handsome. But he’s also an undiagnosed Aspergers type, and he can’t read social cues to save his life. So he’s constantly offending women (who are initially attracted to him) without even realizing he’s doing it. It doesn’t help that he also has traits of love-shyness, and is constantly ignoring pretty, friendly girls for spectacular beauties.

    He is worlds away better looking than the first guy. He was even asked to do some modeling. But he hasn’t yet learned to work on his social awkwardness, and it’s affected him profoundly.

    I think Zorgon’s experience deserves more attention. I don’t know how Aspergery I come across in writing, but in real life, I’m pretty sure my awkwardness was the primary thing that drove away the second-to-last girl I fell for. I’m aware of the problem and have been trying to put in whatever effort it takes to bring it under control. But it’s hard, and I could probably use some tips.

    271 Usually Lurking

    I am quite familiar with that book and what is interesting is that at the time the book was published, major media outlets were finally publishing stories that the French were absolutely getting fatter.

    The book should be titled: Wealthy Parisian Women Don’t Get Fat.

    I was going to make the same point, but you beat me to it. 🙂

    We really should find a way to tweak the food industry’s incentives so that businesses are driven to deliver much healthier food, and far fewer empty calories. Totally unfettered capitalism can be pathologically myopic at times.

    274 Hope

    DoJ, it strikes me as funny how similar we are in some ways. I tended to do the same in my life. I fell in love with my husband long before knowing what he looked like. There are some definite problems with Internet-facilitated relationships, though, especially because of how much of the relationship is “virtual” and exists only in our minds.

    Yeah, especially when the other person is roughly 20 years older than you, and married. *cough* Not that this could have ever happened to me… *runs away*

    The written word is clearly the way to my heart.

    It can be difficult for idealists like us to face reality and to reconcile the lovely vision we built up in our minds with the flesh and blood human being. It took me a while to start accepting the shortcomings and flaws in human communications and relationships. I’ve been living with the same man for about 7 years now though, so I don’t have that problem these days. But in the beginning, there was a lot of “wait a minute, he’s not like I imagined…”

    For what it’s worth, I don’t think I have this problem. I’m very pragmatic and realistic when it comes to figuring out how to live with someone who captivates me.

    Too much so, in fact. My unyielding persistence and long-term orientation has scared multiple women away. Perhaps it is good that I think along such lines, but I should be more circumspect about it until the time is right.

    I think you might benefit from casting a wider, more random kind of net to catch your outlier fish. You are probably right now only talking to girls you are firmly interested in, but what you should do is talk to a lot of different girls and see where it leads. Someone who might not seem initially interesting might prove compatible down the road. Also, start local, then expand outwards to maybe some miles away. The long-distance thing sucks; been there and done that.

    Yeah, I’m starting to try that. Given the importance of the written word to me, it may be time to look outside the applied physics and mathematics building in which I work.

    Like


  277. Way late, and haven’t really finished reading all of the comments, but a quick note on why all men were able to find wives… the women needed to eat. I.E. jobs that were completely self-supporting were not available on a wide scale for women in every class range, so if you wanted to eat/have a home to sleep in, etc… as a woman the only real option was to get married to whoever was around, and preferably a man who didn’t beat you.

    Like


  278. on October 7, 2008 at 9:02 pm Usually Lurking

    Way late, and haven’t really finished reading all of the comments, but a quick note on why all men were able to find wives… the women needed to eat. I.E. jobs that were completely self-supporting were not available on a wide scale for women in every class range, so if you wanted to eat/have a home to sleep in, etc… as a woman the only real option was to get married to whoever was around, and preferably a man who didn’t beat you.

    And Men needed Women as well. When Abraham Lincoln’s mother died, his father remarried in something like 6 months. But, it was either that, or watch his children suffer. With no mother around, he had to keep passing off his children to relatives as he worked.

    Men and Women needed each other.

    Like


  279. ”sit still”, “behave”, “quiet”

    That’s because we want our kids to be quiet and well-behaved. My parents aren’t feminists, but they’ve expected us as young children to sit still, behave, and be quiet. The same was true for other immigrant families, and I’d imagine the same was true for white males of the pre-feminist era. I’ve heard many stories of how young kids were beaten with belts, twigs, and other methods to keep the children well behaved.

    Like


  280. on October 7, 2008 at 9:06 pm Usually Lurking

    I’ve heard many stories of how young kids were beaten with belts, twigs, and other methods to keep the children well behaved.

    Keeping children “in line” and preventing boys from acting like boys are two very different things. The point, here, was that school is about controlling children between the hours of 8 to 3. And, with a little more controlling with the addition of homework.

    Being controlled and learning the the Rs are not the same.

    Like


  281. Men and Women needed each other.

    A man with money could easily pay for a maid, nanny, and prostitute.

    Being controlled and learning the the Rs are not the same.

    The children need to be well-behaved in order to learn properly. If they’re not well-behaved during their early years, they’ll become savages when they’re in their teens, and eventually dead, drugged up, or on welfare by the time they’re 25.

    There is nothing anti-masculine about making a boy sit down in class quietly in order for him to learn. It was expected of my father, it was expected of me, and it should be expected of my children.

    Like


  282. I’ll agree that homework is out of hand. But I think that’s because a much isn’t being taught during the day.

    Like


  283. on October 7, 2008 at 9:15 pm Usually Lurking

    DA, there is a huge difference between a boy learning between right and wrong and how to act as a fine young man and being ordered to constantly sit still for 6 straight hours while every bone in his body wants to be active. Don’t forget that the grand majority of boys and young men would have been put to work for at least part of the year.

    Boys want to be active. That activity can be constructive or, in your constant negative view, destructive.

    But I think that’s because a much isn’t being taught during the day.

    They are not teaching, they are controlling. Grace, they can only do so much.

    Like


  284. @284 David Alexander –

    I agree that children need to be well behaved in certain environments. There is a time and a place for that. I lament the inability of parents to use corporal punishment where they see fit in raising their children.

    However, preventing boys from playing with guns, or wrestling at recess etc. is ridiculous. One of my clients who is in his 70’s told me that when he was in grade school, each boy would bring in their first .22 rifle for show and tell AT SCHOOL. This was common practice.

    Then again, most boys after the age of 9 knew how a gun worked, and at age 20 would know enough to count how many shots someone like Cho had left before he could be tackled….but I digress.

    Like


  285. I’ll agree that homework is out of hand. But I think that’s because a much isn’t being taught during the day.

    Homework is designed to reinforce the lessons that were taught during the day. It’s essentially review of the lessons…

    being ordered to constantly sit still for 6 straight hours while every bone in his body wants to be active

    Except, I went to Catholic school, and with the exception of gym and lunch/recess, we were generally expected to constantly sit still and not act up for 6 hours. When it’s playtime, there’s no problem with boys running around and acting like little maniacs, but when it’s time to learn, it’s time to shut the fuck up, sit down, and listen to the teacher.

    Like


  286. DA – I went to Catholic school too. Public schools are a whole different ballgame

    Like


  287. girls taking an interest in things like how much muscle mass a guy has (and, I understand that you are not being extreme here) is relatively new.

    women are responsive to social status. For high school and college guys in the U.S. today, muscle mass has become a matter of social status — sort of a culture of meatheadism.

    Like


  288. On The Cho Question

    I just want to quickly address this issue because Elizabeth had some strongly worded and passionate views about him, and because I think there’s more to that story than we’re willing to admit.

    The deal is that Cho wasn’t as extreme or rare as we’d like to think. In fact, virtually all of the boys involved in school shootings since Columbine-almost all White-have one major thing in common. They were roundly rejected by the girls in their lives.

    In the original Reader’s Mailbag thread, Roissy gives considerable time to advising on how to handle Rejection. He was wise to do so, because it is something that either make or break a man, and is something that is for all intents virtually alien to women, even the unattractive ones. They don’t have to put themselves out there. True, no one may be beating a path to their door, but it beats getting shotdown like a fighter plane-in front of er’body.

    Roy F. Baumeister has written a powerful, powerful paper that in part talks about this very subject. Because we simply don’t think much about that which men have to deal with, it dosnt occur to us just how stressful it is for men, at virtually every level of society, to get to the top or at least near it, so as to be in a position to get Choice Tail. It can actually take years off yor life, hence part of the reason why men die sooner than women (see above example of Ugly Betty), and, truth be told, there are a lot of cracked up guys like Cho, thy just happen to be drugged up, locked and drugged up, or possibly dead, more than likely by their own hand. Men invariably crack up more than do women, and put of the unspoken reason is because of the Booty issue. Its that huge.

    I’ve said numerous times that we as a Society simply do not take seriously the problems and pressures of men and boys. And our patent refusal to do so will cost us all. Dearly.

    In no way do I make excuses for Cho, and Elizabeth is right in her indignation. He should have been put down a lot sooner than he was, and it is a most telling commentary on the state of our times as to why the only respondents to his killing spree was an elder Holocaust Surviver and a 40-something academic, and not a single male Cho’s age. That more than Cho, in some ways, many ways, should ring a clarion alarm.

    Let me say this. After giving years of serious thought to this, and after reading and really thinking about Whiskey’s papers on this, I’ve come to the conclusion that the American Social Contract-and by that I mean in a social, sexual, and marital sense-is broken. And the biggest losers are undeniably Men. By any statistical measure.

    Not only is the Social Contract broken, but many men feel they have no legitimate recourse-prostitution, save Nevada, is illegal. Marriage simply does not afford the things it used to. And even dating can have its share of serious problems, Alphaness aside.

    But when one considers what Women Want-and let’s be honest, 20K Frenchmen can’t be wrong here-its hard to see how something like Game-a systematized, codified way of getting women interested in going out with you-couldnt have come about. As mentioned earlier, Game is the logical, rational response to the radically altered social and sexual landscape that Women clamored for, and won. By both social fiat and force of law, they are now free to indulge themselves in the sexual relationships of their choice, and they consistently choose the kinds of men Game seeks to help men become. Say what you will of the system itself, or those who practice it, but it couldn’t exist if Feminism didn’t.

    It is clear to me now that there will be no going back, at least not on a mass scale. There’s simply no way in Hell any woman w/half a brain will willingly give up any of what she and other women have gained, even in the name of societal stability and relative sexual harmony, AND THAT INCLUDES MOST, IF NOT ALL, THE WOMEN READING THIS RIGHT NOW. So, in light of that fact, the question, at some point, has to be:

    Now what?

    Parting shot: this Summer’s big blockbuster, The Dark Knight, explores what happens when a masked vigilante known as The Batman, pushed Gotham’s Underworld to turn to an extreme version of itself to combat him-The Joker. In fact, at the very end of Batman Begins, Gordon and Batman have a discussion on this very point, setting up the sequel. Gordon tells Batman that his antics will cause an escalation in crime; cops will get semi-automatics, criminals will full autos. Cops will get body armor, criminals will get armor-piercing rounds. And when a guy dressed up as a big bat takes it upon himself to set things right, he will unliklely unleash something he may not be able to deal with.

    We all saw how The Dark Knight ended.

    ???

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  289. I am in cohesion with idea of a little whoopassery on the kids as a deterant combined with good ol fashioned talking to. Yes, the best way to deal with kids is to teach them about the negative consequences of their actions, but if the consequences are post-dated the effects’ importance wanes with time. Some kids will heed to the warnings and others still don’t because they don’t see anything bad in the immediate future. There are a lot of things that I did growing up that had an as whooping not been on the table as potential punishement, I would have done in excess. The only thing that works well in the immediate without fear of corporal punishment is something in the lines of “Don’t cross the highway or you’ll get run over”; even then we’ve all read fark.

    Like


  290. The French “belle laide” concept is much more sophisticated than e.g. the Hollywood version of the hot chick who takes off her glasses and lets down her hair and then she’s smoking. It really is a plain yet sexy girl. (It helps a lot that French women really aren’t fat, plain slender women can be hot).

    Like


  291. 211 DoJ:

    I really don’t give a fuck what others think. I know what I want here, and I’m going for it no matter how much of a pussy that makes others think I am.

    So you’re hoping to find women who don’t care if you come off as a pussy.

    Good luck with your hungry hungry hippos.

    Like


  292. 214 zorgon:

    I don’t know if you’ve read The Game by Neil Strauss, but one of the big takeaways: all the Game in the world was a total failure when he finally met his “The One” and tried it on her. She was completely impervious to it. It was his non-Game personality that she actually liked.

    That story should in no way be taken as proof that Game is unnecessary in “real” relationships.

    That bitch played him like the chump he was and then dumped his ass for a hot actor dude.

    Like


  293. Elizabeth:

    I know another guy who is tall, athletic, and handsome. But he’s also an undiagnosed Aspergers type, and he can’t read social cues to save his life. So he’s constantly offending women (who are initially attracted to him) without even realizing he’s doing it. It doesn’t help that he also has traits of love-shyness, and is constantly ignoring pretty, friendly girls for spectacular beauties.

    He is worlds away better looking than the first guy. He was even asked to do some modeling. But he hasn’t yet learned to work on his social awkwardness, and it’s affected him profoundly.

    I’ve never been asked to do modeling or anything of the sort, but I can certainly relate to that guy. At this point, purely going looks-wise, assuming I put on nice clothes and watch my body language, I certainly do not look geeky any more. I’m tall (slightly over 6′), have some muscles, no gut, generally clean cut “all-American Midwestern guy” look. Lasik and the gym have done wonders for me. My one issue is that I’m rather pale — all Northern European ancestry, my hair is lighter brown with a slight tinge of red, I sunburn VERY easily (SPF 50 is the only way to go for me), and I absolutely refuse to do anything stupid that will get me skin cancer. I like to think that out of tall, dark, and handsome, I have 2 of the 3. I bet if I had any fashion sense (I honestly don’t) and you gave me a trendy hairstyle/clothes, I could have a decent number of women fawning over me based on appearance alone.

    Again, I don’t claim to be a proper judge of male appearances, but even if everything I just said is total BS, I figure it doesn’t hurt to *believe* that I’m “super hot”, like that girl told me not too long ago.

    But I can see that women would be much more attuned to social graces, to the point where the “old me” would have sent them fleeing in terror — whereas guys just don’t give a damn, so if as long as you’re moderately agreeable to be around, that’s good enough.

    Like


  294. Tupac Chopra:

    That bitch played him like the chump he was and then dumped his ass for a hot actor dude.

    OK, wow, I guess I didn’t realize what happened later after the book ended.

    Like


  295. And this is highlighted by the Zorgons and David Alexanders of the world, who never talk to their dads about Women, about Sex. Its sad.

    Why would I want to talk to him about sex? His youthful days were in Haiti during the 1970s, which as far as I’m concerned, was just bizzare when compared with today. Secondly, we’re just different people in general, and advice that may work for him may not work for me.

    and it is a most telling commentary on the state of our times as to why the only respondents to his killing spree was an elder Holocaust Surviver and a 40-something academic, and not a single male Cho’s age. That more than Cho, in some ways, many ways, should ring a clarion alarm.

    As I said before, the reason I’d save my own ass and flee is because the last thing that I want to happen is to have my mom featured on CNN crying her eyes out saying that her kid was shot by some crazy ass. If I go decide to play hero, nobody’s going to be able to replace what my mother lost, and no settlement offered by government or other private parties is going to bring me back to life.

    Marriage simply does not afford the things it used to.

    Marriage is great for raising children with two committed parents, but otherwise, marriage was a dead weight in before feminism and after it. I don’t see any advantage to being attached with an sexually unattractive woman who will eventually age, and for all intents and purposes, secretly longs for an alpha male while only tolerating my existence because of my income stream.

    Like


  296. That story should in no way be taken as proof that Game is unnecessary in “real” relationships.

    That bitch played him like the chump he was and then dumped his ass for a hot actor dude.

    Also, keep in mind the audience for the book. It was meant to be a mainstream success, so he had to tack on a “moral” at the end and show that he “learned his lesson.” Otherwise he wouldn’t be getting booked for things like “The View.”

    By the way, i thought she left him for Robbie Williams?

    Like


  297. 226 MQ:

    The quotes in 205 are fantastic, thanks Tupac — I remember that section from the Gay Science, it’s a perfect thing to drop in here. Nietzsche, BTW, was horrible with women — in his personal life, perfect prototype of the beta nerd.

    To a certain extent, this is true — he was sickly and weak much of the time. But what saves him from Betatude was in spite of everything he never gave in to pretty lies to tranquilize himself, and in so doing created beautiful philosophy. He was truly ahead of his time. And, unlike most of his fellow beta academics, he understood women. He gets even more cred in my book for bucking the trends of the day. Check out a few of him aphorisms regarding women and relationships (some of them sound like Roissy):

    A pair of powerful spectacles has sometimes sufficed to cure a person in love.

    Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent.

    Behind all their personal vanity, women themselves always have an impersonal contempt for Woman.

    For the woman, the man is a means: the end is always the child.

    Genteel women suppose that those things do not really exist about which it is impossible to talk in polite company.(Hi Clio!)

    If a woman possesses manly virtues one should run away from her; and if she does not possess them she runs away from herself.(Hi Elizabeth)

    In the last analysis, even the best man is evil: in the last analysis, even the best woman is bad.

    Love matches, so called, have Illusion for their father and Need for their mother.(Hi DoJ)

    The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.

    This is what is hardest: to close the open hand because one loves.

    When marrying, ask yourself this question: Do you believe that you will be able to converse well with this person into your old age? Everything else in marriage is transitory.

    Woman was God’s second mistake.

    Women are considered deep – why? Because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow.

    Women can form a friendship with a man very well; but to preserve it – to that end a slight physical antipathy must probably help.(Hee!)

    In revenge and in love woman is more barbarous than man.

    Where neither love nor hatred is in the game, a woman’s game is mediocre.

    The enormous expectation in sexual love and the sense of shame in this expectation spoils all perspective for women from the start.

    Man likes woman peaceful – but woman is essentially unpeaceful, like a cat, however well she may have trained herself to seem peaceable.

    In men who are hard, intimacy involves shame- and is precious.

    When a woman becomes a scholar there is usually something wrong with her sexual organs.

    And last but not least, the old goodie:

    “Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!”–
    Thus spake Zarathustra.

    Like


  298. 296 zorgon

    My one issue is that I’m rather pale — all Northern European ancestry, my hair is lighter brown with a slight tinge of red, I sunburn VERY easily (SPF 50 is the only way to go for me), and I absolutely refuse to do anything stupid that will get me skin cancer.

    I wouldn’t really call this an issue. Lots of very pale men are attractive. Johnny Depp goes ghost-pale for a lot of his movie roles (Sleepy Hollow, for example), and women still drool over him.

    In fact, I think a lot of guys would look better with more natural skin tones instead of deep tans. Tanning can cause wrinkling and premature aging — I don’t much understand why anyone does it.

    Like


  299. Also, keep in mind the audience for the book. It was meant to be a mainstream success, so he had to tack on a “moral” at the end and show that he “learned his lesson.”

    yes, T., that’s true.
    some anti-game people are pointing to the backpedaling that strauss does at the end of his book as evidence that game is overrated and won’t result in healthy long term relationships. but this is flimsy evidence at best, for the reasons you just gave — strauss is a smart man and he knew that the happy hollywood beta ending would be better for followup interviews. in reality, he probably still uses game to score and is loving every minute of it.

    meanwhile, strauss is laughing all the way to the bank… and to the eager pussy.

    Like


  300. 235 DoJ:

    As Hope astutely noted in comment #164, I’m an idealist under my rationalist exterior, and I tend to be most attracted to others who radiate a certain sort of sensible idealism…

    “Those who need to trust are either infants or cowards. If you can’t tolerate dissapointment you can’t tolerate life.” — C.S.H.

    “A Humanist is someone who can’t tolerate being violated without advance notice.” — C.S.H.

    Like


  301. 240 Elizabeth:
    Also, there’s nothing wrong with having high standards and preferring to be alone rather than not having your standards met, provided you do not blame other people for that and get bitter. It’s not the high standards I have a problem with, it’s the blame game.

    I agree in part, but your words here would seem to obviate the need for any sort of political action.

    Were American slaves playing the blame game when they attempted to gain emancipation instead of just taking their licks and asking for more?

    Like


  302. 301 Elizabeth

    Tanning can cause wrinkling and premature aging — I don’t much understand why anyone does it.

    Indeed. I can still understand it a little bit for men — I don’t know to what degree women, on average, are attracted to guys with darker rather than lighter skin tone, but the former sure seems like the more common outcome; plus, it’s not so big a deal if the guy appears a bit older than he actually is — but for women, it’s utterly insane! You can’t even undo the wrinkling/premature aging!

    Like


  303. 304 Tupac Chopra

    I agree in part, but your words here would seem to obviate the need for any sort of political action.

    Were American slaves playing the blame game when they attempted to gain emancipation instead of just taking their licks and asking for more?

    Romantic and/or sexual relationships, freely entered and freely exited, aren’t comparable to involuntary servitude. People choose their partners. Or people choose to remain celibate. What is the government supposed to do? Be a matchmaker? Send the army to round up people over 30 who aren’t married and force them to co-habit and reproduce? Except for a few specific legal changes (like in divorce/alimony/child support laws), I’m not really seeing what “political action” would help the situation of people not finding appropriate mates.

    It’s cultural change that’s needed, and that comes from society itself, not from the government.

    Like


  304. 250 UL:

    But, once thing I will say for all of the “unrealistic” people is that it would be so much easier for them to grow up if they werent fed a constant stream of Politically Correct lies their entire childhood. Then, one day, someone say, “all that PC stuff is bullshit and you now need to grow up”.

    I have to agree with UL here. I challenge anyone to find a conventional forum — cyberspace or meatspace — where the bare truths Elizabeth is going on about are discussed with the same sort of been-there-done-that-attitude she evinces here. Or discusses them at all. And that’s just talking about the PRESENT, to say nothing of the social milieu most of the guys here grew up with in the past.

    Instead what you will find is nothing but lies, obfuscation, propaganda and moralizing. Many men here had to hack their way through a thicket of bullshit to eventually reach some form of clarity. So, while I don’t disagree in the slightest with the *content* of Elizabeth’s message, I do bristle somewhat at the “Gee whiz, gosh-darn, get-a-clue” tone.

    Like


  305. 264 Mu’Min:

    We are stll arguing on the assumption that ONLY THE MEN WANT SEX. And I say that is utter, complete Bullsh*t. In today’s world, where women can and often do choose w/o reprisal, they want purely sex, too.

    This is deceptive meme that is circulating in the community.

    It is more accurate to say: women *crave* raunchy sex with ALPHAS (and a relationship too if they can manage).

    Failing that, they will *use* sex as bait to snare a beta into marriage while *tolerating* the lackluster sex.

    It all depends on the man.

    Women are like wavefunctions in this respect. They collapse into a definite type of particle depending on who is observing them.

    [/nerd]

    Like


  306. Tupac,
    Very well put; thanks for the clarification!

    *Waiting for Elizabeth’s comeback…*

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  307. It is more accurate to say: women *crave* raunchy sex with ALPHAS (and a relationship too if they can manage).

    Tupac Chopra speaks TRUTH.

    Failing that, they will *use* sex as bait to snare a beta into marriage while *tolerating* the lackluster sex.

    Which leads to the ultimate question, why should a beta male waste his time with women who don’t really want? Why be second or third choice?

    Like


  308. 299: Slick Rick:

    By the way, i thought she left him for Robbie Williams?

    My bad. Should be: left him for some hot rockstar dude.

    Same difference.

    Like


  309. 302 roissy:

    strauss is a smart man and he knew that the happy hollywood beta ending would be better for followup interviews.

    Wait, are you implying he gamed her for that purpose? It seems more likely he took advantage of what actually happened in earnest to play the moralitahhh card.

    If so, his relationship game needs a little polish.

    Like


  310. 311: TC

    Okay, just making sure my info was wrong.

    To Strauss’s credit, if you’re going to lose your girl to someone, at least let it be to a guy like Robbie Williams. The guy is a true natural, I believe he’s claimed to have banged all the Spice Girls except for the dykey one. Check him in action, the negging, the extreme eye contact. A great example of a natural in action:

    Like


  311. 306 Elizabeth:

    Romantic and/or sexual relationships, freely entered and freely exited, aren’t comparable to involuntary servitude. People choose their partners. Or people choose to remain celibate. What is the government supposed to do? Be a matchmaker?

    If your original premise was people should not complain about or blame the external environment but should adapt to it instead, you come close to advocating apathy.

    My biology compels me to mate with females who have normal hip/waist ratios. If the women in my culture are bloating up, am I playing the blame game by complaining about and shaming such women?

    Like


  312. 310 Omega Man:

    Which leads to the ultimate question, why should a beta male waste his time with women who don’t really want? Why be second or third choice?

    How about improving yourself?

    Bust a move you nancyboy.

    Like


  313. what is with this “awaiting moderation” crap?

    Like


  314. TC: Seems the awaiting moderation crap comes up if you try to insert a link using but if you just put “http://…” it comes up ok.

    Like


  315. TC: Seems the awaiting moderation crap comes up if you try to insert a link using “a href=” but if you just put “http://…” it comes up ok.

    Like


  316. SaraI said:EQUAL DOES NOT MEAN SAME in regards to men and women. Please, someone get i!!!!

    I got it the first time you wrote it here. I’ve been using it ever since.

    Like


  317. A man with money could easily pay for a maid, nanny, and prostitute.

    But no amount of money will get a woman sit at his hospital bed when he’s old and sick.

    Like


  318. Elizabeth saidAgain, YES. There are a lot of parents who don’t seem interested in any kind of parenting that requires more than shuttling Junior to his endless practices and lessons. Families need time together. Also, for crying out loud, kids just need some time to play and be creative, wild, and inventive. I really hate hyper-parenting, especially since it doesn’t involve much parenting at all.

    I agree 100% but you know many parents are afraid to let their children play outside for fun anymore. With dateline and every other talk show showing childmolesters or the stories of those who have been molested.
    Those endless practices are what many parents think they have to do to give their children a leg up on the competition.

    Like


  319. We are stll arguing on the assumption that ONLY THE MEN WANT SEX. And I say that is utter, complete Bullsh*t. In today’s world, where women can and often do choose w/o reprisal, they want purely sex, too.

    This is deceptive meme that is circulating in the community.

    It is more accurate to say: women *crave* raunchy sex with ALPHAS (and a relationship too if they can manage).

    Only 20% of women actually can have orgasms through intercourse alone. It’s actually the norm for women to not have that great of a time in bed unless she is attracted to the man. That is why a lot of women want love before sex, because that is a nearly guaranteed way for them to derive pleasure from it.

    And women fall in love with betas all the time. It’s just that the so-called “alphas” tend to have the higher testosterone and bigger penises, which in turn turn women on more. If this blog was about teaching techniques on how to find the G-spot and how to move fingers/tongues, I bet you that there would be zero objection to this blog from the female audience.

    Casual sex with some random guy using game to talk his way into bed does not guarantee a good time once they are there. That is probably why women are skeptical of game. Even though I haven’t slept with many men, I’ve heard a lot of bullshit from those men I did sleep with, and frankly most men really are terrible in bed. Men don’t have this problem to nearly the same degree with women because they get turned on by physical attractiveness, which is far easier to discern than the likelihood that any given man knows how to give a woman pleasure.

    Like


  320. And so it was written, to encourage our fair damsel to engage in casual sex:

    Ever hear advice from the old and wise? They all say seize the moment, carpe diem, and they all regret what they did not do more than what they did. Even if they tell you to be responsible and cautious, it is nonetheless true that their regrets were more “I should have” than “I should not have.”

    My response:

    Um, o.k. For innumerable centuries, the idea of carpe diem would have been interpreted as seizing the opportunity to be more honorable, to be more noble, to be more brave. Do the right thing. Achieve victory and glory. Basically, be a man. As Roman mothers and wives told their sons and husbands as they sent them off to war, “Come back with your shield or on it.” In other words, be a man … even if it kills you.

    But now, to the modern denizen of post-America, the distilled wisdom of the ages can be vaguely interpreted as some sort of Nike commercial. Just do it! You go girl!!!

    I guess it is excusable in a “when in Rome” sort of way. When one lives in a society that has gone insane, then bad behavior begins to make more sense than good behavior. It’s sort of like with spending money – under normal and healthy economic conditions, saving and investing makes a great deal of sense. But in hyperinflationary Wiemar? Spend like there is no tomorrow. Behavior that would be foolish and destructive under normal conditions begins to make a lot of sense under insane conditions.

    Same with sex. Bad sexual behavior begins to make sense in a degenerate society. The “best” advice for a young woman in a healthy society would be for her to be very selective about her mating choices, and to find a good man that she could have a good life with. Someone that would be there for her in the bad times as well as the good. But in post-America? Just knock some boots, baby!!!

    Oh, he’s an unstable lesser beta? So what! Let him tap that!! You won’t regret it!! At least, not until the trip to the STD clinic, and the eventual therapist bills. But don’t worry about that!!

    That’s why Mu’Min is also correct when he says that the social contract is broken. It most assuredly is. How do we know? The same way we know that Weimar style inflation is bad- it creates an environment in which irrational spending habits begin to make perfect sense. In our society today, self-defeating sexual behaviors make a great deal of sense. Same deal. Just do it! You’ve come a long way baby!! (as a lesser beta shoots a load in her face)

    Like


  321. Hope:

    frankly most men really are terrible in bed

    Again, just like with dating — where was the typical guy *supposed* to learn what to do in bed? From porn??

    If the guy doesn’t know what he’s doing, and the woman doesn’t help him fix that, then I can’t bring myself to blame the guy.

    Like


  322. 1. 271 Usually Lurking
    I am quite familiar with that book and what is interesting is that at the time the book was published, major media outlets were finally publishing stories that the French were absolutely getting fatter.
    The book should be titled: Wealthy Parisian Women Don’t Get Fat.
    I was going to make the same point, but you beat me to it.
    We really should find a way to tweak the food industry’s incentives so that businesses are driven to deliver much healthier food, and far fewer empty calories. Totally unfettered capitalism can be pathologically myopic at times.

    French men were not fat when I visited Paris a few years ago. In fact, fact people are so rare there that when you see one, you truly do stop to stare. French men don’t have that God awful gut that American men have. Nothing makes a man looks less masculine faster than having a belly larger than that of a woman who is 9 months pregnant. Men spend to much time worrying about their hair. If you are going bald, just shave it off. You will turn a lot more heads with a nice body. Ask Peter
    Paris is a bit like NYC in that you have such a wide number of races and ethnicities living in one city. There are working class neighborhoods & guess what, those people are not fat. I came across a number of African immigrants and guess what, they were not as large as African-Americans on average.
    The supermarket that I visited had a limited selection of junk food (like cookies and potato chips).

    I am telling you, Americans are fat largly because of the food additives that are put in our food. There are a number of chemicals that are allowed into our foods here which are not permitted in some European contries. Fructose corn syrup is banned in some parts. The coke a cola I had in Paris tasted a heck of a lot better than any that I’ve had in this country.

    Like


  323. Hope saidCasual sex with some random guy using game to talk his way into bed does not guarantee a good time once they are there. That is probably why women are skeptical of game. Even though I haven’t slept with many men, I’ve heard a lot of bullshit from those men I did sleep with, and frankly most men really are terrible in bed. Men don’t have this problem to nearly the same degree with women because they get turned on by physical attractiveness, which is far easier to discern than the likelihood that any given man knows how to give a woman pleasure

    The flood gates of heaven have opened up to give Hope honerary angel status.

    I don’t understand why women who don’t enjoy it like a man, sleep around so much. Most women who have been around the block mention that only 20-35% of their partners were any good. I say, find someone who is talented and keep him around until you get find a boyfriend or marriage. No need to put a lot of wear and tear on it if you are gettin gno joy from it.

    Like


  324. For innumerable centuries, the idea of carpe diem would have been interpreted as seizing the opportunity to be more honorable, to be more noble, to be more brave. Do the right thing. Achieve victory and glory. Basically, be a man. As Roman mothers and wives told their sons and husbands as they sent them off to war, “Come back with your shield or on it.” In other words, be a man … even if it kills you.

    Bullshit.

    In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Siduri attempts to dissuade Gilgamesh in his quest for immortality, urging him to enjoy life as it is: “As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man.”

    In the Ecclesiastes (9,7-9):

    7 Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.
    8 Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment.
    9 Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.

    When one lives in a society that has gone insane, then bad behavior begins to make more sense than good behavior.

    You do realize that across all times and cultures, the young have passionately fallen in love with each other and had sex, forging a lifelong bond? This is not abnormal or abhorrent behavior. This is the biological foundation to lifetime happiness that modern society prefers to suppress.

    She said they are happy together and are in love with each other. That is a natural and good thing. For millenia women have been falling in love and having sex before they reached the age of 20. It isn’t as if she would be giving out her body to random strangers.

    Just do it! You’ve come a long way baby!! (as a lesser beta shoots a load in her face)

    This whole “lesser beta” insult, is it your way of saying that she should only sleep with “alpha” men? If not, what are you saying? That to fall in love with a “lesser” man is contemptible? That to consummate the feeling of love is immoral?

    Carpe diem is not the same as memento mori (“remember that you are mortal”); Carpe diem is a phrase from a Latin poem by Horace. It is popularly translated as “seize the day”. The general definition of carpe is “pick, pluck, pluck off, gather” as in plucking or picking a rose or apple, although Horace uses the word in the sense of “enjoy, make use of, seize.”

    So next time, please do your proper research before throwing out insults. 🙂

    Like


  325. 323 – If the guy doesn’t know what he’s doing, and the woman doesn’t help him fix that, then I can’t bring myself to blame the guy.

    You say you are great with women, but you don’t understand why a woman is not helped by telling her man what to do in bed?

    Like


  326. 244 Elizabeth

    I’m confident that Obama, deep down, doesn’t have much belief in Christianity…

    I think a lot of politicians are like this. I can understand it if they’re the kind of person who believes organized religion is necessary to hold society together, so I don’t really blame them for it. Not all sacred cows need be destroyed. There are useful illusions that make civilization possible — the idea of justice, for example. True justice is rarely possible, but it’s a necessary ideal, something to strive for, even if we can never really reach it.

    I also believe that we haven’t found anything better than religion to hold society together, though; and perhaps more relevant to the topic at hand, religion can help hold a family together as well. And I’m very committed to holding my family together.

    Is it at all respectable for me to profess belief for that purpose in the future? When my own sister tells me that she doesn’t want a man who doesn’t profess some belief? Is this something I would deserve blame for?

    I really respect your ideals, Elizabeth, and your “obnoxious hardass” adherence to them. It looks almost certain that I’ll have to make some compromises going forward, but I don’t really trust most of the commenters here to accurately judge what principles I should still hold to. I don’t entirely trust myself right now, since I’m still a bit demoralized and frustrated. But I do trust what you have to say, about what lines I should never cross, and I accept the attendant risk of never finding a mate.

    And Hope, I’m curious what you have to say about my very first question in this thread, “I totally agree that the man must demonstrate leadership, but are there ANY effective forms that leadership can take that don’t involve getting into her pants ASAP?” That’s a line I still don’t really want to cross, but if you think I have to, I’ll trust your judgment.

    I wonder if there is another forum which is better suited for me.

    Like


  327. 321 – Only 20% of women actually can have orgasms through intercourse alone

    My turn to ask you for the source of the stats.

    It’s actually the norm for women to not have that great of a time in bed unless she is attracted to the man.

    That’s why they love alphas. He can even be small and technically bad in bed – her overwhelming attraction will turn it into a roller coaster ride.

    That is why a lot of women want love before sex,

    Yep. But if your diet consists of provider sex alone, you will increasingly feel the need for the leading and dominance a true alpha can provide.

    f this blog was about teaching techniques on how to find the G-spot and how to move fingers/tongues

    zorgon would be happy if you start sharing your wisdom.

    Casual sex with some random guy using game to talk his way into bed does not guarantee a good time once they are there. That is probably why women are skeptical of game.

    Do women really start complaining because now they get “tricked” by betas? This is getting interesting.

    Like


  328. 314 Tupac Chopra

    If your original premise was people should not complain about or blame the external environment but should adapt to it instead, you come close to advocating apathy.

    My original premise is that people should be realistic and not have unrealistically high standards. Or, if they insist on having unrealistically high standards, they should understand that it is their fault if they are unable to find a partner, because they are setting themselves up for failure by playing out their league. Ergo, they should not blame other people for their own failure.

    In other words, if Loser Boy keeps on chasing Gorgeous Girl when he has nothing to offer her that she wants, it is his fault, not her fault, that he is failing. He’s trying to play out of his league, and generally, that doesn’t work.

    In other words, guys who are 4s should not bitterly complain about how “no woman wants them” when they perpetually seek sex/relationships with girls who are 7s or 8s, ignoring the girls who are at or near their own level. This has nothing to do with apathy and everything to do with recognizing what your “market value”, so to speak, is.

    My biology compels me to mate with females who have normal hip/waist ratios. If the women in my culture are bloating up, am I playing the blame game by complaining about and shaming such women?

    No. You’re playing the blame game if you blame other people for your own failures caused by your unrealistically high expectations.

    Like


  329. You say you are great with women

    I don’t think I said that. All I’ve said is that I used to be mind-bogglingly bad with women, am working to improve, and am making some progress.

    you don’t understand why a woman is not helped by telling her man what to do in bed?

    So, again, where was the guy supposed to learn? It’s certainly not taught in sex ed, and there’s plenty of misinformation and contradictory advice out there. I mean, heck, if you read the random stuff at mainstream media sites like CNN and Yahoo, you’ll get such wonderful advice as “women get turned on when their guys do housework for them.” WTF??? And porn is, well, far from accurate.

    I can’t blame a guy for not magically knowing something that he (1) was never taught and (2) can’t exactly teach himself.

    Like


  330. 309 Mu’Min

    *Waiting for Elizabeth’s comeback…*

    Er…what is it I’m supposed to be responding to? I’ve never denied that women want sex.

    Like


  331. zorgon
    Hope:

    frankly most men really are terrible in bed

    Again, just like with dating — where was the typical guy *supposed* to learn what to do in bed? From porn??

    If the guy doesn’t know what he’s doing, and the woman doesn’t help him fix that, then I can’t bring myself to blame the guy

    I don’t mind giving instructions. Some men are touchy about it though. I can recall Roosh complaining about older women giving to many instructions.

    Like


  332. Czar
    321 – Only 20% of women actually can have orgsms through intercourse alone

    My turn to ask you for the source of the stats

    I came across a low number to but I can’t remember where or what the exact percentage was. I am one of those women BTW who can’t. It’s the reason the lick is so important to me.

    Like


  333. Czar said:Do women really start complaining because now they get “tricked” by betas? This is getting interesting

    Some betas are very talented. It’s the sensitive types who really like women, think Micheal Cera from Juno, who give surprises.

    Like


  334. Elizabeth:

    In other words, guys who are 4s should not bitterly complain about how “no woman wants them” when they perpetually seek sex/relationships with girls who are 7s or 8s, ignoring the girls who are at or near their own level. This has nothing to do with apathy and everything to do with recognizing what your “market value”, so to speak, is.

    The fundamental contention of a lot of guys in this forum seems to be that that isn’t the issue. The story they tell is that the 4-6 girls are sleeping with the 7-8 guys, while the 7-10 girls are sleeping with the 9-10 guys. Eventually the girls realize that they’re going for guys who will never “commit” to them, and fall back to someone at their own “level” for marriage and kids. Then, after a few years, the women cheat with the same old alpha guys, and possibly divorce the provider beta, sticking him with alimony and child support.

    If this story is true, what it means is that a lot of guys in the 4-6 range (to say nothing of those below!) will (1) struggle to find themselves a girl, (2) have unfaithful wives, and (3) get totally scammed by the family courts. That’s not a pleasant thought. A 4-6 girl, on the other hand, may have a decent pick of guys to sleep around with if she so chooses and can still snag a decent provider beta later without a lot of trouble — and then can still cheat and can get a big windfall divorce settlement.

    As for whether the story is true: honestly, hard data is difficult to come by on this kind of stuff. Some have tried to refute it based on sex surveys, but I agree with the critics of those surveys that they are extremely untrustworthy as evidence — and surveys telling us the average or median numbers of partners tell us very little about the behavior at the extremes, which may be more relevant to the truth or falsehood of the story.

    Like


  335. OK, just finishing up at work here and seeing Hope and Chic’s comments, and I gotta say, w/all due respect, that if we gonna pull cards, there’s a lot to be desired on the Female side of the Sexual Ledger, too.

    We’ll begin w/Ye Olde Slob on The Knob-the vast majority of women in the real world DON’T KNOW HOW TO SUCK DICK. Which hugely explains why Bill Clinton damn near wrecked his entire Presidency because he done ran accross a gal who made it her bizness to get the Oral Action right. But then, as we all know, Slick Willy’s an Alpha, and he got it like that.

    And we all remember what Eddie Murphy had to say about the matter: “No, no, like this…”

    Next, let’s consider the Cowgirl position, or what Mu likes to call, Sit ‘n Spin. Now, there’s a certain kind of rhythm you want to have when doing this, and, no disrespect to my non-Black sisters in the crowd, but more often than not I’m sorry, y’all don’t have it. It’s like when you’re on the dancefloor and coming down on the 1 and 3 beat instead of the 2 and 4, you know what I mean? What its done righ, cowgirl is the bomb, but when its bad, it is bad. And as for the Sistas, they got the moves, but often not the motivation, of which of course, is the guy’s fault. Again. OoooK.

    Still in all, most guys don’t say anything, and probably that’s a bad thing overall, but at any rate they don’t. Here I’m reminded of Elizabeth’s earlier comments about the need for guys (and in fairness she said gals, too) for have more realistic expectations. Well, lemme tell ya, and I think I’m speaking for quite a number of guys here and worldwide, there’s nothing to bring you down to earth more than a bad BJ. But you grin and bear it and get on w/it.

    Holla back if so inclined, and Brothas, can I get a witness?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  336. 320 chicnoir

    Those endless practices are what many parents think they have to do to give their children a leg up on the competition.

    You know, whenever I hear parents talk about how they’re ruining their kids’ childhood so that their kids can “get ahead,” I think of the Calvin and Hobbes strip where Calvin finds Hobbes lying in the sun and says, “You’ll never get ahead if that’s all that you do.” Hobbes looks at him and asks, “Who are we racing?”

    322 Ryder

    As Roman mothers and wives told their sons and husbands as they sent them off to war, “Come back with your shield or on it.”

    Spartan mothers and wives, actually. 🙂

    [ / history geek ]

    328 DoJ

    Is it at all respectable for me to profess belief for that purpose in the future? When my own sister tells me that she doesn’t want a man who doesn’t profess some belief? Is this something I would deserve blame for?

    You’ll have to decide what’s respectable for you, since ultimately, it’s your respect for yourself that matters. But I think you’ll have better luck, DoJ, if you find someone for whom spiritual belief just isn’t that important (or who doesn’t have it at all). That doesn’t even have to mean an atheist or an agnostic — it could just mean someone who really doesn’t care. That way, you don’t have to pretend or stretch the truth and risk disappointing your partner when the truth comes out.

    I really respect your ideals, Elizabeth, and your “obnoxious hardass” adherence to them.

    Thanks. 🙂

    I wonder if there is another forum which is better suited for me.

    Have you looked into online communities for people who have similar ideas about spirituality/faith that you do? If this has been a consistent problem for you in the past, maybe that would be a good place to start.

    Like


  337. I should add that while the 4-6 guys may have easier success with the 1-3 girls, girls in the 1-3 range are likely to be obese, and may be both obese and rather ugly. A good number of guys are simply unlikely to be sexually attracted to them. And even a guy won’t necessarily sleep with *anyone*… even back in my more desperate days I had to say “no” to some rather heinous-looking women. You can argue that I should have said “yes” to them, but I doubt that would have been a good thing for either party involved.

    Like


  338. 336 zorgon

    The fundamental contention of a lot of guys in this forum seems to be that that isn’t the issue. The story they tell is that the 4-6 girls are sleeping with the 7-8 guys, while the 7-10 girls are sleeping with the 9-10 guys.

    Given the revulsion men in general (and especially the men here) have for fat girls, and given how many American women are fat, I find this extremely hard to believe.

    If fat is the new average, and 5 = average, girls at 5 and below are plain, fat, or hideous. I very much doubt most of those women are sleeping with a great many men, let alone a great many good-looking men.

    Like


  339. Elizabeth @330

    This sort of thing is usually labeled “male entitlement” when it appears on Nice Guy(tm) threads on feminist blogs. It IS a real dynamic, primarily because of the fact that men’s dating mojo is behavioral/performative, and hence malleable in a way that women’s is NOT. Men who are consistently turned down regard it as a problem to be solved, not a dictate of fate, and they know that different behavior can yield different results, which is why “Don’t you people know your place?” consistently falls on deaf ears. Also, women who are 4s, 5s, and 6s are approached all the time, so men tend to hear “out of your league” reproaches as advocating total involuntary chastity for them while virtually ANY woman can consistently get a partner. (I’m chronically ill and I’ve dated women both with and without disabilities, so I’ve seen *incredible* extremes. And it is STILL easier for women.) Whereas masculinity is performative and a single failure in a single step of the masculine sex role yields failure.

    A lot of the rage results from treating systemic procedural failure as “unchangeable identity”, which is what you are (in a way) advocating. Men who do that DO argue that women want things they shouldn’t, or didn’t used to, and they are right that women’s desires HAVE CHANGED and “adapt or die, at least genetically” is men’s usual choice. As it has been for millennia.

    Like


  340. Question: I am wondering how can individuals justify the assertions concerning what ALL women want when those same individuals have gone on record as stating that most of their interactions with women have been purely sexual and that any effort to get to know women beyond the physical would reduce them to some less categorization of a man (Betas).

    Why should individuals who know and understand women the leas be given intellectual authority concerning the pysche of women?

    Like


  341. I don’t mind giving instructions. Some men are touchy about it though. I can recall Roosh complaining about older women giving to many instructions.

    It also depends on the woman. When I was younger, I dealt with an older chick that was older than me and would offer “suggestions.” I didn’t mind though because she did some mind-blowing stuff to me in return. A real education. Problem is, in your case you’ve already declared that you don’t suck dick because you think it shows some kind of weakness on the part of a woman and that it’s antifeminist. It would be tough for me to deal with a chick who won’t do something that basic for me, yet still tries to give instructions to me on top of that. Any guy that would is pretty much guaranteed to be beta.

    Like


  342. Elizabeth,
    History buff that you are, I’m wondering if you saw 300? And if so, here’s my question (anyone else to chime in here…)

    Do you think the Spartan Queen committed adultery? You see, this was the topic of an intense debate amongst the Brothahood last year when we checked it out over at Zam’s spot. Half of us said yes, the other half, no.

    I was in the No camp, on the grounds that the Queen was doing a patriotic act; she gave up the panties in service to her country. But my brothas in arms had a differing view, stating that under no circumstances was she to assume the position.

    So…what, say you?

    Thanks!

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  343. If fat is the new average, and 5 = average, girls at 5 and below are plain, fat, or hideous. I very much doubt most of those women are sleeping with a great many men, let alone a great many good-looking men.

    Speaking only for myself, I would say 4-5 is the threshold where my answer would change from “no” to “yes.” Below 4, yes, we are talking “hideous.” For a 4 I would probably say “yes” but not be willing to put in just about a single drop of effort.

    But a 5? She may not score a 10, but there are a good number of 7-8 guys who will “pump and dump” her — more than just a one-night stand, perhaps, but they won’t stick around for anything that reeks of commitment.

    Like


  344. 341 Eurosabra

    This sort of thing is usually labeled “male entitlement” when it appears on Nice Guy(tm) threads on feminist blogs.

    For the record — as I said farther above — I think there are a lot of girls who have the same problem. Fat, ugly girls are not going to land Mr. Handsome and Strong, no matter how much they pine for him.

    It IS a real dynamic, primarily because of the fact that men’s dating mojo is behavioral/performative, and hence malleable in a way that women’s is NOT. Men who are consistently turned down regard it as a problem to be solved, not a dictate of fate, and they know that different behavior can yield different results, which is why “Don’t you people know your place?” consistently falls on deaf ears.

    I disagree with this — I think most people do not have the strength of will and ability to change themselves in any meaningful way; I think a lot of the so-called advice for geeky guys to find their pretty girl falls on the same level as telling ugly girls that “true beauty lies within.” But I don’t have a problem with anyone following the advice and trying to improve themselves, or with people having high standards. As I said, what annoys me is the bitterness, not the standards.

    Like


  345. on October 8, 2008 at 1:40 am Usually Lurking

    Chic, can you fucking read? I just said that the people of Paris are not fat, much in the same way that when you troll around Greenwich Village, you find very few fat people.

    But, go out to the suburbs of, say, Lyon, and boom, you see some fat Frenchmen.

    Like


  346. But no amount of money will get a woman sit at his hospital bed when he’s old and sick.

    Long-term care insurance guarantees somebody will take care of my ass when I’m old. Otherwise, I better hope that bribing my niece and nephews will be sufficient.

    Only 20% of women actually can have orgasms through intercourse alone. It’s actually the norm for women to not have that great of a time in bed unless she is attracted to the man.

    In other words, there is no incentive for the average beta male to mate and marry with the average woman?

    The coke a cola I had in Paris tasted a heck of a lot better than any that I’ve had in this country.

    My mom misses the taste of Coke from Haiti as it was made with sugar cane instead of corn syrup.

    Like


  347. 343 Mu’Min

    History buff that you are, I’m wondering if you saw 300?

    Love, love, love that movie! It’s a thrust at the heart of political correctness. 😀

    Do you think the Spartan Queen committed adultery?

    No. And I think Leonidas would have approved under the circumstances. The Spartans didn’t leave much room for personal sentiment. If something was done in the service of Sparta, it was a just and noble act.

    I was kind of disappointed that the movie left out some of the important things Queen Gorgo did (fascinating, fascinating woman), but I was pleased she had such a big part in the film, and the filmmakers were certainly true to her character. She was giving her father (also a Spartan king; the Spartans had two kings) political advice when she was eight years old. 🙂

    Like


  348. But Elizabeth, to be Bitter is to be Human. It is only a natural reaction to sh*t that don’t work and you know don’t work but you can’t do a damned thing about it. All you can be at that point IS bitter, and I feel ya on not wanting to hear it and all that, but it is what it is.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  349. 322 Hope:

    Only 20% of women actually can have orgasms through intercourse alone. It’s actually the norm for women to not have that great of a time in bed unless she is attracted to the man.

    That’s my point: the alphas awaken raw primal desire in the woman whereas with betas the women have to go through all sorts of mental and emotional contortions to enjoy sex. And even then, the enjoyment isn’t the same.

    That is why a lot of women want love before sex, because that is a nearly guaranteed way for them to derive pleasure from it.

    They want love (i.e. commitment) if they’re sexing a beta. If it’s an alpha, they only need a reasonable facsimile so as to keep their illusion of propriety. 🙂

    And with the girls I’ve known here in the big city, you don’t even need that if you play your cards right. “Liberated” women will throw caution to the wind if they are not constrained by society’s mores and they percieve you as alpha.

    And women fall in love with betas all the time.

    I never said they didn’t.

    But they don’t often fall in *lust* with betas.

    If this blog was about teaching techniques on how to find the G-spot and how to move fingers/tongues, I bet you that there would be zero objection to this blog from the female audience.

    No amount of sexual geekery can make up for the sheer sexual awe that alphas inspire by their mere presence.

    I should make something clear. In one sense, there are objective alphas — the 9’s and 10’s so to speak. But the dynamic plays itself out everywhere on the sexual market value spectrum. It’s relative. A guy who is a 7 will be “alpha” to a girl who is a 6 or below. And the greater the disparity, the greater the *perceived* alphaness.

    The 8’s I’ve banged often required more sexual “work” in this sense. The sex was great by all accounts, but the nature of the sex was qualitatively different than the sex I’ve had with 7’s. Often times with the 7’s, all I needed to do was stick it in and the girl would start popping orgasms like a chinese firecracker. I’m exaggerating somewhat of course, but you get my point.

    Even though I haven’t slept with many men, I’ve heard a lot of bullshit from those men I did sleep with, and frankly most men really are terrible in bed.

    The only thing that makes a man good in bed is awareness and practice. If the guy is a beta or lower, he won’t have that practice. Then he will be mocked behind his back by the very same women who pretend to hate players who “get around” — even though that very getting around is what makes a man good in bed.

    Like


  350. 339 Elizabeth:

    You know, whenever I hear parents talk about how they’re ruining their kids’ childhood so that their kids can “get ahead,” I think of the Calvin and Hobbes strip where Calvin finds Hobbes lying in the sun and says, “You’ll never get ahead if that’s all that you do.” Hobbes looks at him and asks, “Who are we racing?”

    Hobbes doesn’t sound like your kind of Prince Charming hero, does he?

    Like


  351. Tupac 350:
    You are The Burgermeister.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  352. But, go out to the suburbs of, say, Lyon, and boom, you see some fat Frenchmen.

    I used to watch the French news on a nightly basis, and one of the things that bugged me the general homeliness of the average French women. I’ve yet to see these magical hot women that American men have been writing about for years. The reporters were so-so looking, and the interviewees weren’t any better looking than the average American in my part of the country.

    Sadly, my last (and so far only) trip to France (and Europe) was in 2000, and sadly, thanks to the current economic climate, I may not return as early as I expected…

    Like


  353. DavidA:

    Long-term care insurance guarantees somebody will take care of my ass when I’m old.

    From what I can tell from my dad’s parents, who are now 90 and 91, the only thing that really guarantees anything is Medicaid. Once they’re in the nursing home, they can’t be kicked out, and Medicaid will pay the bill, whatever it is. (And if this doesn’t immediately give you about 50 ideas on how to scam the system…)

    Since Medicaid is already sucking down a huge and increasing percentage of state budgets, I wouldn’t count on that by the time I’m 90. Either SS, Medicare, and Medicaid have to be severely cut back, or taxes have to be raised massively. Either way… someone loses.

    Anyway, my dad’s parents are in such miserable condition that it’s not clear what the point is any more. (My mom’s dad is 96 and in much better shape than either of them. He still lives in his house by himself, cooks for himself, etc.) And if they didn’t have him around to stop by at least every week, things would be much worse.

    I’m not buying long-term care insurance, nor are my parents.

    Like


  354. @345

    The difference being that average women (I am loathe to say) are not condemned to involuntary chastity all their days, as many men are (80% of all the women who ever lived reproduced, only 40% of men). This is really, really disproportionate, and indicative of a species whose “natural” disposition is towards soft polygyny, moreover, unlike bonobos, we do not have compensatory “social sex.” The bitterness is hard to shake, moreover, because men are socialized to regard women as Other, and someone who is fundamentally Other who completely stymies your needs becomes the Unknowable Enemy. Men are socialized to regard social interaction as a question to be answered, and women as a prize to be won leading to the feminist claim that it is the erosion of the rewards of patriarchy, once accessible to the average man (and now inaccessible) with which men must deal.

    The problem with that is that disappointed men become predators, and men’s predatory behavior is a problem in ways that women’s disappointment is not. (Valerie Solanas and Aileen Wuornos being the exceptions, and so few and noticeable as to be exceptionally exceptional exceptions.) While very few men go the Ted Bundy route, and rape rates are actually declining, street harassment seems to be an integral part of male culture. Also butch female refusal has led to throw-downs incl. shootings and stabbings between African American straight males and African American lesbians protecting “their” femmes on the streets of Newark and New York. Very Trotskyist: “You may not be interested in [men], but [men are] interested in you.”

    Like


  355. Elizabeth, Eurosabra, Zorgon,
    Interesting point wrt fat gals and their faces; in the hood you can get over to some extent if she’s really pretty facewise. Of course, there’s the ever nebulous “fat” threshold, which is vastly different between Black and White men, so…

    But as for the issue at hand as it pertains to White men, I’m inclined to agree w/the fellas here Elizabeth-I just don’t see how its possible, from a biological standpoint of getting wood, how these guys are gonna get w/these gals. If they’re not sexually turned on by them because of their size/shape, and on top of that they ain’t pretty in the face either or just downright ugly, I gotta tell ya that should be a part of the Geneva Conventions because that’s akin to Torture for a man. Seriously.

    Its a heck of a situation, but hold up, let me ask this question squarely to my White brothers: can you please specify exactly what you mean when you say “fat”? Can you give a weight/height/dress size estimate? I’m just curious to know what y’all mean.

    Holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  356. the alphas awaken raw primal desire in the woman whereas with betas the women have to go through all sorts of mental and emotional contortions to enjoy sex. And even then, the enjoyment isn’t the same.

    So, again, what’s the incentive for a beta male to marry a woman when he’ll always be second best, and the woman will secretly pine for an alpha male?

    But the dynamic plays itself out everywhere on the sexual market value spectrum. It’s relative. A guy who is a 7 will be “alpha” to a girl who is a 6 or below. And the greater the disparity, the greater the *perceived* alphaness.

    I entertained such an idea some time ago to explain why a female was interested in me, but it’s been rightfully dismissed as a crackpot theory to paper over beta inferiority. In effect, if I as a man am a 4, my beta behaviour will decimate any hope of a girl thinking of me as an alpha. The girl doesn’t view me as an alpha, but the girl just views me as the best she can get with her low ranking.

    the girl would start popping orgasms like a chinese firecracker

    Cute. 🙂

    Like


  357. 338 Elizabeth

    You’ll have to decide what’s respectable for you, since ultimately, it’s your respect for yourself that matters. But I think you’ll have better luck, DoJ, if you find someone for whom spiritual belief just isn’t that important (or who doesn’t have it at all). That doesn’t even have to mean an atheist or an agnostic — it could just mean someone who really doesn’t care. That way, you don’t have to pretend or stretch the truth and risk disappointing your partner when the truth comes out.

    Have you looked into online communities for people who have similar ideas about spirituality/faith that you do? If this has been a consistent problem for you in the past, maybe that would be a good place to start.

    Thanks a lot for responding.

    I once made an effort to look into an atheist/agnostic group, but it was quite small, and the one woman who seemed slightly interesting to me nevertheless seemed mismatched with me and had a boyfriend to boot. For the most part I’ve just approached people (both online and off) who I found very compelling and who I thought might value me.

    An online search reveals a larger atheist meetup group in my area. I’ll stop by next week.

    340 Elizabeth

    If fat is the new average, and 5 = average, girls at 5 and below are plain, fat, or hideous. I very much doubt most of those women are sleeping with a great many men, let alone a great many good-looking men.

    There’s some geographic variance here. I’m under the impression that your area is worse than average, while Zorgon and I live in areas that aren’t as bad.

    344 zorgon

    Speaking only for myself, I would say 4-5 is the threshold where my answer would change from “no” to “yes.” Below 4, yes, we are talking “hideous.” For a 4 I would probably say “yes” but not be willing to put in just about a single drop of effort.

    Maybe I shouldn’t speak up since I haven’t heard anyone espouse my position before, so I’m probably some freak outlier. But I practically don’t care how the woman looks when I meet them… it’s actually fine with me if they’re overweight, as long as, with my support, they’re willing to seriously work on their body. (And I’d prefer to work to improve myself in some manner she’d appreciate, in return.) It is important to me to have a wife who’s keeps herself in at least decent shape (and I have high standards for my own body), but I’m willing to be very patient about getting there, and I’ll never ask her to do anything that doesn’t benefit her own health.

    Yes, this is the reverse of what usually happens in marriages. But if my one previous LTR is any indication, I’m obnoxious enough to pull this off.

    I don’t know if there are any brilliant outliers who are (i) fat right now, and (ii) willing to change that with my support. I hope I find one, since I’ll appreciate her so much more than almost anyone else.

    Like


  358. Usually Lurking
    Chic, can you fucking read? I just said that the people of Paris are not fat, much in the same way that when you troll around Greenwich Village, you find very few fat people.

    But, go out to the suburbs of, say, Lyon, and boom, you see some fat Frenchmen.

    why so aggressive???
    and then people wonder why I am afraid of men :SMH:

    I read the comments out of order. Don’t jump on me cause it’s not that serious.

    Someone mentioned rich Parisians are thin. Not all Parisians are rich but most are certainly thin

    Like


  359. Mumin: Interesting point wrt fat gals and their faces; in the hood you can get over to some extent if she’s really pretty facewise. Of course, there’s the ever nebulous “fat” threshold, which is vastly different between Black and White men, so. Its a heck of a situation, but hold up, let me ask this question squarely to my White brothers: can you please specify exactly what you mean when you say “fat”? Can you give a weight/height/dress size estimate? I’m just curious to know what y’all mean.

    Zamani: According to most statistics, African American women and African Americans in general have a much higher weight ratio they will go before they consider someone to be obese.
    I would never like to stereotype but I have seen white girls that I thought were average build be labeled as “fat” by some of my white coworkers etc.

    Also I noticed that African Americans are more accepting of men who are heavier and black women dont “seem” to be as discriminating about a guy being a little overweight. Alot of this might have to do with the popular culture. To my knowledge in the music or movie industry, I havent see any white males who were on the heavier side who were considered sex symbols while I have seen quite a few of the Gerald Levert types in the black community.

    There are alot of very attractive and highly sexually attractive African American women who are on the thicker side but thats just my taste. I have never been drawn to the rail thin model types etc.

    This is one area where me and my good friend Mumin agree…lol..In The Thick..lol

    Like


  360. @358

    I may very well be an outlier, but I’ve actually been quite happy with white women (I am a male Euro-Israeli) who were not only fat (5’0″-5’3″ 160-180lbs) but also had pretty extensive scarring. But maybe that’s because of the “Differently Abled Terror Survivor Finds Same” dynamic. And of course as Euro-American-Jews they fitted my imprinting.

    DA is pretty explicit that he finds non-pornified women off-putting, whereas the pic of a woman he “non-dated” looked exactly like a thinner Greek version of one of the Italian-origin Jewish women I dated. She clocked in at a 5-6, IIRC, which means I consistently date 3s and 4s, and get turned down by 4s, 5s, 6s, and up. With limited Ross Jeffries-style game, I get 6s. Part of the problem is that like DA I am very depressed and geographically and socially isolated. Unlike DA, I really enjoy average women, when I get the chance. I wouldn’t say such things are the problem Mu’min (Believer? The root is the same in my native tongue) paints them as, but again, shared ethnicity means shared imprinting.

    Like


  361. 344 zorgon

    Speaking only for myself, I would say 4-5 is the threshold where my answer would change from “no” to “yes.” Below 4, yes, we are talking “hideous.” For a 4 I would probably say “yes” but not be willing to put in just about a single drop of effort.

    And herein lies part of the problem. Not caused by you, but by men who have the same threshold as you but not the same market value. And by women who have their own thresholds. That is:

    There are more women on the lower part of the scale (5 and below) than on the upper part. Now, let’s assume that the male population is distributed about the same as the female population (very few, if any, 10s, not many 9s, more 8s, quite a few 7s, all together adding up to maybe 30-35% of the population). Let’s assume, further, that the upper tier males are monopolizing the upper tier females and dabbling frequently with, if not committing to, the 6s.

    So. That leaves you with a roughly even number of males and females who are 6s and below. But the male 6s are not all mated with the female 6s, because the female 6s are dabbling with male 7s and 8s. So, to begin with, there’s a minor scarcity problem.

    Let’s also say that most men, even the most hideous 1s, have a threshold of “beauty” that they will not go below. (Beauty in quotes because these girls in the middle/lower tiers are not beautiful.) Let’s say that threshold is, oh, 3.

    So female 1s and 2s are deemed completely worthless. Men don’t even want to have ugly drunk sex on a triple dog dare with them. Men think watching porn is better than actual sex with these women.

    That leaves male 6s, 5s, 4s, 3s, 2s, and 1s to compete for female 6s (not all of them, though), 5s, 4s and (worst case scenario) 3s. There are not enough of these women to go around, and the genuinely attractive women in the upper tiers would not even glance at these guys.

    So. You have two ranks of women who are seen as completely worthless, and there are far more of these women at the bottom of the scale than there are 9s and 10s, especially given the obesity epidemic. The population skews downward, with most people clumped at 3-6. The guys who are the natural mates of these ugliest women — the male 1s and 2s — won’t have them; they’re looking “upward” to at least a female three.

    This creates a scarcity problem. But it’s a problem created not by a genuine scarcity of women (like in China), but by a refusal of certain men to date at their level. They have a threshold they will not go below, and that threshold is above what they themselves have to offer. And that skews the availability of the remainder. That skew would not exist if the male 1s and 2s did not have inflated expectations and standards.

    And in this generous scenario, I’m assuming that the male 4s, 5s, and 6s are actually paying attention to the women at their level, which I don’t think is necessarily true. Again, if 5 = average, many 5s are overweight or fat, because most Americas are overweight or fat. And most guys don’t want a fat girl. So the scarcity problem is even worse, all because men are aiming above their level.

    Now, to make the situation really ugly, let’s give the women inflated expectations, too, because they have them. The 4s, 5s, and 6s don’t want the men at their level; they want to get a male 7 or 8 to commit. But the male 7s and 8s won’t commit to them, and the female 4s, 5s, and 6s have the same contempt for their male equivalents that the male 1s and 2s have for their female equivalents. There is a “threshold” that these women won’t go below.

    Bottom line: lots and lots of unrealistically high standards, from people who want to mate higher than their level, which creates an artificial scarcity that realistic standards would cure.

    Like


  362. 353 Tupac Chopra

    Hobbes doesn’t sound like your kind of Prince Charming hero, does he?

    No, but he’s my favorite stuffed tiger/may-or-may-not-be-imaginary friend ever. 🙂 Calvin and Hobbes = pure brilliance.

    And there is a lot to be said for contentment. I have the same problem with the idea that everyone should go to college that I have with bitterness caused by unrealistic expectations in the mating game. Most people should not go to college (let alone to an Ivy), and employers who require bachelor’s degrees from their office drones deserve to go out of business. Higher education should not be about paying ungodly amounts for a piece of paper that will get you a generic entry-level job. It should be for people who are genuinely intellectually curious.

    Some people are smarter than others. Some people are more talented than others. Some people are more beautiful than others. Some people are more charming than others. Some people are wealthier than others. That is simply the world we live in.

    Like


  363. Mu:

    if she’s really pretty facewise

    Agree, I can sometimes forgive a chunky body for a good face. At the same time, I will not be able to stop thinking in the back of my head: “she could be SO much hotter if only she would hit the gym and put away the Doritos.”

    I’m inclined to agree w/the fellas here Elizabeth-I just don’t see how its possible, from a biological standpoint of getting wood, how these guys are gonna get w/these gals. If they’re not sexually turned on by them because of their size/shape, and on top of that they ain’t pretty in the face either or just downright ugly, I gotta tell ya that should be a part of the Geneva Conventions because that’s akin to Torture for a man. Seriously.

    Ahhh, the good old boner test. When it comes down to it, that’s really all that matters for a man. If she can inspire a boner, the answer is yes; if not, the answer is no.

    let me ask this question squarely to my White brothers: can you please specify exactly what you mean when you say “fat”? Can you give a weight/height/dress size estimate?

    I know it’s imprecise, but I tend to think in terms of the BMI categories, which, conveniently, we have good statistics on (easy to look up % of obese and overweight by location and age). As a very broad generality, BMI > 30 = obese = disgustingly fat. To reach a BMI of 30, you have to weigh 175 at 5’4″ or 185 at 5’6″. For comparison, I’m 170-175 at 6′, and would have to be be 220 to reach the same BMI. Even in my chunky days I was only 190-195. If I have to look 8 inches down at you and you weigh more than I do, I’m sorry, but you are a lardass.

    The BMI 25-30 “overweight” range… in this range I don’t *necessarily* find the women unattractive. Their weight may take off a point or two or three, depending.

    BMI doesn’t work for bodybuilders, but not many women are big-time bodybuilders in the first place. It also uses an exponent of 2, which is not correct and throws off the numbers for very tall or short people.

    Like


  364. 359 Omega Man:

    So, again, what’s the incentive for a beta male to marry a woman when he’ll always be second best, and the woman will secretly pine for an alpha male?

    Children.

    (as long as he’s sure they’re his)

    Like


  365. Eurosabra,
    Very interesting analysis. Here’s the problem: in an ever increasing “obesity epidemic” who’s gonna make the first move-the women, or the men-toward each other? To be honest, I just don’t see it, but you might see something I don’t.

    Holla back,

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  366. 358 Mu’Min

    But as for the issue at hand as it pertains to White men, I’m inclined to agree w/the fellas here Elizabeth-I just don’t see how its possible, from a biological standpoint of getting wood, how these guys are gonna get w/these gals. If they’re not sexually turned on by them because of their size/shape, and on top of that they ain’t pretty in the face either or just downright ugly, I gotta tell ya that should be a part of the Geneva Conventions because that’s akin to Torture for a man. Seriously.

    That’s fine, Mu’Min. But they need to understand that beautiful/pretty/attractive women feel the same about them. If they have contempt and revulsion for fat, ugly girls, and that’s okay, why is it not okay for beautiful/pretty/attractive women to have revulsion for them? And why is it okay for them to be bitter about that if they feel the same contempt for the ugly girls?

    360 DoJ

    An online search reveals a larger atheist meetup group in my area. I’ll stop by next week.

    Good luck with that. It’s not a perfect solution, but as that spiritualism thing does seem to be your particular barrier, hopefully that will help. At the very least, maybe you’ll meet people who can introduce you to other people of similar mind and interests. 🙂

    362 Zamani

    A lot of the black girls I’ve known have also been genuinely big-boned — that is, they have a taller and more solid bone structure than a lot of white girls. (Just like white girls tend to be larger than Asian girls.) That larger, more solid bone structure allows you to carry more weight and still look good. Contrast that to me — I am really small-boned (if I put my hand around my wrist, my thumb and pinky touch comfortably), so I’d look awkward carrying even five extra pounds.

    Now, I don’t know if I’m imagining, because heaven knows I’m having a hard time finding it, but I thought I saw DoJ say that there are more overweight people than the national average in my state. Not true. Actually, there are fewer, and obesity skews older, because most young people here are quite physically active and into outdoor sports. 🙂

    Like


  367. in an ever increasing “obesity epidemic” who’s gonna make the first move-the women, or the men-toward each other?

    Nah… they’ll be so slothful that neither side will be able to get up from their TV or computer to meet in the first place! Then, when they try to take out their frustration on a sexbot, they’ll have a heart attack. When someone tries to dial 911, they’ll just get “the fingers you have used to dial are too fat… to obtain a special dialing wand…”

    Like


  368. 369 Elizabeth

    Now, I don’t know if I’m imagining, because heaven knows I’m having a hard time finding it, but I thought I saw DoJ say that there are more overweight people than the national average in my state. Not true. Actually, there are fewer, and obesity skews older, because most young people here are quite physically active and into outdoor sports. 🙂

    Oh, oops. Okay, I should have looked up the relevant statistic rather than blurt out my guess and rely on you to correct me. 🙂

    Like


  369. Elizabeth:

    That’s fine, Mu’Min. But they need to understand that beautiful/pretty/attractive women feel the same about them. If they have contempt and revulsion for fat, ugly girls, and that’s okay, why is it not okay for beautiful/pretty/attractive women to have revulsion for them? And why is it okay for them to be bitter about that if they feel the same contempt for the ugly girls?

    We have revulsion for fat girls, but we also have advice for them: hit the gym. Everyone who’s obese has heard this lecture a billion times. You can’t go five minutes in the mainstream media without reading about the obesity epidemic, how much of a problem it is, and what we need to do to solve it.

    There is a camp of people who think that the solution to obesity is, shall we say, “obesity acceptance” rather than weight loss, but this idea is met with widespread derision.

    So when attractive women have revulsion for beta guys, where is that same attention? Where is the mainstream media? And why is the idea that beta guys should simply “be themselves” (i.e. accept their fate) *not* met with derision, but instead is the mainstream accepted wisdom?

    Then again, I suppose it would be a bit of a contradiction in terms to have a National Association for the Advancement of Beta Males.

    Like


  370. @368 Mu’min

    Generally I find that men make the first move, because they are expected to, and men always want sex from SOMEBODY. I don’t know if fat women socially isolate and get depressed the way “beta males” do, because they MUST be connected socially with other women in ways that guys are not connected to other men.

    Men seem to wind up dating 2 points lower on the scale, when women seem to date 2 points higher. And Elizabeth, the answer is that preferences that = “not me” are NEVER okay, because men are taught that THEY are the default human, and women can be “broken things”, i.e. “This THING is BROKEN, IT won’t do what I want.” Holly @ The Pervocracy blog had a good take on it, because as a tubby Jewish woman she gets rejected from time to time, although she still cannot believe that comparable men are overwhelmingly rejected. Her response was on the order of “BUT I WANNA…” Exactly the response criticized above.

    Like


  371. 372 zorgon

    We have revulsion for fat girls, but we also have advice for them: hit the gym.

    So when attractive women have revulsion for beta guys, where is that same attention?

    Quite simply, the solution to obesity is easy in concept, if difficult in practice: lose weight. Diet and exercise. You should aim to lose 1-2 pounds a week.

    The cure for social awkwardness is far more nebulous.

    Like


  372. I can’t blame a guy for not magically knowing something that he (1) was never taught and (2) can’t exactly teach himself.

    It’s difficult for women to teach, too, because until she’s had good sex/oral she won’t even know what to teach. That’s probably why it’s mostly older women doing the “teaching.”

    The general, non-useful advice is that every woman is different, but there are definite biological commonalities. For example, the female external genitalia is more sensitive, so most women prefer more time spent on the outer stuff than starting out with thrusting it all the way deep in.

    The G-spot is not that far in, so don’t shove the finger all the way, only a small ways. Rub in a circular motion with the finger towards the top of the woman’s body, not straight jackhammer in and out like a penis. There’s a reason why fingering works better for giving women orgasms than the penis can, and it’s the joint.

    There’s more to it, certainly. I don’t have that great of an idea about how to please women since I’ve never had any sexual interest in women. From what I hear, much of it is in the intangibles and listening to individual feedback. Different strokes for different folks, to use a trite cliche.

    And finally, don’t sneer at toys and vibrators. It’ll often save men from cramped fingers and tongues, too.

    the alphas awaken raw primal desire in the woman whereas with betas the women have to go through all sorts of mental and emotional contortions to enjoy sex.

    While raw primal desire is great, so is amazing, awesome, holy-shit-what-is-this technique. Men either have it or they don’t, no matter their status. Manual dexterity is a trait more associated with somewhat feminine men, too, with their slender, fast and nimble fingers. There are definitely clumsy “alphas” who lack finger finesse.

    But the dynamic plays itself out everywhere on the sexual market value spectrum. It’s relative. A guy who is a 7 will be “alpha” to a girl who is a 6 or below. And the greater the disparity, the greater the *perceived* alphaness.

    Psychologically speaking, you are right that the greater the perceived difference in market value, the more the woman is going to be turned on by the man. But most women do not know for sure whether or not the guy will be good in bed, so they go after the same few “hot” men, or the supposed “alphas.” Personally I don’t think it’s that simple, because I never found interest in those jocks and always went after the nerds and weirdos. But as a weirdo myself, I don’t think I have the authority or experience to debate you on this matter.

    Like


  373. 372 zorgon

    We have revulsion for fat girls, but we also have advice for them: hit the gym.

    This may actually be part of the problem. Hitting the gym takes too much effort for too little return, if eating/drinking habits aren’t right.

    The first thing I’d tell them is REPLACE MOST OF YOUR DRINKS WITH WATER. A very simple thing to do, and the effects are usually quite noticeable. Morale improves. The stage is set to start making the other necessary life changes.

    Like


  374. whereas the pic of a woman he “non-dated” looked exactly like a thinner Greek version of one of the Italian-origin Jewish women I dated

    Eurosabra, I appreciate the term “non-dated”.

    As for a quick update, it seems that we’ve become bored with each other, and my attempts to put her in the friend zone have worked so we just talk to each other, but other than the two of us eating out at Chili’s last week, we haven’t gone out anymore, and all we do is talk to each other after work. We would have gone out tonight, but she’s broke from paying tuition, and I’m feeling stingy due to the awful ass economy and fact that my income is tied up in paying bills and debts.

    Some how, she’s still beautiful to me, but she doesn’t come across as intelligent or bright as Wellesley Queen, or as fashionable as a petite Irish girl at work who wears high heels and has beautiful nails, and she can be flaky at times. Plus, she’s always complimenting me which I find to be creepy at times. Mind you, she has a sweet voice, she can be intellectually curious at times, and she loves kids as evidenced by the fun she had with my niece and nephew at the playground. Maybe if she was smarter and had acrylic nails, make up, and a bit more in terms of fashionable clothes or high heels, and maybe not so lonely, I would have pursued more.

    Agree, I can sometimes forgive a chunky body for a good face

    There’s a fat girl at work who would probably rank as a 4 or 5. If she were to lose weight, it wouldn’t change much in terms of her ranking, and the desperate beta males who didn’t like her before wouldn’t like her afterward. Some women can lose weight and look considerably better, but others won’t gain much at all.

    Like


  375. I think I’m speaking for quite a number of guys here and worldwide, there’s nothing to bring you down to earth more than a bad BJ.

    There are ways for women to change that. I did the research, asked the guys how I was doing, and got feedback about it. I also showed great enthusiasm which usually sealed half of the deal for the men, as I always preferred giving to taking.

    w/all due respect, that if we gonna pull cards, there’s a lot to be desired on the Female side of the Sexual Ledger, too.

    The main reason I bring up this is not to say that it’s the men’s fault for not giving the women orgasms. It is mother nature that made the female vagina not very sensitive, and for good reason — childbirth would have been unbearable otherwise.

    Virtually all men can get off with normal intercourse with a reasonably attractive woman, whereas the same cannot be said of women. So to say that women want sex to the same degree as men do strikes me as untrue. Women only want great sex to the same degree, and that is rather rare for most women. I’m sure the economic gurus can tell you that scarcity causes a skewing in distribution.

    So if you think I am trying to pull cards, rest assured that I don’t blame the men for it. I bemoan evolution for giving us our femininely annoying bodies. Lubrications, menstral cycles, pregnancy, childbirth… elegant and awkward all at once.

    Spartan mothers and wives, actually. 🙂

    I also loved 300, and I did wonder why he attributed it to the Romans.

    Like


  376. @377 DA

    You like her enough to have explored the intangibles which would be relevant to dating her. So you aren’t the soulless pornified automaton some fear.

    I would say “send her my way” but I’m on the wrong coast. But insecure, intellectually-curious, kid-loving Southern European women really get me going. Reads like a description of my out-of-town FWB.

    Like


  377. Only 20% of women actually can have orgasms through intercourse alone

    My turn to ask you for the source of the stats.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/science/17orga.html?pagewanted=2

    “It excludes women on either end of the spectrum,” she said. “The 25 percent who say they almost always have orgasm in intercourse and the 30 percent who say they rarely or never do. And that last 30 percent includes the 10 percent who say they never have orgasm under any circumstances.”

    Also, for those men here who claim that their women are popping off like firecrackers, there is a book that cites research stating that males reported the female orgasm rate of “always” at 40.2%, which is considerably higher than the female-reported rate of 28.6%.

    “The problem is the expectation that vaginal intercourse is going to be as pleasurable for most women as it is for most men, which is a pretty silly one since it doesn’t often stimulate our most sensitive parts. The problem is defining a kind of sex — intercourse — as THE sex, which is very often satisfying for men and even more often NOT satisfying for women.

    Imagine, if you would, if women expected their male partners to orgasm frequently or all the time when we rubbed their bottoms. It’d be pretty loopy of us to expect that, since even though it can feel nice to have your bottom rubbed, it’s not a very stimulating activity and isn’t something that results in orgasm for most people when that is all that’s going on.”

    Even for the alphas, women enjoy sex more for the psychological aspect of it than the physiological. This is but biological fact.

    Like


  378. But, go out to the suburbs of, say, Lyon, and boom, you see some fat Frenchmen.

    I’ve been all over France, including to the suburbs of Lyons (not Lyon), and there are many fewer fat people there than in the U.S. The French are getting heavier, but it’s nothing like here.

    Like


  379. 380 – Even for the alphas, women enjoy sex more for the psychological aspect of it than the physiological. This is but biological fact.

    No man with experience would ever doubt that.

    It is not “even for the alphas”, though – but the very reason that alphas offer mind blowing sex. “Surrendering” yourself to the very guy who “owns your little pussy” is exciting to women. A strong confident guy using your body to get off offers all the thrill and excitement of being the most desirable woman in the life of somebody who seemed “out of your league”.

    And before you counter with the merits of cuddle sex – yes, that’s awesome for women, too. There’s two sides to female arousal, and safety and intimacy will allow her to open up emotionally in a way she would never do to somebody as dangerous as The Stud.

    Yet, betas are abundant to women and alphas are rare (and always annoyingly busy with other woman). Scarcity and value at work again. Women CHASE alphas (I could tell you stories!) and SETTLE for betas (I have some maybe not so funny stories about that, too).

    Anyways, thanks for posting the source.

    Like


  380. Children.

    As much as I love my niece and nephews, I question if marrying a woman who doesn’t really desire me is a sensible price to pay for having children. Currently, there no chance of me banging hot girls, but the incentive to make myself responsible for a non-hot girl who would cheat on me and flee once somebody better comes along is very low. Being alone but having freedom seems to be a better choice than being saddled down with crappy sex, an sexless and likely ugly wife, and children.

    You like her enough to have explored the intangibles which would be relevant to dating her.

    Yeah, I ran through the numbers of dating her and possibly having sex with her, and so far, the answer has generally been no. Despite this, my friends and family have begged me to have sex with her, but most of their claims have been dismissed by me. She’s a nice girl, but she deserves a good man who’s more compatible with her.

    Like


  381. SETTLE for betas

    Fuck settling!

    Like


  382. DA: Fuck settling!

    Is that the sound of David’s inner alpha trying to break out?

    Like


  383. No, it just means that living alone and masturbating to porn maybe better than settling with what I can “buy”.

    Like


  384. 385 zorgon:

    Is that the sound of David’s inner alpha trying to break out?

    That sound you heard was not a bang but a whimper.

    Like


  385. I think I’m speaking for quite a number of guys here and worldwide, there’s nothing to bring you down to earth more than a bad BJ.

    True story, and one of the reasons I love black men:

    While preparing to give a blowjob, one consort grabbed my hair into a ponytail in his fist, and delivered the following:

    “Tomorrow, I’m going to tell my boys you gave me a blowjob. It is up to you whether my report is good or bad.”

    Inspirational…

    Like


  386. 383 Omega Man:

    As much as I love my niece and nephews, I question if marrying a woman who doesn’t really desire me is a sensible price to pay for having children.

    It’s not quite that bad. As Hope will tell you, betas can be *very* desirable, i.e., loveable. And once you both get older and your sex drives plummet it will be a non-issue.

    Currently, there no chance of me banging hot girls, but the incentive to make myself responsible for a non-hot girl who would cheat on me and flee once somebody better comes along is very low.

    Now see, this is a different issue. If you find someone you are truly compatible with, there are other things keeping a woman from leaving you to pursue a fling. Plus, if you ever manage to man up you might learn how to lay down the law to the extent such is possible. Of course, if you keep living and thinking like a pussy you pretty much have a “Cuckold Me” sign taped to your back.

    On the other hand, you could also create a situation where you let your wife have her flings and you get to keep swimming in your porn collection. Hey, that’s what you’d be doing otherwise, right? As long as your wife is a quality person and a responsible, nurturing mother, it’s the life you create for your children that is important.

    Personally, I could never abide my wife cheating on me, but there is something to be said for recognizing the only thing that matters: your children. Everything else is icing on that cake, so one shouldn’t be so hard and fast with the expectations.

    I could very easily imagine myself in a loving marriage with Clio, despite our age difference. She would be far from my physical ideal, but I would cherish her and treat her like a queen because she deserves it and I suspect she would be a good mother. Of course, I would have a rotating harem of nubile young playthings to entertain myself with, but that would just be *physical* whereas Clio and I would be True Companionate Love so I think she could just look the other way.

    Or maybe not…

    Like


  387. @ 388 QT

    See, I could never do that because the last thing I want some white girl to think is that every black guy is some over masculine brutish thug.

    Like


  388. [fuck “awaiting moderation”. sorry if this posts twice]

    383 DA:

    As much as I love my niece and nephews, I question if marrying a woman who doesn’t really desire me is a sensible price to pay for having children.

    It’s not quite that bad. As Hope will tell you, betas can be *very* desirable, i.e., loveable. And once you both get older and your sex drives plummet it will be a non-issue.

    Currently, there no chance of me banging hot girls, but the incentive to make myself responsible for a non-hot girl who would cheat on me and flee once somebody better comes along is very low.

    Now see, this is a different issue. If you find someone you are truly compatible with, there are other things keeping a woman from leaving you to pursue a fling. Plus, if you ever manage to man up you might learn how to lay down the law to the extent such is possible. Of course, if you keep living and thinking like a pussy you pretty much have a “Cuckold Me” sign taped to your back.

    On the other hand, you could also create a situation where you let your wife have her flings discretely and you get to keep swimming in your porn pool. Hey, that’s what you’d be doing otherwise, right? As long as your wife is a quality person and a responsible, nurturing mother, it’s the life you create for your children that is important.

    Personally, I could never abide my wife cheating on me, but there is something to be said for recognizing the only thing that matters: your children. Everything else is icing on that cake, so one shouldn’t be so hard and fast with the expectations.

    I could very easily imagine myself in a loving marriage with Clio, despite our age difference. She would be far from my physical ideal, but I would cherish her and treat her like a queen because she deserves it and I suspect she would be a good mother. Of course, I would have a rotating harem of nubile young playthings to entertain myself with, but that would just be *physical* whereas Clio and I would be True Companionate Love so I think she would just look the other way.

    Or maybe not…

    Like


  389. As Hope will tell you, betas can be *very* desirable, i.e., loveable.

    I’d consider loveable and desirable to be two seperate things. Desirablity creates sexual attraction, but loveable can create a solid friendship and sometimes romantic bond. Most beta males are incapable of inducing desirability unless they mimic certain aspects of alpha male behaviour, hence the game. The problem with that is it can come at the cost of being loveable in some men, and it it creates a fake hyper persona that has to be maintained in order to keep the relationship functional. Eventually, some may become tired of being fake on a daily basis.

    your sex drives plummet

    That can’t happen, right? It’s not supposed to happen! 🙂

    If you find someone you are truly compatible with, there are other things keeping a woman from leaving you to pursue a fling.

    I’m amazed that you take such an idealistic view of marriage and women’s proclivities towards alpha males. Given how many horror stories of divorces exist combined with attractiveness of alpha males, one could argue that any beta male is simply a sitting duck.

    Plus, if you ever manage to man up you might learn how to lay down the law to the extent such is possible. Of course, if you keep living and thinking like a pussy you pretty much have a “Cuckold Me” sign taped to your back.

    There isn’t much one can do besides threaten to leave if she cheats or go play wife beater. If a woman finds an alpha male that’s desirable and showing interest, there isn’t much that a man in a committed relationship can do to prevent her from fleeing. Hell, beating her to divorce court probably won’t change much except for changing who files first, and it won’t deliver the psychological punch one would expect…

    On the other hand, you could also create a situation where you let your wife have her flings discretely and you get to keep swimming in your porn pool.

    As much as one could espouse the glory of open marriages, if a relationship cannot be sustained by passions of the two people involved, then marriage shouldn’t exist, and a more liberal “engagement” should occur. No legal union, but simply cohabitation until one of the partners decides to leave which is probably likely to occur which makes splitting up considerably easier.

    Admittedly, I had always entertained the idea of being Wellesley Queen’s future “bitch husband”, but the advantage of being married to a potentially powerful woman was outweighed by the fact that being controlled by demanding woman is a miserable experience for any man. There was a pretty good chance that there would have been no respite found in porn due to her highly prudish tastes.

    Regardless, is sexless and porn addicted with kids and de facto platonic cheating wife better than sexless and porn addicted alone? That does admittedly leave me with a family to keep me occupied, but I’m still responsible if she leaves me, and I’m still shelling out my financial resources for no sex, which I could spend on myself.

    Like


  390. Dave A,
    You know, reading your many, many posts is surreal to me. If one were to compare our lives, it would be hard to come away that they are anything similar; I’ve invariably had tougher times and rougher road to travel, seen some serious ups and downs w/women especially, but I have never, ever, had the kind of attitude to women and life, as you. And this is why I said before, that I can go farther in life, bang more women, and be a real leader among men, than anything you can buy or posture up. The reason? Because of my attitude, Dave. Attitude.

    The biggest difference between us is that I don’t consider failure to be an option. You, on the other hand, ALWAYS consider failure, first and foremost.

    Some of the best lays I’ve had in this world were from women who at first wouldn’t give me the time of day. You know what won them over. Never. Say. Die.

    300, the movie we were talking about, is about that principle, about having the drive to stand up for something. Not only don’t I sense that about you, but you actively seek NOT to do so. What women will get wet for that.

    Back when I was in highschool, I saw this gal named “Nancy”; she was da bomb cutey w/a serious booty and decided right on the spot that I had to have her.

    But she tried to freeze me out. No problem. I already had the gameplan.

    I asked her out for a date, EVERYDAY OF THE SCHOOLYEAR. W/o fail. Everyday. Plowing right through the objections and rejections. Never showing any signs of wearing down or fatigue. At this point, it was about personal pride as much as it was about nailing her.

    Finally, about a week before we were to let out for the year, I asked her out, and she finally yielded to me: “Alright! Alright!I’ll go out with you! Just please stop asking me!” we ended up dating (fucking each other’s brains out) off and on for the next decade.

    You have more going for you than I do Dave, at least on paper. But you don’t try. And that is why you fail.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  391. Hope 378
    OK I ain’t mad at ya anymore.:)

    They say that Asian are more eager to please than are American White or Black women; personally, I cannot say, but there must be something to be said as to why so many White brothers flock to your sisters. What I can say, is that there is an attitude among many American women, that they are doing a man a favor by simply spreading her legs. It kinda goes along w/the same notions that have been talked about on other threads, where the American Black and White women are just getting downright sloppy, and no, I don’t wanna hear anything about how American men look because women are always seeking an out, which is another reason why I say womn are not the equals of men in so many ways. If a man seeks an out he’s a coward, if a woman seeks an out, she’s on her monthly. I get so tired of so many American women always avoiding personal responsibility for anything in their life. So now, if they can’t cum its the guy’s fault.

    One great element of Game is that it gives a lot of beatdown men a much needed boost of self-esteem. As Devlin says so well, American men don’t have to prove anything to women, if anything its the other way around and I know that’s true for me. And while I’ve always had the view that I’m simply not going to be nutted on by a female, Game only confirms my inner view in this regard-fellas, you do not have to take a lackluster, to it or leave it style fuck from ANY woman, and if you do, you have only yourself to blame.

    As for the sexual issues you raised Hope, maybe I’m in the distinct minority, but I’ve never had a problem doing what was required to get a woman off, AFTER she had proven herself worthy first, and not before. Like I said, doing it that way ensures that you take away the entitlement doing-the-man-a-favor factor from them.

    And I’m serious about that, if she gets off on baseball bats being shoved up her, I’ll stock up on Louisville Sluggers. Got no problem w/that in the least and I don’t feel that it diminishes my manhood at all if that’s her steez. Again though, she has to comply w/my wishes first and this is explicitly stated from the outset of our association.

    And as for the ease w/which a man busts a nut, I’d challenge that. The vast majority of women have no idea how to work a phallus. They don’t know the inner workings of it, etc. In fact many of them think simply rubbing it does the trick. In this regard I’m w/Dave A, I can do that myself.

    The eagerness you spoke of is hugely important because an Eager Beaver always wins, regardless of her technique or lack thereof. It shows that she’s willing to learn, and for my part I don’t teaching so long as that’s the case. Making A Strong Effort always gets an A in Mu’s Book.

    And Tupac’s right, so is Dr. Czar, fellas sound the buck off like you got a pair, and put your foot down. Men are incredibly simple people to please, it don’t take Newtonian physics to figure out-feed em, fuck em well and don’t be a nag. If she can’t, or more often than not, won’t get w/the program, “Next!”. Trust me, it works-at one point, I had to do that to the other half. Told her point blank, I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired. If you don’t get busy, I’m out. I didn’t raise my voice. Didn’t go beserk. I just simply told her that one day while sitting on the couch. I looked her straight in the eye and simply told her, in a low, quiet voice. And it stunned the sh*t outta her, because I’m usually a very loud and outgoing guy. In fact, at that moment, I can honestly say that I was disgusted w/her. Which meant I didn’t feel like eating (and I like to eat, especially home cooked meals-Moon in Taurus), didn’t want her to touch me, even look at me. Or sit next to me. Or even be in the same room as me.

    The next day, 24 hours later, she got the spirit of Vanessa Del Rio in her and did the Nasty w/reckelss abandon. Stepped to me, stripped nude right on the spot and went from there. Now, that’s more like it. 😉

    Oh, and that’s another thing, all that doing it w/the lights off, or even “lowlights” is a no no in Mu’s World. If a woman can’t get nekkid in the bright light of day I aint interested. If she ain’t comfortable w/her body neither am I. My other half knows better. Lights on.

    Sex is a huge part of a man’s life, and I for one take mine very, very seriously. If a woman doesn’t take it as seriously as I do, I don’t want to be bothered. There ain’t nothing worse than a half-assed fuck and suck w/a half-assed chick who think she’s the shit.

    Tupac, if you’re reading along, I just wanted to tag on to your point about Clio and cosign. Older women, within reason, can make good mates and wives, etc. I’m just not buying wholesale this notion that when a woman reaches 35-plus she’s damaged goods. I’ve seen too much to think that way. Great advantages to such women is that they’re more realistic about life and men, are more likely to please, don’t play as many headgames and tend to be more traditional too, having tried out the other stuff and gotten stung a bit. Of course, there are downsides and I’m not romaniticizing here, but that’s true for any other area of life including much younger women. I really do think that’s a White boy thing.

    Anyway, yea. Men need to really clamp down on this overall under performance on the part of many women in the USA. And if there’s one thing that I know for a fact works, is the No Argument Policy. Trust me on this. I get a whole lot further w/my other half when Mu ain’t got no rap at all. Just go Silent. T’s right, all that going back and forth is what women do. Men don’t do that.

    OK, holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  392. on October 8, 2008 at 1:03 pm Usually Lurking

    Eurosabra
    80% of all the women who ever lived reproduced, only 40% of men

    Where did you get those numbers from? I am curious.

    Zorgon:
    There is a camp of people who think that the solution to obesity is, shall we say, “obesity acceptance” rather than weight loss, but this idea is met with widespread derision.

    Zorgon, it is worse than you think. “Fat Acceptance” or “Obesity Acceptance” has now been re-phrased as “Body Acceptance”. And, believe me, that phrase goes over just fine whereas the others might have gone over like a lead balloon.

    If some fat 13 year old sweetheart is going on and on about needing to accept herself as she is, who is going to tell her, “You are fat and unless you lose some weight no guy will ever be attracted to you”?

    Just remember, the PC people are very good at creating PC.

    MQ:
    I’ve been all over France, including to the suburbs of Lyons (not Lyon), and there are many fewer fat people there than in the U.S. The French are getting heavier, but it’s nothing like here.

    Fair enough. We are absolutely the fattest nation in the West (we also work the most hours and make the most money and have a higher percentage of people who can afford to have families, but I digress), but I get sick and tired of people comparing Paris to Alabama. When most people travel, they rarely go out to the actual suburbs of any European nation. And, yet, those suburbs are real and it is where most people with families live (i.e. Real People).

    And, also, my other point was that they are getting fatter. IOW, they have less resources, and they lag behind, but the trajectory is the same.

    Like


  393. UL makes a powerful point. Folks in places like India and China are getting fatter, too.

    Which leads me to the next question and Elizabeth herself mentioned this to some extent-what are White guys gonna do? As you can see, guys like and Zam don’t have as bad a problemml, since as a rule Brothas tend to like gals built for comfort rather than speed.

    So it looks like this global “big” trend is gonna have you White boys make some hard choices. Soon.

    Comments?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  394. on October 8, 2008 at 1:57 pm Usually Lurking

    …what are White guys gonna do?

    Improve your game, start shaming.

    Like


  395. John Tierney, NYT, 8/20/07 “‘Is There Anything Good About Men?’ and Other Tricky Questions” detailing Dr. Baumeister’s APA speech on men and culture.

    Like


  396. on October 8, 2008 at 2:14 pm Usually Lurking

    Mu, you asked what constitutes fat. That is a good question and I don’t have any real numbers to post, but,

    If she is ashamed to get undressed in front of you for any sort of normal reason, then she probably needs to lose weight.

    (So, if she has some real psychological issue, like needing medication, then she would not count).

    So, a Sister would feel comfortable carrying a little more whereas some Asian girl would feel comfortable carrying less.

    Many girls try to pass off the BS that ALL girls have body issues. This is such a generic statement that it is useless. I know way too many girls that LOVE to go to the beach (where they lounge around in bikinis) and, if they really had a body issue, they simply would not go.

    In general, the girls that like to wear bikinis or sexy underwear are usually in pretty good shape. The ones that look to hide what they have are not.

    Like


  397. on October 8, 2008 at 2:18 pm Usually Lurking

    Eurosabra, thanks. Shit that is interesting.

    Like


  398. Mu’Min —

    Kind of (okay, really) off topic, but are you going to see The Express this weekend?

    Like


  399. UL,
    I suppose a full out and out “assault” could work:

    Listen Amy, you’re a sweet girl, but I’m not sexually attracted to you because you’re fat and I find that repulsive.

    Now, being the strong advocate of Direct Game that I am, that’s how I would handle it. Whether that’s something you and others should do, let alone actually working, is another matter.

    Then again, at that point, what do you have to lose? Sometimes, brutal, bluntforce honesty is what’s called for.

    Comments?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  400. since as a rule Brothas tend to like gals built for comfort rather than speed

    Dude, can you explain that line in a bit more depth? I need a bit more explained in order to properly comment.

    Like


  401. Elizabeth,
    Say what?

    And while I got you here, please allow me to ask: what’s your height/weight/dress size? You sound like a fairly petit woman, but I ask because I’ve been really think about this weight issue and how Black and White men view it wrt women and sexual attraction. I hope I’m not being intrusive or disrespectful, but I’m really having trouble getting the visuals right from a White male POV.

    Btw, in the interest of free and fair exchange, I’m 5’8″ 180lbs and wear a 44 Atheletic suit.

    How would White women see my size/height? Would it be along the same lines as White men wrt women, or what? How would you see it? I’m really curious now that I’ve been thinking abouit the question more deeply.

    This is an open question for the rest of the ladies on the thread, because I want to hear what they say as well.

    In think what you said about the differences in bones between Black and White women are built is important too. For example,take Oprah.

    When she got serious about losing weight about a decade ago, I thought she looked great. Even though she doesn’t have the typical White woman figure, let’s face it even a toned up O is never gonna be a size 4. I don’t know what her weight/height/dress size is, but its clear to me that’s quite curvy which I like. At her best, she’s a good examle of what I mean when I say, Zaftig, not Zeppelin.

    Before I mentioned that I’ve had several women standing at or near 6′ tall. And all of them were at least my current weight, the double jointed on was at least 200lbs, yet they didn’t have any guts, great figures, etc. I’m not sure if White women could pull that off.

    So, again, I’m needing more understanding w/what White men mean by “fat”.

    Very interesting topic!

    Holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  402. on October 8, 2008 at 3:29 pm Usually Lurking

    Listen Amy, you’re a sweet girl, but I’m not sexually attracted to you because you’re fat and I find that repulsive.

    Mu, I was more or less referring to being honest to the younger set. If Amy, at 24, has not figured out that fat girls are not attractive, then, I am not sure there is much point.

    So, again, I’m needing more understanding w/what White men mean by “fat”.

    Kirstie Alley in the later Cheers versus the earlier ones.

    Delta Burke later in her career versus her earlier days.

    Regardless of what the actual numbers were for either one, the average person, man or woman, would have looked at them and said, “She needs to lose some weight”.

    However, Oprah, during the good times where she obviously still had a big “frame”, I don’t think anybody would have said, “She STILL needs to lose some weight”.

    For her size, she looked just fine.

    Like


  403. UL,
    Excellent point about KA and DB.

    HOWEVER, I have to say that there was a point in both their careers when they put on some “womanly curves weight” that I thought looked good on them.

    But you’re right, there’s a point where the Zaftig tips into Zeppelin territory and I gotta jump ship. O’s case was a good example in that.

    OK, another example of what I think a good looking woman is, is Queen Latifah, even though she’s a lesbian. Never really had a problem w/how she looked. What about you?

    And here’s another: Monica Lewinsky, circa 1995-98. Do you hit it, or not?

    Holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  404. 404 Mu’Min

    Say what?

    It’s a movie coming out this weekend about Ernie Davis, who played halfback at Syracuse and was the first black to win the Heisman Trophy. He was a really great player, and he was all set for a professional football career, but then he got leukemia and died when he was 23. I did a school report on him when I was in 9th grade, so I was excited when I saw a preview for the movie a few weeks ago. He was a bright, classy guy. It’s sad that he died so young.

    And while I got you here, please allow me to ask: what’s your height/weight/dress size?

    5’5, 113, generally a 4, though I’m a 2 at some stores and a 6 at others. I’m not short, but I have a small frame.

    How would White women see my size/height? Would it be along the same lines as White men wrt women, or what? How would you see it?

    It would depend on what kind of 180 you are. Weight actually doesn’t tell that much, especially if you’re athletic. And I don’t really know guy sizes, so I’m afraid your suit size doesn’t help. 🙂

    I’ll tell you that generally I’m attracted to guys who are tall (around six feet), athletic but not overtly muscular, dark-haired, clean-shaven, with classically handsome features. And who know how to dress. 🙂 What other girls are attracted to, they’ll have to tell you. I’ve been told I have discriminating taste. 🙂

    In think what you said about the differences in bones between Black and White women are built is important too.

    Bone structure can have a huge impact. Oddly, it’s something that a lot of people don’t take into account. In fact, they kind of laugh at the concept of “big-boned,” thinking that’s something that fat girls just say. But it’s not. One of my friends, who is only an inch taller than I am, weighs 150 pounds. But she has a much larger frame and is an athlete, and no one would ever dream of calling her fat.

    If I, on the other hand, gain even fifteen pounds (as I did when studying for the bar exam…ugh), I balloon up, even though I’m still well within the “healthy” weight range according to BMI. Which shows that weight is kind of an iffy guideline. Measurements tell you a lot more.

    Like


  405. 406 Mu’Min

    OK, another example of what I think a good looking woman is, is Queen Latifah, even though she’s a lesbian.

    I think Queen Latifah is beautiful. She has a gorgeous face. (I had no idea she’s a lesbian!)

    I think Catherine Zeta Jones is an example of a white woman who can carry some weight and still look beautiful. She clearly weighed a lot more in Chicago than in The Mask of Zorro (I think it was pregnancy weight), but she still looked beautiful, even with that horrible bob.

    And while we’re on the women of Chicago, I don’t get the whole Renee Zellweger thing. She’s what I’d call disturbingly thin. Whenever I see her in a movie, I want to feed her Twinkies!

    Like


  406. on October 8, 2008 at 4:13 pm Usually Lurking

    HOWEVER, I have to say that there was a point in both their careers when they put on some “womanly curves weight” that I thought looked good on them.

    Right, bu, here is the thing, most women can not put on “a few pounds”. Once they add 15, they are just as likely to add 30. Which is very different than a girl that goes up and down 5 pounds every so often.

    So, the Zaftig women that you love so much were unlikely to have had thin thighs with flat stomachs when they were 22 and now they are beautifully Zaftig when they are 27.

    I think that Tiffany Amber Thiessen is the perfect exception to this rule. She definitely put on a finite amount of weight in her early 20s and then stayed at that weight.

    And here’s another: Monica Lewinsky, circa 1995-98. Do you hit it, or not?

    Me? No. Maybe in a different life, but not now. Personally, I see so many girls aware of how unattractive their fat belly is and do almost nothing about it. I mean, I have never met a person that went on a Low-Carb/High-Fat diet that did not lose significant weight while, at the same time, feeling great.

    So, now, I am pretty biased against fat girls, or somewhat-fat girls, as sex objects that I can’t consider her for sex. To me, the girls with flat-stomachs are almost rebellious in their very existence.

    Like


  407. on October 8, 2008 at 4:20 pm Usually Lurking

    …they kind of laugh at the concept of “big-boned,” …

    We laugh because there was a time when every parent referred to their fat child as being “big-boned”.

    Measurements tell you a lot more.

    And Bodyfat percentage. A different ideal for guys and girls, but always relevant.

    I think Queen Latifah is beautiful.

    You’re kidding me. Would you set your son up with her on a blind date? (I know, I know, you don’t have children, and you are not sure exactly what he would be into, but, that is sorta the point.)

    Would you say to young Timmy, “Hey, I know you hate blind dates, but I just met her and she is Beautiful!

    Like


  408. Hi Elizabeth,
    Oh, OK. You’re like my youngest sister, who at one point when she was modelling hard was a size 0. But my other sisters were more along the lines of classical Sista frames, not fat at all, but some seriously fat cabooses, LOL. Very statuesque.

    I’m the kind of 180 lbs that you’d see on the line in football game. Running Back.

    CZJ can definitely get it, all day, every day, in every way. I always liked Michael Douglas ever since I saw him in Falling Down and then in Basic Instinct, but he gets All Time Great status for bagging her.

    RZ, I never really got either. I can take her or leave her, not ugly, but not the sexbomb, either. I remember them making a big deal about Bridget Jones’ Diary and weight she put on to do it. Never seen the movie myself but recall very well the media attention surrounding that.

    What you described of your own preferences seems to be about right for many if not most White women from what I’ve been able to observe. I don’t usually hear many White women say they want a blonde haired guy, etc. I wonder how red heaired White guys make out. Hmm. From what little I’ve heard, not good.

    Oh, and let me say something else, all of the “Super Zaftigs” I’ve dated, the really tall gals? NONE of them ever went wanting for a date. Ever.

    I remember when Serena Williams stepped on the court in that black catsuit. The next day the White boys were talking about on WIP, the sports talk station here in Philly, and lemme tell ya, there was SCUUUURED of that, LOL! I think that has something to do w/this whole obsession a lot of White guys have w/their women being so small.

    Comments?

    Salaam
    Mu

    PS: Serena, what a stallion! 😉

    Like


  409. 410 Usually Lurking

    Beautiful doesn’t have to mean sexually appealing. When women call each other beautiful, they are not saying, “I think men would want to have sex with you.” When they call little girls beautiful, I certainly hope that’s not what they mean. Beauty is about aesthetics. That doesn’t have to mean sexy, sensual, etc. In fact, the most beautiful women — ethereal beauties, like Audrey Hepburn — are often not “sexy.”

    So no, I’m not kidding. I’ll let the men of the world judge whether Queen Latifah is sexually appealing, but she has a beautiful face.

    Like


  410. on October 8, 2008 at 4:40 pm Usually Lurking

    OK, but would you set your son up with her?

    I always ask that of all my prey

    Like


  411. 319 Chicnoir

    Thank you! Whew.

    Like


  412. Elizabeth makes a strong point about the distinction between beauty and raw sexuality, I think you were trying to make this point wrt French folks right? And I can personally say, that there is a difference and while he twop can coexist in the same woman, its not always the case.

    UL, don’t hate on QL. Although its been known for years in the hood that she’s Lesbo, just on looks you’d be surprised how many guys she could pull, both Black and White. I wouldn’t have any problem setting my son up w/that. And if he’s anything like me, he wouldn’t either. 😉

    Holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  413. 412 Elizabeth

    Beautiful doesn’t have to mean sexually appealing. When women call each other beautiful, they are not saying, “I think men would want to have sex with you.” When they call little girls beautiful, I certainly hope that’s not what they mean. Beauty is about aesthetics. That doesn’t have to mean sexy, sensual, etc. In fact, the most beautiful women — ethereal beauties, like Audrey Hepburn — are often not “sexy.”

    To add to this point, studies have been done on babies pictures of beautiful and ugly faces. They elicited different responses — babies would gaze for longer at the beautiful faces. And, while I don’t know if this experiment has ever been refined to distinguish between “sexy” and “beautiful,” I know that I’d bet on “beautiful” being more compelling for babies. While I’d expect differences in individual taste, I’m confident that humanity has a mostly shared notion of “beauty” that’s hardwired into our brains.

    Like


  414. on October 8, 2008 at 4:46 pm Usually Lurking

    PS: Serena, what a stallion!

    Mu, it is usually men that get described as being stallions, not women.

    And, I don’t think that you can blame a guy for not wanting to get with a stallion. Just think of all the bad press that Sarah Jessica Parker gets for looking like a horse.

    Like


  415. 411 Mu’Min

    I remember them making a big deal about Bridget Jones’ Diary and weight she put on to do it. Never seen the movie myself but recall very well the media attention surrounding that.

    Ugh, don’t. It’s a bad movie. I would have been more impressed if she had actually gotten fat instead of slightly overweight. And I thought she looked better slightly overweight, with a bit of a paunch, than she does as the Living Skeleton. In Jerry Maguire, she looked cute. Not pretty, but cute. I don’t think she’s really looked good since.

    I actually think extremely thin people are harder to look at than obese ones. Skeletally thin people make me cringe. Maybe that’s some kind of instinctive revulsion against the thought of famine and starvation, I don’t know, but they’re painful to look at. I spent an entire semester in high school staring down at my desk because the girl who sat in front of me was anorexic, and I could pretty much count her vertebrae.

    What you described of your own preferences seems to be about right for many if not most White women from what I’ve been able to observe. I don’t usually hear many White women say they want a blonde haired guy, etc. I wonder how red heaired White guys make out.

    I think a lot of white women (though not most) prefer blond men, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone say they like red hair best. There was a red-haired kid in my ninth grade class who was good-looking and popular, and he didn’t seem to have any trouble getting dates, so the lack of mention of red hair might just be due to the fact that there are so few red-haired men that they don’t spring immediately to mind.

    Like


  416. on October 8, 2008 at 4:48 pm Usually Lurking

    UL, don’t hate on QL.

    Lack of Attraction does not equal Hate.

    She seems like a nice enough person.

    Like


  417. 413 Usually Lurking

    OK, but would you set your son up with her?

    I make a point of never setting anyone up with anyone. It’s kind of rude. If there are two people who I think should meet, I’ll invite them both out to do something in a group setting and introduce them, but I’ll let them take it from there.

    And if Queen Latifah were my hangout buddy, I’d introduce her to everyone I know. That woman is funny.

    416 DoJ

    They elicited different responses — babies would gaze for longer at the beautiful faces.

    I think I read about this study. Or one like it. The girl babies stared longest at the beautiful faces, I recall. (The boy babies would also stare longer at the beautiful faces, but not as long as the girls.) My brothers often ask me why even straight girls will stare at beautiful women (men’s magazines have covers of beautiful women, women’s magazines…have covers of beautiful women), and I think it’s because women are very sensitive to aesthetic beauty (as opposed to sex appeal).

    I remember watching a show with one of my brothers, and he kept on going on and on about how hot some of the women in it were. And I was surprised, because there was a very beautiful woman in the show, he was ignoring her. I finally asked him why he didn’t think so-and-so was pretty, and he was surprised by the question. He replied that the very beautiful woman was the woman you’d want to marry, but the hot girls were the ones you’d want to hook up with.

    Such a boy answer. 😀

    Like


  418. @416 DoJ

    They elicited different responses — babies would gaze for longer at the beautiful faces

    I read about this study. They started with a certain number of faces, and eliminated the ones the babies looked at the least amount of time. As they continued to winnow the number of faces down, the one thing they had in common was symmetry -ie, distance between eyes. Christy Turlington’s face is the closest to being perfectly symmetrical.

    The theory being we are drawn to beauty/symmetry because it is in indicator of good health, and the genes our mate may pass on to our children.

    Like


  419. UL,
    Ok-Serena, what a Filly!

    How’s that?

    I was flipping thru the channels the other night and ran accross SATC, and I gotta say I wasn’t sexually attracted to any of them. Never really sat down and watched the show front to back though.

    Anyway, let me ask, UL, from what Elizabeth described of herself, is that your idea or close to it of attractiveness from a size standpoint? Just trying to get some sense of a White Male Baseline if you will.

    As for the whole Sexuality vs Beauty piece, very interesting. Hmm. Not sure if that’s something that can be assessed by face alone or not. In terms of facial pics, yea for Beauty, but Raw Sex Appeal? Not so sure. Hmm. All I know for certain is that there’s a big difference between the two.

    Holla

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  420. 422 Mu’Min

    I think for raw sex appeal, you would need to see a full picture of the person, not just a picture of their face. And even then, a photo may not be enough. So much of sex appeal (and lack of it) has to do with presence and movement.

    For example: I am impatient, fidget a lot, and move like a colt. I am constantly pacing, breaking into random sprints, and talking to myself. I don’t think anyone would ever call me sexy. 🙂 Insane, perhaps, but not sexy….

    Like


  421. on October 8, 2008 at 5:39 pm Usually Lurking

    Serena, what a Filly!

    How’s that?

    Much better. Still, she looks like a man with tits to me.

    I was flipping thru the channels the other night and ran accross SATC, and I gotta say I wasn’t sexually attracted to any of them.

    You are not alone. That one brunette could be pretty, but that show, or at least it’s commercials, did everything it could to strip her of sex appeal.

    Anyway, let me ask, UL, from what Elizabeth described of herself, is that your idea or close to it of attractiveness from a size standpoint?

    My guess is that Elizabeth is pretty cute. Plus, she is willing to put the smack down on Leftists, always hot!

    …and move like a colt

    Stallion, Filly, Colt. Are we hanging out in some fucking stables?

    I don’t think anyone would ever call me sexy. 🙂 Insane, perhaps, but not sexy….

    If she is crazy in bed…

    Like


  422. 380: according to the very article you link to, 70% of women can have orgasms from vaginal intercourse alone — 45% sometimes, 25% always. That accords with my experience (changing “sometimes” to “most of the time” because unlike many men I’m, like, actually good in bed).

    Like


  423. Elizabeth,
    You talk to yourself? Really? Hmm!

    I agree w/the need for a full body pic, but I think it may have more to do w/inherent “stuff” than behaviors, though I can’t rule them out. Too bad your brother isn’t here, so we can ask him more questions, LOL.

    OK, let’s take the two movie stars you mentioned earlier, CZJ and RZ. To my mind, the former ooozes sexuality, while the latter clearly does not. She’s not ugly, but she doesn’t do anything for me.

    Now, behavior may play a role but I think its just in the inherent differences btw the two. Whatca think?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  424. UL,
    LOL! Yea, the metaphors are quite equstrian, BUT, a lot of sistas have butts like horses. What can I say.

    Speaking of Serena, etc, I think a major reason why White men as a rule aren’t attracted to her/them is due to the idea that they are considered too aggressive, either by looks or deeds or both. This is the major bone of contention w/Michelle Obama, whom I don’t think is all that bad looking, just a bit thin for my tastes.

    I’m thinking this sex appeal vs beauty thing may be along these lines, too. Sailer has talked about this to some extent in a piece called Is Love Colorblind. He makes the case that Black men are seen as more masculine than White and Asian men on average, for example, and that Asian women are seen as more feminine than both White and Black women. Finally, Black women, who are seen as more aggressive among females, tend to choose Black men, and when they can’t get them they tend to stay alone. So maybe that has something to do w/this?

    MQ, there was a huge debate about this over at Feministe, where the point was made that women don’t need to have orgasms everytime they have sex anyway, that’s its more about intimacy etc. That seems to make sense to me overall though its also clear to me that there be some Freaks among the Sisterhood who’s gotta have it. But what do you think?

    Holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  425. on October 8, 2008 at 6:33 pm Usually Lurking

    This is the major bone of contention w/Michelle Obama

    I think that most White men would find her attractive enough, except for that constant look of bitterness across her face. She can never seem to get rid of that.

    Sailer has talked about this to some extent …

    Yeah, the combination of Masculinity and Muscularity in the different races. Which is why you see so few Asian Man/Black Women pairings, even in a place like Southern Calif. which has a lot of both.

    It is also why Black women get so angry when they see a Brother with a White Women but White Women rarely react that way when they see a White Man with a Sister.

    Like


  426. Speaking of Serena, etc, I think a major reason why White men as a rule aren’t attracted to her/them is due to the idea that they are considered too aggressive, either by looks or deeds or both. This is the major bone of contention w/Michelle Obama, whom I don’t think is all that bad looking, just a bit thin for my tastes.

    I’m convinced the Serena thing is mainly as result of a media barrage of magazines and TV shows trying to sell her as a sex symbol. I never really saw her regarded as a sex symbol until the media constantly kept telling people she was supposed to be one. Sure enough in time I started hearing brothers echoing those sentiments. I believe the white versions of this are Anne hathaway and Jennifer Love Hewitt, both of whom are cute but whose out of control sex symbol status is mainly a media creation in my opinion.

    Like


  427. 380/425: 380: according to the very article you link to, 70% of women can have orgasms from vaginal intercourse alone

    When it comes to female sexuality, it’s the same with cheating, orgasming and rape fantasies: The actual numbers nobody knows.

    Ever noticed how the rate differs when you ask women in a relationship (more like 100%) and right after (close to 0%). Same goes for penis size of her lovers.

    Like


  428. 70% of women can have orgasms from vaginal intercourse alone

    The article does not specify penetration “alone,” and intercourse can involve clitoral stimulation. As far as I know there is no questionnaire that distinguishes between the two (intercourse with clitoral stimulation vs. sans any).

    http://www.hite-research.com/revdebateclimax.htm

    “In my research, I found that 72% of women did not regularly have orgasm during coitus, yet 93% could reach orgasm easily and pleasurably with self-stimulation that was dissimilar to the stimulation received during coitus.”

    I wonder whether or not the women who engage in casual sex are a self-selecting group. It is possible that they tend to be the women that have orgasms more easily than other women. This may be part of what contributes to the “Madonna vs. Whore” dichotomy, on a biological level.

    If there is a group of 20-30% of women who virtually always have orgasm during normal intercourse, then it stands to reason that this is the group of women who enjoy sex enough to do it with strangers.

    Men seem to prefer women who seem sexy and like sex, and these women might in turn be genetically inclined to be more orgasmic. Therefore men’s experiences and perceptions may be skewed based on their sampling.

    The holy grail of regularly orgasming during normal intercourse seems not very possible for most women. This is in part why many women seem “sexless” to the likes of DA.

    I think this system is by natural design, as it allows a woman to be more clear-headed and choose her mate based on more than just sex. Men have to orgasm, because without it there would be no sperm and insemination, whereas women do not need to orgasm to get pregnant.

    Like


  429. 431 – This is in part why many women seem “sexless” to the likes of DA.

    On the one hand you claim that there are women who just can’t orgasm, on the other you admit it’s all psychological and guys like DA just won’t do it.

    The very same women can have trouble getting lubricated enough for the beta guy they are in a relationship with while soaking the bed with Mr. Alpha.

    I actually think that it is this very phenomenon which keeps you so intrigued. You experienced first hand what happens down there when the guy turns from unattainable alpha to committed beta. That’s why you keep bringing up your oversimplified sketch of the neurochemical basis. This must be such a relief for you. After all – it’s your body that betrays you, so what can you do?

    Like


  430. On the one hand you claim that there are women who just can’t orgasm, on the other you admit it’s all psychological and guys like DA just won’t do it.

    The interplay between biology and psychology are complex. To say something has a psychological cause is simply describing the neurological processes like hormones and chemicals moving through the brain and body, resulting in some change in the system. It’s all connected.

    I actually think that it is this very phenomenon which keeps you so intrigued. You experienced first hand what happens down there when the guy turns from unattainable alpha to committed beta. That’s why you keep bringing up your oversimplified sketch of the neurochemical basis.

    If we’re going to get personal, then let me be blunt. I have never actually had an orgasm that was induced by someone else. So you can see why I am skeptical of the supposed “alpha = orgasm” 1 to 1 correlation. You can dismiss what I said and say, “well then he was not a true alpha” or “you just need a good alpha to change your mind.” But understand my skepticism.

    My father was alpha, high testosterone, treated my mother like crap and divorced her. My mother struck me as always a bit “frigid.” She didn’t bother having a relationship with anyone else after her divorce. I would guess she was not very orgasmic either despite the alpha treatment. I may have inherited my father’s high sex drive but my mother’s lack of orgasms. I’m a good giver yet terrible at receiving.

    I am interested in the biological explanation because I think these are not accidents. If we want to perish pretty lies, how about the lie that alpha = automatic orgasms for women?

    Like


  431. Czar — I don’t think it’s alpha/beta so much as just getting bored with the same partner during a committed relationship. I experience the same thing with women. Even if she’s really hot, as the relationship gets longer there’s less immediate and direct sexual interest than I felt in the first few months. That’s just human nature, really. You have to work to keep it alive. A hot woman is like what you call an ‘alpha’ guy, I naturally respond to her beauty, but I still do get bored eventually in certain ways. And it shows up in my responses.

    Honestly, I enjoy your comments Czar, but I think you and a couple of other commenters around here are very paranoid and fearful about womens’ infidelity in a way that seems driven more by your own insecurities than anything else.

    Women cheat, just like men do (like I said, human nature). But saying women can never truly enjoy sex with the 80% of men who are not “alpha” is way over the top. It’s like a woman endlessly going on about how men only really enjoy sex with 18-25 year old swimsuit models and if you’re an ordinary woman they’ll definitely cheat on you. Although, honestly, you see people saying something like that around here. Perhaps there’s a projection of insecurities going on here….

    where the point was made that women don’t need to have orgasms everytime they have sex anyway, that’s its more about intimacy etc.

    sure, I think this is true, but there’s a lot of distance between “don’t have orgasms every time” and “never comes”. Most women have the capacity to come often enough during sex that it’s not, like, a rare event. In my experience, the majority can come when you’re inside them (who cares about hairsplitting about whether there’s some clitoral stimulation at the same time).

    However, women vary enormously physically — some women really hardly ever come, and enjoy sex anyway. I actually was with a woman for a while who almost never came and was basically a nympho anyway, loved it and wanted it all the time. Women are just enormously more variable than man in the rock-bottom physical facts of their sexuality.

    I wonder whether or not the women who engage in casual sex are a self-selecting group. It is possible that they tend to be the women that have orgasms more easily than other women.

    in my experience, a lot of women withhold emotionally during casual sex and this can make them less likely to come, not more.

    Like


  432. 426 Mu’Min

    OK, let’s take the two movie stars you mentioned earlier, CZJ and RZ. To my mind, the former ooozes sexuality, while the latter clearly does not. She’s not ugly, but she doesn’t do anything for me.

    Just wanted to say, as an Asian man, that I agree with this.

    And Falling Down is pretty awesome. I rewatched it last week after you mentioned it :), and I have a college friend who was a big fan.

    Like


  433. The best description of the female orgasm I’ve read was in the book “Total Loving” by Terri Garrity, pen name “J” who also wrote “The Sensuous Woman” in the 70’s. She describes different types of non orgasmic women. After my hysterectomy I fell into the “wild about sex” but non existent orgasms category. She suggested keigels which fixed the problem. The surgery caused a decrease in blood circulation and keigels restored it.

    Like


  434. Hope,

    You really are all over the the place on this. You initially advise the girl to just sleep with the guy, on the basis that :

    “If you’re in love with each other, why wait? Life is way too short. The bliss of naked bodies rubbing against each other when you are both in love with each other is better than any other drug known to man. ”

    Basically, a Nike ad. Just do it.

    You then go on to claim that “all” of the old and the wise would give essentially the same advice. Just do it. Hope, seriously, that is ridiculous. It is absurd to rewrite history to the point where one claims that the ancients “all” supported your advice for her to bang the guy. It’s not “all,” in fact you would be lucky to find support of even a tiny minority.

    The ancients didn’t use carpe diem in the way you are using it. For them, it wasn’t a Nike ad. What you are doing is akin to citing Jane Austen as being in support of wild orgies and heroin use. Most people in earlier generations simply didn’t share your beliefs (as evidenced by how their societies actually operated), so maybe you should not use them in support of your Nike approach to life.

    Then, still all over the map, you have the gall to quote Ecclesiastes about a man living joyfully with his wife. Hope, these people aren’t married. There is, as far as we know, no plans of marriage. We have absolutely no evidence that the guy even cares about her. Just a couple of weeks ago she was writing to Roissy in a dither. Yet you harness even this in support of your “just do it” world view. It’s really amazing. You are conflating things that don’t belong together at all, and I mean at all. It is so absurd that you needed to be called on it.

    As to Elizabeth, you are correct that the shield saying was attributed to Spartans. It is my understanding that it spread to Rome, as Rome absorbed Greece and much of their thinking. The original reference came from Plutarch, who if memory serves was a Roman citizen of Greek descent. And, uh, not that it counts as a real reference, but there is the famous quote by Heinlein. I don’t think I’m wrong, but if I am, I”ll consider myself in good company.

    In any event, the bottom line is that the ancients did not hold to the modern post-America view of life as a Nike commercial. To cherry pick old sayings and misrepresent them, to take them completely out of context is ludicrous. It is absurd to harness prior generations in support of views that they would have mostly found ridiculous and abhorent. I’m just waiting for Jane Austen to be used in support of a threesome.

    Like


  435. 434 – I don’t think it’s alpha/beta so much as just getting bored with the same partner during a committed relationship. I experience the same thing with women.

    That’s not the same. It’s different for men, because of the differences in male and female mating strategies. Males profit from impregnating a female and moving on. Females seek the highest quality sperm available during estrus, and are in need of a provider during the rearing phase of the child. Since this stuff is close to my own research field, I could tell you interesting stories of what this boils down to in different primate species and human cultures, but let’s just leave it at that.

    The implication is that females will not get bored if their guy is the only interesting guy around. Guys will get bored after a while even if she’s an 11. But you can stretch out the period during which she’s got the hots for you by avoiding her betaization attempts. Roissy posted quite a bit about that. The community is just starting to discover these things, but they work with the same consistency as MM.

    very paranoid and fearful about womens’ infidelity

    Women’s infidelity is nothing to be feared of if you get to enjoy the NSA sex these girls offer. But an alpha male is only alpha as long as he is able to defend the harem against other males. An alpha makes sure his offspring are his. The whole cuckold fetish thing is as omega as it gets.

    But saying women can never truly enjoy sex with the 80% of men who are not “alpha” is way over the top.

    There is a difference between “enjoying” and “craving”.

    Like


  436. @T how is that basic??? At your age, I am sure you can remember a time when sisters were not into doing that? Would you want to kiss a woman in the mouth who was doing such a basic act when a number of men before you?

    Like


  437. You then go on to claim that “all” of the old and the wise would give essentially the same advice. Just do it. Hope, seriously, that is ridiculous. It is absurd to rewrite history to the point where one claims that the ancients “all” supported your advice for her to bang the guy. It’s not “all,” in fact you would be lucky to find support of even a tiny minority.

    I think you’re reading a bit too much into what I wrote. When I said “old” I did not mean “ancient,” and I certainly did not mean the Romans or the 14th-16th century authors. I meant the old people who might be dispensing advice today, because I got that advice from the 50+ year olds I talked to when I was younger.

    Since you insist on referencing the “prior generations,” here are some quotes for you:

    This idea [carpe diem] was popular among 16th and 17th-century poets.

    French poet Pierre de Ronsard for example, who wrote Cueillez dès aujourd’hui les roses de la vie (Sonnets pour Hélène, 1578), or Robert Herrick, whose To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time begins with “Gather ye rosebuds while ye may”.

    The ‘O mistress mine’ song sung by the clown in Act II, Scene iii of William Shakespeare’s play Twelfth Night has been referred to as having the spirit of carpe diem in it because of the line ‘Youth’s a stuff will not endure’, amongst others.

    The poem, To His Coy Mistress by Andrew Marvell is another example of Romantic carpe diem poetry.

    Carpe diem is also used to denote the theme of Christopher Marlowe’s The Passionate Shepherd to His Love.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_His_Coy_Mistress

    “Written in the point of view of a gentleman, who is trying to persuade a woman to engage in sexual intercourse with him, although she is allegedly acting coy. He attempts to convince her that time is running out and they must seize the day (Carpe Diem a general translation). Its three sections are presented as if a logical argument: if… but… therefore.”

    The ancients didn’t use carpe diem in the way you are using it. For them, it wasn’t a Nike ad.

    They didn’t use it in the way you were using it either — honor and glory have little to do with it. I used it in the context of “seize the day” which is perfectly in line with the original meaning of carpe diem. Here’s the original usage by Horace:

    Tyrrhenum: sapias, vina liques et spatio brevi
    spem longam reseces. dum loquimur, fugerit invida
    aetas: carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.

    — be smart, drink your wine. Scale back your long hopes
    to a short period. While we speak, envious time will have {already} fled
    Seize the day, trusting as little as possible in the future.

    Like


  438. P.S. I find it profoundly ironic that out of everything and everyone on this blog, I am now the quintessential “Just do it” poster girl. A sexual prude in so many ways, I abhor casual sex and never engaged in the drug, casual sex, bar or pick up scenes. Yet my post was the most objectionable.

    Ah, the hilarity of the absurd.

    Like


  439. Elizabeth said: But I don’t have a problem with anyone following the advice and trying to improve themselves, or with people having high standards. As I said, what annoys me is the bitterness, not the standards.

    What elizabeth said holds with me.

    tupac said:The only thing that makes a man good in bed is awareness and practice. If the guy is a beta or lower, he won’t have that practice. Then he will be mocked behind his back by the very same women who pretend to hate players who “get around” — even though that very getting around is what makes a man good in bed
    Cougars will give you a lot of practice. They can teach you alot more than a woman my age.
    By 40, most women are seasoned and know there own likes and dislikes.

    Like


  440. Manual dexterity is a trait more associated with somewhat feminine men, too, with their slender, fast and nimble fingers. There are definitely clumsy “alphas” who lack finger finesse.

    Some people don’t know the greatness of a good finger. I once passed out because of a finger. My boyfriend at the time woke me up by lightly taping me on the side of my face. The look on his face was one of fear or shock.

    Like


  441. Chic Noir,
    Actually, one has more chances of getting something from full-on kissing someone in the mouth than kissing their phallus. I think T’s point, and definitely mine, is just how bad so many women are at sucking dick, I don’t how else to put that. And it matters a lot to men, that’s all.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  442. @T how is that basic??? At your age, I am sure you can remember a time when sisters were not into doing that?

    Yes. It was exactly around the time I started dating white chicks.

    Like


  443. I think you made some excellent points, Hope, and actually makes a lot of sense. I think there is a kind of logical fallacy here, in that there is a mindset that says that there only can be one viewpoint that is correct among you, Czar, Ryder and MQ. I think all of you are right in diferent respects.

    Clearly Czar’s point about various aspects of EP are legitimate, at least to me. Sure, there is something to be said for going too far in either direction or extreme, but let’ be honest, all men have a highly legitimate concern that their women remain sexually faithful to them. If Czar’s going overboard in that regard, then so too have men throughout History. And doesn’t look like its gonna stop anytime soon.

    Ryder’s meta-point, if I can put it that way, and to my mind, is that the hallmark of Conservatism is the recognition of the Wisdom of the Ages, that these weren’t just a bunch of stuff, stodgy, dusty strictures and rules designed to keep us from getting our swerve on, but were instead the culmination of hardwon gleaning of Eternal Truths of the Human Condition, and, to a Conservative’s eyes and mind, represent something worth keeping around. Yet in our time, anything representing authority, or truth, is at the least mocked, at worst obliterated. I think what Ryder is saying is that we are paying a huge price for our having turned our backs on the Lessons History gives.

    MQ makes the powerful point that, once a certain baseline is established, Female Sexuality kinda goes all over the place. Any man who’s been w/say, a dozen women or more will clearly see similarities, but also will cannot, w/a straightface, deny the permutations and signinficant differences.

    Bringing it back to my point, I just do not think it is necessary for a woman to bust a nut everytime she lays down and has sex, and I think we’re putting undue stress on us all in thinking otherwise. Men are hardwired to Bust a Nut for Life. Women simply aren’t wired that way, and that’s OK. Doesn’t mean you still can’t have a good time.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  444. Hope,

    Hope, you can’t cherry pick your way out of this. Even if you shift ground and just focus on our grandparent’s generation, I don’t believe for a minute that most would advocate that a young woman “just do it”, Nike style, with some guy who has not evidenced in the slightest that he even cares about her. In fact, the older in age group that you get, the less likely you would be to find support for your views. Your claim that “all” (or even most) are pretty much in your corner is, obviously, not accurate. Once you get up to the generation that came of age in the 30’s and 40’s, support for your views becomes rare indeed.

    And, from what I can tell, the elderly do not regret that they missed out on sleeping around more. It appears to me that their regrets, if any, are far more substantive than that. Hell, even amongst my generation (gen x) the regrets I hear expressed are far more substantive than that.

    In fact, the regrets that I hear mostly stem from people having followed your Nike style advice. They realize now that they would have been better off if they had taken sex more seriously, been more selective and careful in choosing a mate, and found someone that they could have had a good life with. This is particularly true of women. Instead, they “just did it” in a series of ill considered flings, and life passed them by. STD’s and barren wombs (and eventual cats), on the other hand, did not pass them by.

    As for carpe diem, you are cherry picking again. I offered seizing the opportunity for honor and glory as one common use, not the only one. I gave a list, and it wasn’t meant to be exhaustive. My point was simply that the way you use it, and the way you think, would not have been common amongst most prior generations. This is evidenced by how those prior generations actually operated.

    Therefore, it is turning the truth on its head to harness prior generations in support of views that, by and large, they simply did not hold. Just accept that your views are common in post-America, have not been common during most eras, and defend them on their own merits – if any. There is no justification to claim support where, by and large, it does not exist.

    Like


  445. 424 Usually Lurking

    My guess is that Elizabeth is pretty cute. Plus, she is willing to put the smack down on Leftists, always hot!

    Hee, thanks.

    426 Mu’Min

    You talk to yourself? Really?

    Yes. I like having a captive audience. 🙂

    OK, let’s take the two movie stars you mentioned earlier, CZJ and RZ. To my mind, the former ooozes sexuality, while the latter clearly does not. She’s not ugly, but she doesn’t do anything for me.

    Now, behavior may play a role but I think its just in the inherent differences btw the two. Whatca think?

    Yes, I agree. Catherine Zeta Jones has an exotic, sensual beauty and a very feminine, hourglass, voluptuous figure. Most of the men I know find that kind of woman far more alluring than the women who, however pretty their faces are, have bodies like a prepubescent boy’s.

    Renee Zellweger — ugh. She just needs to be fed.

    427 Mu’Min

    This is the major bone of contention w/Michelle Obama, whom I don’t think is all that bad looking, just a bit thin for my tastes.

    Michelle Obama is a striking woman. There’s something a little too — bold-looking, maybe? — about her face; she’s not delicate enough to be pretty, but she’s quite attractive. And she dresses nicely, which is always a plus.

    429 T AKA Ricky Row

    I believe the white versions of this are Anne hathaway and Jennifer Love Hewitt, both of whom are cute but whose out of control sex symbol status is mainly a media creation in my opinion.

    I have a brother who thinks Jennifer Love Hewitt is a goddess, but I think that has a lot to do with her chest. 🙂

    431 Hope

    I think this system is by natural design, as it allows a woman to be more clear-headed and choose her mate based on more than just sex. Men have to orgasm, because without it there would be no sperm and insemination, whereas women do not need to orgasm to get pregnant.

    I’m not even going to touch on the rest of this discussion, but this is an interesting idea, Hope.

    432 Czar

    This must be such a relief for you. After all – it’s your body that betrays you, so what can you do?

    Wow. Personal much? You can respond to Hope’s argument without making it about her.

    437 Ryder

    It is my understanding that it spread to Rome, as Rome absorbed Greece and much of their thinking. The original reference came from Plutarch, who if memory serves was a Roman citizen of Greek descent.

    I haven’t seen it referenced by any of the Roman authors I’ve read. And the Romans did not “absorb” Greek culture or their way of thinking. The Romans certainly admired some of Greek culture, and they were inspired by their literature, but the Romans actually had a lot of disdain for Greek idealism and zealotry. The Spartans had a code of “never retreat, never surrender.” The Romans were ruthlessly practical and were not at all hesitant to retreat if, under the circumstances, it was the smart thing to do. The idea that Romans were cultural pirates who stole wholesale from Greece is a fallacy advanced by ideological ivory tower intellectuals who identify more with the “high-minded” Greeks than the “barbaric” Romans. There were many areas in which Roman culture far exceeded Greek. Not in art and philosophy, but in more practical areas, like law, government, war, and engineering, the Romans were the geniuses. There’s a reason Rome lasted a thousand years.

    Plutarch was Greek. He was born in Greece and lived all his life in Greece. He was a Roman citizen because his friend, the consul Lucius Mestrius Florus, sponsored him for Roman citizenship. Rather like how Winston Churchill was made an honorary citizen of the United States.

    441 Hope

    P.S. I find it profoundly ironic that out of everything and everyone on this blog, I am now the quintessential “Just do it” poster girl.

    Funny how that happens, isn’t it? Four years ago, when one of my law professors was going on and on about how we all had the responsibility to vote, blah blah blah, I made the heretical statement that people didn’t have to vote if they didn’t want to and that these lectures were getting tiresome. For reasons that are still unclear to me, my classmates interpreted that to mean that I didn’t think people should vote. Didn’t matter to them that I always vote; because I objected to a sanctimonious lecture, I was the new poster child for apathy.

    I think nosy people who love to interfere in other people’s business deliberately conflate “laissez-faire” with “apathy.”

    Like


  446. Chic Noir,
    Cosign on your point wrt Cougars. Don’t sleep on em, fellas. Talk about a cat on a hot tin roof.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  447. Mu’Min,

    Excellent description of my meta-point in 446. It is so unusual to see such an accurate interpretation, that my head is spinning. This has to be an internet first. lol

    Rock on,
    Ryder

    Like


  448. the elderly do not regret that they missed out on sleeping around more.

    How many times can I state this to you? I have never advocated “sleeping around” or “casual sex” or “drugs and partying” or “threesomes.” I advocate consummation of true love.

    Stating that two people who are truly in love with each other should consummate that love is not the same as saying “just do it.” The precondition I gave is “if they are in love with each other.” I agree with you that if the guy does not care about her, she should not give up her body. That was my modus operandi when I was younger.

    I don’t understand why you keep harping on this subject, but if you feel that you’ve “won” the argument, please, feel free and by all means believe that.

    Like


  449. UL said(we also work the most hours and make the most money and have a higher percentage of people who can afford to have families, but I digress)

    Maybe today but who knows about next week.

    Like


  450. DOJ, Falling Down is the bomb movie, and I’m hoping Elizabeth has seen it too because it goes to the point I was trying to make wrt Cho (still waiting for Elizabeth to holla back on my Cho response). My point is that men crackup. A lot. And maybe the reason why some of the things we now take for granted and even mock are that way to minimize the crackups.

    Falling Down’s Foster, played by Douglas, is a stompdown Beta Herb if there ever was one-yet, when he reached his limit, when his wife left him, this, that, etc-he snapped. Ever heard of Going Postal?

    That’s not to say women don’t go bonkers too, its just that men, and this has been studied, go off the rails a lot more. Which explains why I never, ever, tookup w/a woman who was w/another man. You just don’t know said man’s mental state, many cannot handle the prospect, let alone sight, of another man giving her the High Hard One. Check your newspapers, its full of boyfriends, lovers and hubbies involved in murder-suicides. Its no joke or laughing matter, and if Game continues to grow, we need to be thinking about this.

    Elizabeth, I agree w/your points wrt CZJ and RZ. And, I think the behavioral stuf you mentioned may very well apply to women moreso than men. For the latter, its the visual that cinches it.

    All of the things you mentioned are definitely on point visually insofar as sexual cues are concerned-but here’s the point-your brother clearly made a distinction between the hot babe and the one he said he would have married.

    So…

    We know what to look for in a hot babe.

    What does a marriagable women look like? And would RZ pass that test?

    Even more to your point, and this follows up on points you made yesterday wrt men needing to have reduced expectations…

    I think its fair to say that many men make tradeoffs as to who he wants to eventually settle down with. So, how does he do it? What does that look like? And how does one “get up” sexually for that?

    Comments?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  451. @T how is that basic??? At your age, I am sure you can remember a time when sisters were not into doing that?

    Yes. It was exactly around the time I started dating white chicks.

    You and a lot of brothers did but some of you found yourself the fool when you ran into a whte woman who had the same rule.

    Like


  452. Elizabeth,

    Your assertion that Romans did not absorb Greek culture is astonishing. They clearly did, at least to a significant degree. Feel free to correct me, but I’m not aware of a single historian who would support your assertion and seriously deny Greek influence on Roman civilization.

    That doesn’t mean that Romans were just cheap Greek knock-offs, not at all. Your points on that score are well taken. It does mean that the influence was there, and it was significant. Maybe the ivory tower intellectuals aren’t all wrong? Similarly, Japan has absorbed many of our ideas, but that doesn’t make them just an America clone. Yet to deny our influence would be to deny the obvious. When cultures co-exist, they influence one another – for good or ill. Today, it’s mostly for ill. If only our main problem today was the excessive influence of ancient Greece. lol

    Rock on,
    Ryder

    Like


  453. You and a lot of brothers did but some of you found yourself the fool when you ran into a whte woman who had the same rule.

    yeah, but chances of finding a white chick with same blow job hangups as a black chick are WAAY rarer. to be fair, though, lots of black guys back in the day had oral sex hangups too.

    Like


  454. ULIt is also why Black women get so angry when they see a Brother with a White Women but White Women rarely react that way when they see a White Man with a Sister.

    Ha sooooooooo not true. As a rule, women are as possessive as cats. They don’t like other women stepping on their territory and that includes their men. I have seen the dirty looks given to BW from WW when they are out with wm. I’ve gotten a few myself but since I am not the type to take crap, I give them a flick of my evil eye. Even AW will give a BW the evil eye when they are out with a WM. That strikes me as strange since they have no hold on WM as AW. They get the evil eye too but they are usually the only group of people who can “out stare” me.

    Like


  455. Yes T, a lot of African women do too. To many African women who grew up in the bush, it’s a perverted act. If you want to honest, I think we can both agree that it is gross putting your mouth down there. There are so many pathogens that hang in and around that part of the body. We use that part of the body to go to the bathroom.

    FYI, I am well aware that the mouth is much dirter.

    Like


  456. Usually Lurking

    google the pics of the following women and tell us which of the women below are to heavy for your tastes. That way we can be clear as to what/who makes a fat woman in your eyes.

    Kenya Moore
    Melissa Ford
    Crystal Renn
    Tyra Banks
    Queen Latifah
    Sara Ramirez
    Beyonce

    Like


  457. 453 Mu’Min

    DOJ, Falling Down is the bomb movie, and I’m hoping Elizabeth has seen it too because it goes to the point I was trying to make wrt Cho (still waiting for Elizabeth to holla back on my Cho response).

    Mu’Min, my Cho response is the same as it was initially. If someone goes crazy ass psycho, my answer is to destroy him. And if someone cracks and goes psycho, that’s his fault. Life is hard on everyone. That’s no excuse to go crazy. I’m not exactly sure what else you want me to say about this. Certainly I’m not going to encourage teenage girls and young women to sleep with every guy who asks them in the name of trying to prevent the oh-so-frail “men” (read: crazy ass psychos) from cracking. (And no, I don’t think you’re suggesting that, I just don’t know what else you’re looking for from me on this subject.)

    The Chos of the world are not created by women. The Chos of the world are monsters of their own making. We are all accountable for our own actions. As I said, there are many sexually frustrated young men out there. Most of them are not crazy ass psychos. Most of them discreetly hire prostitutes or look at porn. Again, I don’t have a problem with that. Again, I think it would be smart to legalize prostitution.

    And no, I haven’t seen that movie. Haven’t even heard of it.

    What does a marriagable women look like? And would RZ pass that test?

    I think that’s something every man will have to answer for himself. 🙂

    So, how does he do it? What does that look like? And how does one “get up” sexually for that?

    Again, these are probably questions better answered by men.

    Like


  458. MU saidAnd all of them were at least my current weight, the double jointed on was at least 200lbs, yet they didn’t have any guts, great figures, etc. I’m not sure if White women could pull that off
    Well try Southern European women and Jewish women. I’ve seen plenty who can put a video model to shame. I also saw a few Sweedish girls who were hourglassed shaped like Melissa Ford but with less booty. My mouth feel open because:
    1. They were the true defintion of the word thick.
    2. I’ve seen WW built like that before but they are usually much darker.

    UL said:And Bodyfat percentage. A different ideal for guys and girls, but always relevant
    Ul, I think bodyfat percentage is a much better meter than BMI. Many Asian women have a high bodyfat percentage but low BMI. BMI is very limiting because different races and more so ethnicities have different builds. East Africans(Kenya,Ethopia,Tanzania) from what I see are usually thinner than West Africans.

    Like


  459. 455 Ryder

    I’m not denying that Greek culture influenced the Romans. I’m denying that the Romans absorbed Greek culture. There is a big difference between “influence” and “absorb.” “Absorb” implies a wholesale taking, which the Romans definitely did not do. As I said, there were a lot of elements about Greek culture that the Romans had disdain for.

    The Romans had a great deal of admiration for the Greeks when it came to the arts. The Romans actively incorporated many elements of Greek religion into their own (though it’s not true that the Roman gods were just the Greek gods with different names. Mars, for example, was a much more admirable figure than Ares). The Romans were quite interested in Greek government, history and philosophy, and the Romans related to and shared the Greek belief in freedom — but this was a value they developed independent of the Greeks, born of the Roman struggle against the Etruscans.

    The point is, the Romans had a vibrant culture of their own. They did not dump their own culture and take Greek culture as a substitute. They incorporated the elements of Greek culture that they admired and ignored the rest. Much like America does with other countries.

    Like


  460. Hope,

    I took issue with your claim that the “old and wise” would support your advice. No matter how you slice it, whether we are talking about five centuries ago or just grandma’s generation, most people didn’t think the way you do. It is false to claim support where it does not exist. It is particularly false to claim support from quarters that overwhelmingly rejected your way of thinking. As for harping, I am simply responding to false assertions. Stop making the false assertions, and I’ll stop refuting them.

    Now, if we have finally put the historical argument to rest (???), let’s deal with your advice on its modern day merits. You say that it’s o.k. as long as they are “in love.” Well, that sounds pretty good. Problem is, that attitude has pushed us to where we are today. If you like where we as a culture are today, then fine. I don’t like it, so it’s not fine with me. And I say this as player myself (on a leave of absence) who has had a lot of good times as a result of societal decay.

    As Roissy once very wisely put it: what is good for him is not necessarily, or even very often, good for society. I recognize the same for myself. Frankly, your advice makes my life easier. If I only cared about that, I wouldn’t argue the point. But I do care about the bigger picture, and bad advice should be opposed – even if doing so makes my life harder.

    Moving on to meat and potatos. How do we know that this guy is in love with her? How do we know what his level of commitment is? Traditional society had an answer for this: get out in front of the community and promise that you will look out for one another, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer. There were real consequences for breaking this promise. In other words, they had a readily understandable and enforceable standard.

    But if you throw that standard out, what are you left with? Squishy and amorphous concepts of being in love. What does that mean? Will he be there for her if she gets sick? Will he be there for her if she becomes destitute? Will he be there for her if a fresh piece gives him buying signals?

    We don’t know. He’s made no such promise, maybe not even in pillow talk (and it wouldn’t mean anything if he did). And why should he? With your Nike ad philosophy having spread so far, he has no reason to do so, and a lot of reasons not to.

    You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. Similarly, you can dress up a “just do it” philosophy with a candy coating of love, but it is still just a Nike ad. All of your arguments about “love” were made back during the sexual revolution, over a generation ago. Probably sounded great, but it didn’t turn out that way. We can now look around and survey the carnage. Reality exists, whether we like it or not.

    Rock on,
    Ryder

    Like


  461. And I say this as player myself (on a leave of absence) who has had a lot of good times as a result of societal decay.

    As Roissy once very wisely put it: what is good for him is not necessarily, or even very often, good for society. I recognize the same for myself.

    Ah, that explains your obsession: hypocrisy.

    I have only given her the same advice I took myself. Love, for all of its flaws, is a good mate-selection mechanism that can establish a lifetime bond, especially between the young.

    In my own experiences and observations, a lot of people who are married and happily so married someone they met when they were in their teens or early 20s. Yes, they had sex, but this is not the bar and hook-up culture we’re talking about.

    Which one of us has the more “traditional” life? I have been with the same man for 8 years, married young and am pregnant with my first child, and I am in my early 20s. You, a self-described “player on a break,” are trying to lecture me on moralism.

    Does not compute. Sorry.

    Like


  462. UL, don’t hate on QL.
    His use of
    hate is a slang term, meaning don’t say bad things about her.

    Lack of Attraction does not equal Hate.
    I agree
    She seems like a nice enough person.

    elizabeth said:My brothers often ask me why even straight girls will stare at beautiful women
    Glad to know I am not the only one. I admit I stare a lot when I see a beautiful person, male or female.
    Sometimes women stare at beautiful women as a way of sizing up the competion.

    @Mu-I really think Sailor has that wrong. I’ve never seen so many BW/WM relationships as I saw in Amsterdam. The men in Netherlands are blond/blue eyed more so than in this country. Some are very fair in that I thought they might have been albinos. I
    did not see a lot of AW/WM pairing, and when I did they were Americans. Therefore, there is more to it than Sailor’s explanation. People forget that the world is bigger than the United States. Even in France, I saw more BW/WM pairing than AW. There was plenty of interracial pairing done in the dark between BW/WW 200 years ago.
    I think we all have a type that we are attracted to but have but have been attracted to people who are not our usual. I’m not attracted to very fair whtie men as a rule but many of the blond/blue white men I saw in the Netherlands & Sweden were very very very attractive. Swedish and Dutch men are much more attractive than their American counterparts on average. I’ve read/heard the same thing among blk women who have traveled abroad.
    I’ve heard the same said about blk women from Ghana, Senegal versus African-American women. To much mixing can make a beast or maybe it’s the American diet.

    Like


  463. Elizabeth,

    This has devolved into semantics. I don’t disagree with your last post, other than the semantic quibble over absorb versus influence. I think, in the context of the original discussion, the use of either is appropriate. I did not use absorb in the extreme sense that you suggest. Most people don’t.

    One could say, “I absorbed a lot of great ideas from X” without implying that you are a cheap knock off of X, or that you have no mind of your own. Maybe you would take it that way, but I don’t believe most people would. I guess it’s a female thing: nitpick instead of dealing with the heart of the issue. Yeah, I know. Cheap shot and immature. But true.

    I never thought I’d miss the 21st century so much.

    Rock on,
    Ryder

    Like


  464. If we want to perish pretty lies, how about the lie that alpha = automatic orgasms for women?
    I agree.

    An Alpha really isn’t something one can fake. I have a friend who met Bill Clinton when she was in middle school. Ten+ years later, she still gets so excited when talking about her few minutes with Clinton. Her words” He just glided into the room, most people walk but it was like his legs weren’t truly moving”. I think she even mentioned feeling light headed. She said she was so thrown off by her reaction to him that she asked a female classmate and the girl told her that she felt it too.

    I’m not doubting that the PUA books will help some men get women but a man is or isn’t an Alpha. To me, it’s not a big deal. In some ways, I am very frightened of Alphas because of the weird reaction that goes off inside of my body when I am in their presence. I really can’t put into words but it’s like fireworks going off or somebody hitting me in the back of my head with a bag of rocks.

    MQ saidWomen cheat, just as men do (like I said, human nature). But saying women can never truly enjoy sex with the 80% of men who are not “alpha” is way over the top
    I agree

    However, women vary enormously physically — some women really hardly ever come, and enjoy sex anyway. I actually was with a woman for a while who almost never came and was a nympho anyway, loved it and wanted it all the time. Women are just enormously more variable than man in the rock-bottom physical facts of their sexuality

    Good points. I think most women can enjoy a good lick if they aren’t paranoid about smell or taste.

    Like


  465. DoJ said:Just wanted to say, as an Asian man
    , that I agree with this.

    Oh really!!!

    Like


  466. Hope,

    The funny thing is that I knew exactly how you would respond to my post, and you fit it to a T – sort of like a computer program. That’s one of the reasons I’m on a break, it’s all so predictible.

    There is no hypocrisy here. For example, a smoker is not a hypocrite when he advises other people not to smoke. He knows that it is not a good habit to get into, and he is honest about that. The fact that he has the habit himself, and cannot or will not break it, doesn’t change that basic reality.

    Similarly, there are people who are going to get wealthy in the current financial turmoil, those who placed their bets on the market going down. They will be gaining an advantage in a bad situation. Is it hypocritical of them to still say what they know to be the truth, and to advocate a return to a sound economic policy? Of course not.

    Point is, many systems have beneficiaries and victims. It is not hypocritical for the beneficiary to honestly call for reform if he believes that it is the right course. That should give him credibility, not accusations of hypocrisy. After all, he is speaking against his own financial interest.

    And I’m not lecturing you on morality. I am simply pointing out that you are giving very bad advice to people who may well be vulnerable and foolish enough to fall for it. And what are you doing, as a married pregnant woman, advising this girl to sleep with a guy that you have absolutely no evidence cares for her? Talk about hypocrisy. I’m trying to help her, or others like her, avoid a mistake. Or at least give her the tools to make a decent decision. You give her a Nike ad.

    What I’m doing is the equivalent of a smoker warning others not to smoke. What you are doing is the equivalent of a non-smoker trying to convince someone else to take that first puff.

    Rock on,
    Ryder

    Like


  467. 464 chicnoir

    Glad to know I am not the only one. I admit I stare a lot when I see a beautiful person, male or female.

    We all do. It’s human nature to admire beauty.

    Sometimes women stare at beautiful women as a way of sizing up the competion.

    Or even just to pick up tips. I like magazines like People for the pictures — I like to see the clothes beautiful women are wearing, and their hairstyles, and their makeup. I think most people who like them like them for the same reasons. It’s not like the articles are terribly interesting.

    People forget that the world is bigger than the United States.

    I read an article on CNN.com a while back that many black American women (especially in the South) are hesitant to date white men because of the “parallel” to white male planters who slept with their black female slaves. Is that true? There does seem to be a particular hang-up on this in the USA that doesn’t seem to exist elsewhere.

    465 Ryder

    Maybe you would take it that way, but I don’t believe most people would. I guess it’s a female thing: nitpick instead of dealing with the heart of the issue.

    No. It’s a lawyer thing. We use words carefully and properly and expect others to do it as well. A poorly chosen word in a statute or a contract can spawn decades of needless litigation.

    “Influence” and “absorb” are not synonymous and nowhere close to being so. Influence means “to affect the nature, development, or condition of; modify.” Absorb means “to swallow up the individuality or identity of.” One is moderate. The other is extreme. They mean different things and should not be used interchangeably.

    And after all your posts about Hope’s “advice” and what “old” means, I don’t think you’re really in a position to be accusing others of nitpicking.

    Like


  468. 466 chicnoir

    I have a friend who met Bill Clinton when she was in middle school. Ten+ years later, she still gets so excited when talking about her few minutes with Clinton. Her words” He just glided into the room, most people walk but it was like his legs weren’t truly moving”. I think she even mentioned feeling light headed. She said she was so thrown off by her reaction to him that she asked a female classmate and the girl told her that she felt it too.

    I met President Clinton when I was in high school, and this is true. He is a very charismatic man with incredible presence. I didn’t have quite the powerful reaction that your friend did (perhaps it’s a vanity thing!), but I do remember thinking, “I want to be able to do that.”

    Like


  469. 466 Chic:

    I’m not doubting that the PUA books will help some men get women but a man is or isn’t an Alpha. To me, it’s not a big deal. In some ways, I am very frightened of Alphas because of the weird reaction that goes off inside of my body when I am in their presence. I really can’t put into words but it’s like fireworks going off or somebody hitting me in the back of my head with a bag of rocks.

    Behold…

    The Power of Alpha.

    Like Czar said, it doesn’t matter if the guy has a small dick or bad sexual technique — the women will enjoy the sex regardless.


    MQ saidWomen cheat, just as men do (like I said, human nature). But saying women can never truly enjoy sex with the 80% of men who are not “alpha” is way over the top

    I agree

    That’s pretty funny coming from someone who thinks the only good part to sex is “the Lick.”

    Like


  470. There is no hypocrisy here. For example, a smoker is not a hypocrite when he advises other people not to smoke. He knows that it is not a good habit to get into, and he is honest about that. The fact that he has the habit himself, and cannot or will not break it, doesn’t change that basic reality.

    You are… something else.

    Hypocrisy (or the state of being a hypocrite) is the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself. For example, an adult telling children not to smoke cigarettes, even though the adult smokes.

    I am simply pointing out that you are giving very bad advice to people who may well be vulnerable and foolish enough to fall for it. And what are you doing, as a married pregnant woman, advising this girl to sleep with a guy that you have absolutely no evidence cares for her?

    Well, for starters, she said, “K. and I are now dating, crazy about each other, and never been happier. I was wrong about thinking he was self-destructive; as it turns out, some bad personal stuff happened to him last year that he never told me about, and he had every reason to be unhappy.”

    Crazy about each other sounds like they are in love with each other. The fact that he self-disclosed to such a degree to her and they have known each other for a good period of makes it seem like this is not your typical bar pick-up scenario. These two college kids have known each other for two years.

    And yes, sometimes men can seem like they don’t care but actually do deeply care. It’s happened to me several times. Call it irrational intuition if you will, but I think these two are really in love, and not your own projected perverse version of “he doesn’t care about her whatsoever and is just stringing her along for two years so he can have sex with her and then dump her for some random bar girl.”

    Your turn.

    Like