Marry Shag Kill

Also from yesterday’s post, commenter Sebastian Flyte highlighted women’s natural inborn revulsion for beta males with the example of the fun bar game Marry Shag Kill:

Another aspect I’m increasingly seeing – WOMEN ARE PITILESS ABOUT BETAS. 

Most gamers who run the routine “murder, marry, shag” quickly realise this.  For those who don’t, you and the girl point at various people around the bar and state whether you would murder them, marry them, or shag them. 

Sometimes I point at wallflowers and guys with no game. I normally just feel bad for them, there-but-for-the-grace-of-god and so forth, me a year ago, he just needs to learn… but women_are_brutal.  Murder of course, but they embellish it further with unflattering observations on their penis size, acne, relationship history, masturbation habits… the vitriolic hate they have for these guys, it’s scary.  If a couple of alphas walked in and started ripping on the betas, women would join in.

I have noticed the same thing with women when I play Marry Fuck Kill with them. After an initial hesitancy, they get comfortable playing and suddenly the claws and fangs are out, revealing in high definition surround-sound glory their barely submerged joyous hate for the hapless beta male.

The nicer ones might try to think of alternate ways to dispose of the losers.

“Uuumm… yeah I guess I would kill him [pointing at rumpled shirt herb]. Do I really have to kill him? Ew, yuck, could we just have him shot into space or something? Or moved to China?”

If the guy is really emanating the stench of loserness, her killing instinct sharpens:

“Yeah, kill him. Oh god, yes, just kill him.”

You have to understand why women have this curdled reaction to betas deep in their bones. If a man spills his seed in the wrong woman, no biggie. He can still bang other women and fulfill his genetic programming. If a woman gets her eggs polluted by the feeble seed of a beta, she’s stuck for nine months, and probably longer.

This is why Marry Fuck Kill is an excellent litmus test. I now use the game to screen for women with good character. If she is *really* uncomfortable killing off men she doesn’t want to fuck or marry, and refuses to pull the trigger, I know she’ll be more likely to want to please me and less likely to cheat. I put her in the “long term prospect” mental bin. If she chooses to marry what I consider marriage-worthy men (and I pick sample targets for her with my screening process in mind) I give her an extra point. If she chooses to fuck the dude wearing the skull and bones bandana with tribal tattoos on his arms and a perpetual sneer, I subtract points from her and put her into the “short fling” mental bin.

Marry Fuck Kill does not work the same for men. When the girl plays the game with me, and I haven’t yet fucked her, I have to be careful how I answer.

“Her? [looking at the fat girl she picked] Hmm, I dunno… If she was good to animals I miiiiiight marry her. I guess I have to kill someone here, eh? Maybe that chick over there. [pointing at the hottest chick in the bar] She looks high maintenance.”

If I simply told the truth and chose all the hot girls for fucking and marrying and killed all the ugly and fat chicks, occasionally with unbridled glee, she would become self-conscious and never agree to be videotaped during sex.





Comments


  1. David Alexander wept.

    Like


  2. I loved the “videotaped during sex” reference at the end. LOL’d at my desk. Makes sense though.

    Like


  3. Apologize in advance for length of this comment, but it so reminds me of a relevant story i have to share: I remember discovering this at a barbecue being thrown by a woman who worked for the media. She was a network news producer, but I don’t want to get too specific and risk blowing up her spot. But it was in gentrified Brooklyn, plus it was a media party, so with those two factors combined you know it was filled with a ton of hipsterish guys that fit the worst stereotypes of modern, big city men working in media. ironic mess clothes and hairs, looking like overgrown nerdy teenagers, the kind of guys that love and identify with Apatow movies and really believe guys like Michael Cera could pull cute girls the way he did in Superbad and Juno, wearig ironic t-shirts and ironic thick rimmed glasses, some looked like Mo Rocca, poster child of beta males, they all loved the Daily Show and thought Stephen Colbert was a better example of manliness to aspire to than John Wayne or Cary grant or Frank Sinatra…in fact, picture the type of guy being lampooned by Stuff White People Like and you can picture the party. I was pretty much the only guy, along with my cousin, who even had a semblance of muscle tone and swagger.

    The female host of the party was conversing with me. She pointed over to the pool where a hot girl was sitting in a bikini surrounded by the adult nerds who were all “ignoring” her, meaning transparently hanging around her pretending not to notice her but quietly mustering up the courage to start a conversation. I figured since they were guests at her party, she held them in high regard. But she started berating them to me for being such wimps. Her voice was absolutely dripping with contempt and venom. She was talking about how all the guys were such wimps, nerds, cowards, how no one in her social circle is a man anymore and how frustrating it is, how they’re more into putting on an dry, ironic self-effacing comedy show for a girl in a conversation than exude sex and swagger. Her roommates joined us and they all joined in the critiquing of the guys for their approach anxiety and wussiness with the same dripping contempt. And I was surprised because these same girls since I’ve known them had displayed nothing but sweetness toward me and my buddy. Even when they interacted with these betas, it was pleasant and polite but you could sense an undercurrent of polite contempt, although the betas seemed oblivious to it.

    But it really was a wakeup call for me. First it showed me that even when you are in your own world and think no one cares what you’re doing, women have already scanned and assessed the whole room while you were focused on your one dream girl trying to get the courage to approach her. And they have ranked you as Alpha or beta off the bat in an amazingly short amount of time, and once you enter the beta category it’s almost impossible to climb out of it. Second, women are RUTHLESS toward beta males, so it’s important to establish yourself as an alpha as soon as possible. Movies always teach us its the jocks and the preppies and rich jerks that are the meanest to betas and that many glamorous women are more sympathetic to them, and even would date them if not for fear of scorn from their social circles. Not true. Women are ruthlessly crueler and more judgmental of betas than even many macho men.

    It was a real eye-opener.

    Like


  4. I think it would be interesting to do a study where Marry, Shag, Kill is played, but then the financial background of some of the less fortunate ‘victims’ are made known and the test is run again. Or bring over one of the beta losers, claiming he owns his own business or whatever, and then study the reaction of the fairer sex. Do it. And try to put the results in graph form as I only like to read SciFi.

    Like


  5. Good story, RR. I agree with your observations and conclusions. One qualifier, though: women’s contempt for Betas is greatly diminished (even takes on a form of respect) for Betas who are secure, carry themselves with a modicum of confidence (the real thing, not the hipster pose), or otherwise don’t make asses of themselves around hot girls.

    Like


  6. on September 11, 2008 at 5:39 pm Patrick Bateman

    Totally agree. I was surprised the first time I played fuck/marry/kill with a girl here on campus. Bitches are brutal. The more you get to know women, the better you feel about treating them like shit.

    Like


  7. I don’t know. My old personal trainer was from Romania, dripping with Mediterranean swagger and machismo, and had the worst luck at bars. Had to resort to banging older female clients. I’d bet he’d be first on most women’s kill lists.

    I think I remember Roissy saying a while ago something like contrast or contradiction was what made guys intriguing to women. Vladimir would have benefitted from just a touch of hipster cool, just like the ironic betas you describe would go much farther with a little of his strut.

    Like


  8. I need to try this… soon

    Like


  9. The eye-opening thing for me was how seriously women take the game, and how truthful they are. I think most guys use it for the flirtatious banter, like Roissy’s “well if she likes animals” remark – but women go all out. I’m truly amazed. The stuff they come out, like me saying (after she points at a fat girl), “fuck no, kill that fat ugly whore bitch” – without even a tone of humor.

    I also think that women are more likely than men to attribute a betas ‘loserness’ to unalterable character traits, something innate to the man’s being, than to something fixable.

    I remember back before I found game, I’d be out and a surprising amount of time ‘alpha’ males would actually try and help me out, telling me to approach and so forth, even if I didn’t know them. They saw my problem and wanted to help. Being a beta at the time, of course, made me assume any advice or assistance from above was tongue-in-cheek, when it really wasn’t, so I would slink away a lot of time.

    But women were far crueler to me than alpha males/guys with game.

    Like


  10. T,

    You do know that Cary Grant was an undercover “mo” right?
    Just saying…

    I’d also think though that the media chick was very successful in her career, chicks that high up that have power themselves hate on betas

    Like


  11. I’ve heard those rumors about Grant being a closet ‘mo, and this may be controversial to say around here, but I don’t think being gay automatically precludes one from being an alpha. He may have been bi, maybe not, but dude definitely had masculine swagger.

    Valid point on media chick’s power, but I do think all chicks hate guys they deem weaker than them.

    Like


  12. @1 “David Alexander wept.”

    He’s not alone.

    Like


  13. Agreed, MFK is an eye opener. What surprised me was how frequently women would designate a perfectly average guy, that in my estimation looked like marriage material, as “Kill.” As Ricky Raw put it, women rank men as alpha or beta with remarkeable speed even before a word is exchanged.

    Like


  14. All this talk of betas reminds me of Ogre’s first appearance in “Revenge of the Nerds”:

    Betas……..

    BETASSSSSSS….

    BETASSSSSSS!!!!

    BETAS!BETAS!BETAS!BETAS!!!!!

    (With Booger/Peter in the background: “This is bullshit! I want bush. Pan down…….we’ve got bush…WE’VE GOT BUSH!!!”

    Like


  15. Cary Grant was almost certainly heterosexual.

    1. There are almost no true male bisexuals. (see the work of Michael Bailey)
    2. Grant is known to have enthusiastically pursued sex with many women.

    Ergo it is extremely unlikely that Grant was either gay or bi.

    Hetero men who are the least bit refined or sensitive or possessed of other feminine qualities get smeared with the gay thing all the time. Especially if they are attractive to women. It’s just jealousy and doesn’t mean anything.

    Plus, gay men who want to take down heterosexuality in general and who lust after a good looking hetero man in particular like to fantasize about people like Grant being gay.

    Like


  16. Tupac, for a second I thought you were talking about NiveK Ogre.

    Like


  17. WTF man.. is this some game you “PUA” guys play?

    Lame. Seriously.

    Like


  18. So how does this game work anyway?

    Like


  19. WTF man.. is this some game you “PUA” guys play?

    Lame. Seriously.

    It’s not a “pickup” thing, it’s an old party game. I actually learned it from chicks in college. You can learn more here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck,_Marry,_Kill

    Like


  20. “Marry, Fuck, Kill” – aka, Scott Petersen’s autobiography.

    Hey, he was indecisive.

    Like


  21. Roissy:

    Do you play the version of Fuck Marry Kill where you point to a random guy and ask the girl “What would you rather do to this guy, Fuck, Marry, or Kill Him?”

    Or do you play the version where you ask the girl “Out of everyone in this room, you have to choose one person to fuck, one to marry, and one to kill, which ones would it be?”

    Which version do you feel like builds more “comfort”, creates more “you and I against the world” feeling?

    Like


  22. I don’t buy that Carey Grant was a ‘mo. Gays are obsessed with adopting and labeling popular figures as gay to legitamise homosexuality. Gays are the worst rumor mongers. Similar rumors are being spread of George Clooney. Do you think he’s a ‘mo because he’s been adamant that he won’t ever marry again?

    Like


  23. Here’s another setup. Start a game of Marry, Shag, Kill, or Poop on. It’s all the same thing except shagging.

    Like


  24. Thursday — Grant was a flaming Homosexual. He had to keep in the closet however for career reasons. He was another Rock Hudson. Now, gays don’t closet. [Grant was married ala Rock Hudson for precisely that reason — to maintain the straight romantic image.]

    As for women, their hatred of Betas, it’s quite understandable. Any attention a beta would give them could potentially block an Alpha.

    What women fail to calculate, is that this sort of thing gets returned in spades when they age out of Alphas. Beta men can and do treat them quite badly in their thirties, repaying every insult, put down, contempt, and more they received from other women. Any women dating in her thirties comes to grips with this — she’s no longer as attractive, and the men in her life are not the smooth players with lots of testosterone she had before.

    It is of course a disaster in the making. All that contempt for betas and corresponding misogyny is going to make the sexes grow farther apart and more mutually hostile than ever.

    Will Betas (who’s vote counts as much as anyone elses) support single mothers, who rejected THEM when they were in their twenties? Unlikely, and you’ll see bloc voting of men hostile to any transfer payments to women.

    But hey, what could EVER go wrong with lots of beta men unattached to women?

    As for the hipster douche, women themselves create them since notable examples of them are prized. Women don’t create clear expectations of what they want in men, and so have only themselves to blame.

    Like


  25. Damn I get some great ideas from this blog. That is a great game to play.

    Like


  26. I think it would be interesting to do a study where Marry, Shag, Kill is played, but then the financial background of some of the less fortunate ‘victims’ are made known and the test is run again. Or bring over one of the beta losers, claiming he owns his own business or whatever, and then study the reaction of the fairer sex.

    This would only change the choices of the worst gold-diggers. Most women are not money driven, they genuinely are attracted to swagger types and repelled from shy/fearful people they see as inferiors. Better to be a bold asshole who’s poor than a rich geek.

    Like


  27. Why would anyone, of either gender, play such a morose “game”? I’d exit the conversation.

    Like


  28. 27 anony

    Why would anyone, of either gender, play such a morose “game”? I’d exit the conversation.

    -exactly. Shows the childishness of the modern “man” and “woman.”

    Like


  29. ambiance:
    Which version do you feel like builds more “comfort”, creates more “you and I against the world” feeling?

    i play the first one you listed — i pick out three guys in the bar and tell her to choose wisely. i feel like picking out the guys for her builds more rapport than having her wildly look around the room for three guys to her liking. plus, it’s funnier the first way. you can make the girl laugh by picking the worst slobs in the bar.

    Like


  30. Better to be a bold asshole who’s poor than a rich geek.

    I don’t know about that, MQ. You’re right if people are only fishing for a hookup. But for something more long-term, shiny rocks from Tiffany’s are pretty seductive in their own right. 😉

    Like


  31. But for something more long-term, shiny rocks from Tiffany’s are pretty seductive in their own right.

    bribing a girl is not the same as winning her love.
    mq is right. above a minimum income threshold (and that minimum is much lower than most men realize) the bold asshole has it all over the rich geek, for short AND long term relationships.

    Like


  32. 30 Elizabeth:

    Better to be a bold asshole who’s poor than a rich geek.

    I don’t know about that, MQ. You’re right if people are only fishing for a hookup.

    Not only that, it’s also a matter of pride.

    But for something more long-term, shiny rocks from Tiffany’s are pretty seductive in their own right

    Don’t front. Your poor geek-husband would be getting it once a month, if that. And you’d be eyeballing the pool-boy in the meantime.

    Like


  33. Roissy,

    Do you have some pictures of what you consider to be Alpha, Beta and Omega? If they can all be middle class guys in their late 20’s we can compare and know what sort of men are discussed.

    Like


  34. Tupac:

    Don’t front. Your poor geek-husband would be getting it once a month, if that. And you’d be eyeballing the pool-boy in the meantime.

    Oh, come on. A Tiffany ring would be worth at least twice a month. Maybe three times, if I were feeling particularly generous. 😉

    In all seriousness, I was being facetious. Having already sold my soul to Satan for an Ivy degree, a J.D., and a law license, money isn’t a big issue for me. But it is for a lot of women, especially if those women have high-class tastes without the education or ambition to satisfy those tastes themselves. I’m not saying those women wouldn’t be eyeing the pool boy for a liaison, but they wouldn’t be marrying him. And when I spoke of “long-term,” it was marriage I was thinking about, not love. (As everyone knows, the two aren’t necessarily the same.)

    If it’s love people are after, that’ll take a lot more than money. It will also take a lot more than game, confidence, looks, or attraction. I’m pretty sure that compatible personalities will have to enter the picture somewhere. And patience. And the maturity to let go of the “you can have everything!” canard.

    Like


  35. pathetic

    how old is Roissy? my guess: 37 going on 17

    Like


  36. 34 Elizabeth:

    And when I spoke of “long-term,” it was marriage I was thinking about, not love. (As everyone knows, the two aren’t necessarily the same.)

    Yep. You’re a lawyer-chick alright.

    Roissy — let slip the dogs of war 🙂

    Like


  37. David Alexander wept.

    No, even I tell myself that men like me should be dragged into the streets and shot.

    Like


  38. 36 Tupac:

    Oh pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth
    That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
    Thou art the ruins of the noblest man
    That ever lived in the tide of times.

    Excellent soliloquy from an excellent play. Personally, I think it’s better than the funeral oration. And you even got the “slip” right. Most people I know erroneously quote it as “loose.” But I’ll give ’em bonus points for quoting Shakespeare, even inaccurately. Liberal arts education these days is a joke.

    At any rate, I can handle a few puppies. 🙂

    Like


  39. “No, even I tell myself that men like me should be dragged into the streets and shot.”

    And yet all you ever do is talk about it.

    Like


  40. I dunno, Roissy.

    I’ve had women who’ve tried to have me killed, and that’s been after I’ve knocked them up.

    Does that mean I’m a retroactive omega or something?

    Like


  41. 24 whiskey

    [i]”What women fail to calculate, is that this sort of thing gets returned in spades when they age out of Alphas. Beta men can and do treat them quite badly in their thirties, repaying every insult, put down, contempt, and more they received from other women. Any women dating in her thirties comes to grips with this — she’s no longer as attractive, and the men in her life are not the smooth players with lots of testosterone she had before.”[/i]

    It is not only betas that treat these women not-so-nicely. the alpha, though bedding them in their 18-28s, has also had his share of bitchiness etc. and these guys, having a closer look into the female nature really cannot find much there which makes most women deserve a nice treat.

    He also sees the way the women treat the betas, so why should they deserve good treat from him?

    31 roissy

    [i]”i play the first one you listed — i pick out three guys in the bar and tell her to choose wisely. i feel like picking out the guys for her builds more rapport than having her wildly look around the room for three guys to her liking. plus, it’s funnier the first way. you can make the girl laugh by picking the worst slobs in the bar.”[/i]

    The way you play it frees the woman from her resposnibility that would exist if she were to choose the guys. I.e. you would know exactly what guy she finds attractive just by looking at who she chose from the few attractive guys present.

    We all know how women like responsibility and detest plausible deniability…

    When you choose the guys, she just has to put the labels on the guys.. and hey, the labels are so obvious, anybody would kill guy 1, marry guy 2, fuck guy 3… No responsibility on her side for stating the obvious.

    Thus, then it is a fun game.

    Like


  42. Elizabeth – “If it’s love people are after, that’ll take a lot more than money. It will also take a lot more than game, confidence, looks, or attraction. I’m pretty sure that compatible personalities will have to enter the picture somewhere. And patience. And the maturity to let go of the “you can have everything!” canard.”

    I think part of the problem is that you are confusing ‘the world is your oyster’ idea with that of higher standards.

    Like


  43. There is another reason why women hate betas. Women are receptive beings. They feel what you feel. They feel all the pathetic emotions these guys through when entering a bar. The insecurity, the lack of self esteem, the willingness to take whatever they can get, the inexperience, the sexual ineptitude. They see it, sense it and then they feel it. Imagine you would have to go through all of this each time you go out and catch one of these guys ogling at you…

    Like


  44. Wow, great point Czar. Never thought of it like that.

    Like


  45. And yet, (killing all the fat and ugly chicks with unbridled glee) is not seen as the equivalent of women disposing of the “betas” in the bar.

    I am shocked. Shocked I tell you.

    Like


  46. 42 Animus

    I think part of the problem is that you are confusing ‘the world is your oyster’ idea with that of higher standards.

    I’m a little confused what you mean here. My original entry in this thread was flippant — although I think my point, flimsily stated though it was, was valid. Bold assholes probably score a lot. But I don’t think they’re exactly known for their ability to adhere to long-term relationships. So if it’s a long-term prospect a woman is looking for, I maintain that the rich geek has an edge over the bold asshole. The bold asshole might be oozing sex appeal, but the rich geek oozes stability, which is more conducive to a long-term relationship than sex appeal, especially if you’re dealing with a sane woman who sizes men up not only as sexual partners, but life partners and fathers. Bold asshole might score higher than rich geek as a sexual partner, but in the latter two categories, he’s going to come up woefully short.

    Now if you’re dealing with a young girl in her late teens or early twenties who can’t think beyond tomorrow’s hangover, yes, the bold asshole is going to win. I believe I already made that allowance in my initial post.

    But as for my later point — that love takes a lot more than wealth, looks, game, etc. — I’m not seeing what’s wrong with my reasoning there. If it’s a long-term love people want, there’s a lot of compromise involved, and I think sexual chemistry is often one of the compromises. The guy I’ve had the most chemistry with was a handsome player type. He was a talented athlete, very bright, and quite witty. He was a lot of fun to hang around with, and a lot of fun to banter with. But we had no connection on a deeper level. He would have been a perfect fling, if I were a flinging kind of girl. But I’m not, and I’d be utterly foolish to expect to have that same kind of chemistry with my (theoretical) husband. People who get married for reasons of shallow liking and sexual chemistry alone are going to get divorced pretty fast. Relationships that survive in the long term need compatible personalities — compatible on the deep things, not just the shallow things — and the realism to know that your life partner will never be absolutely everything you want.

    Like


  47. And yet, (killing all the fat and ugly chicks with unbridled glee) is not seen as the equivalent of women disposing of the “betas” in the bar.

    I am shocked. Shocked I tell you.

    I think the point is that people expect women to be more sensitive and sympathetic to weakness and unattractiveness than men due to the perception of them as the more empathetic and emotional gender. That’s the irony. People already expect men to be insensitive to unattractive people, we already know that. The point of Roissy’s story is that contrary to popular belief, women can be just as bad and sometimes worse.

    Like


  48. Keep in mind – one of the great lines pushed on us through thousands of cultural passes a year is that: You don’t want to be rich and unhappy – you want to be poor and very happy – look at the cultural conditioning – take Disney’s “Alladdin” for example.

    Quite a leap I know for those of you that don’t naturally see it in front of your face every day as it happens. The point is that the MYTH of unhappy rich people everywhere is repeated sooo much that it has been assimilated by most people into their subconcious under the normal self interest radar screen.

    There are many many wealthy people who you will never meet and who want you to know not only NOTHING about them, or that they exist, but they take action in the form of shaping opinion from the hidden sidelines so that you think it is great to: Be happy – and never really question that so much of the tax revenue you paid in (the bottom 99%) is daily diverted into the ever increasing deep pockets (especially in a recession!) of the wealthest fraction of the top one percent.

    Those same ultra wealthy really are insanely happy. Yes they are. They have total freedom to do what they want and largely with who they want.

    There are long lines of people who would jump into their beds with no game at all just because they want to be in that top echelon somehow – and they would never have made it themselves.

    If they need “meaning” in their lives the can hire live-in spiritual advisors – hell, even Chopra would meet with a wealthy person for a weekend for the right price. Decent well meaning people have to make a living and there are tons of social contacts that are more easily made WHEN YOU HAVE NO MONETARY WORRIES. Imagine how “cocky and funny” a man can be WITH NO WORRIES.

    A way to get there without money is to not care – and pua stuff is good at training that. There is value to game, and some game will take you to upward mobility – Cultural example: insert Wedding Crashers. ha

    That movie pushed game and real ove – but made being rich look bad in a lot of ways – so it was well funded and “well played”. I liked it btw. It was entertaining without my buying into the rich people are unhappy bulls***.

    If by some enormous stretch of the imagination that the rich were unhappy or lonely one day – they could go into any city – say in Eastern Europe (a Riossy example ) and be swimming in delectable young beautiful women for as long as they wanted it, and it wouldn’t take too long to find a dozen worthy girlfriends to last for the season.

    You might find your cultural conditioning saying “but many rich people aren’t happy” or they are “not cool” or “out of it” or “nerds” or any of the hundreds of other excuses inprinted by culture – but you would largely be WRONG.

    At the level I’m talking about, it is easy to buy a villa and offer free rent – wink – it is done all of the time. LEGAL Harems. Look at old hefner. All you need is the wealth and a population that DOES’NT QUESTION WHY WE DON’T TAX THE RICH.

    Now as in all effective “lines” we are fed – there is truth to being happy without being rich – and the nerd wife wants a more-alpha male between her legs even if it is side trips to the pool cabana with poolboy – or she stays faithful but has fantasys all of the time aboiut others than her wimpier husband. This is a lymbic truth and it works well with subverting an individuals higher cortex survival needs.

    Not giving most of your earnings to the wealthy through the government corruption / non-taxation of the wealthy pipeline is higher function thinking. MOST people can’t even conceive of the world without the being screwed by the rich through these methods. The conditoning removes their free will – the action of being able to make the right choice for themselves – or the ability to effectively organize to stop the bad things from continuing to happen.

    Just like the electronic voting machine companies remove your choice by making machines that cannot be verified to be in sync with the actual votes cast, it only takes a few lines of code anywhere in the long chain of custody to flip the votes to any candiadte the voting machine company wants. Thanks Diebold! ( sorry now they are Premier).

    Electronic voting systems are a quite insane system right now and the very crazyness of it all flips another cultural switch that is really engineereld into the system at higher level government levels – in colusion with the wealthy sideline players who keep a low profile – that switch is apathy – “there is nothing I can do about it” thinking. See how it works?

    So mix the truth with the “lines” – the cultural conditioning to hand other HUGE fractions of everyones earnings below the top 1% (they have loopholes so the rate doesn’t even matter since it isn’t being collected from them). MOST of the ultra wealthy made their money from the government. From government contracts, being untaxed- or taxed at the 15% capital gains tax rate at the maximum even if they don’t lift a finger to hide it through loopholes. So they keep 85% minimum and you and and 99% of all other wage earners pay pretty much 1/3 – 1/2 or more of your income to income and sales taxes and FICA.

    BTW- FICA directly funds the wealthy which are funded from the tax base through contracts and securities – because it is spent immediately on them and then replaced with bonds that promise to pay off the new debt that has replaced your fica dollar paid in. So it loses value immediately A. because it is then paid out and B. because it is now a liability in the form of a bondholder that has to be paid off int the future with interest.

    I could go on but I have to go have fun now.

    Like


  49. “There is another reason why women hate betas. Women are receptive beings. They feel what you feel. They feel all the pathetic emotions these guys through when entering a bar. The insecurity, the lack of self esteem, the willingness to take whatever they can get, the inexperience, the sexual ineptitude. They see it, sense it and then they feel it. Imagine you would have to go through all of this each time you go out and catch one of these guys ogling at you…”

    You are very right and let us add to that, if you are an 8 being approached by a 5:
    *The bitterness.
    *The depression.
    *The willingness to delude himself rather than improve himself.
    *The sense of entitlement. (I deserve…)
    * The lack of social skill.
    * Having to think of a way to reject him without hurting his feelings too much.

    (I’m talking an alround 5 here, so weak at looks, personality, job, game etc.)

    The unattractive guy that is fantastic on the inside is largely a myth. Most guys who are a 7 have better characters and personalities than 5’s.

    Plus as you said, bitter 5’s are frustrated with pretty girls and would like nothing better than getting even by marrying one and then treating her badly. Who on earth would sign up for that? ((Cat*2)+Vibrator)> Bitter 5

    A 7 has been treated okay by life and likes women but still feels lucky to marry an 8 and will treat her well and work on the marriage if needed. He also has not been around the block so much so he can still bond with a girl and has not built a habit of casual sex. On the other hand, a woman showing attention is not new to him either, so he is able to say no. She can also still feel sexual attraction for him after 5 years or a few decades.

    You get nearly the same effect if the guy is an 8 or a 9 if the girl happens to be exactly his type, making her subjectively a 9.5 in his eyes. In this case the girl will work a bit harder to keep the guy and her efforts will also be returned. He runs the hot bath and lights the candles, she serves his favorite meal in a little something from Agent Provocateur and the fireworks begin! A 8 may be able to find another 8, but a new 8 that also has red hair, small feet, dimples in her cheeck who likes mountaineering and can cook well is going to be harder to find. It still pays off to hold on.

    A 9-10 is not such a good choice, he’ll likely not drive 2 hours to see his 8, not do much special. Though there are more male 10’s than female 10’s (Flatter bell curve) and some will thus be with 8’s, 10’s will feel like they are settling for the 8 and may feel entitled to cheat. After all, he can easily get another 8.

    She could go out with a 6, but let’s face it: If he shows nothing special in the first few dates, she is likely not so excited and his slot will go to a new 7,8 or 9.

    Like


  50. Elizabeth, women don’t say “oooh! He looks stable!”. Stability is not what attracts women; unless you’re on eHarmony.

    Does long term love require ‘more’ like you describe? Yes. But I think you will find that women are more willing to sacrifice ‘sexual chemistry’ than men. It’s no coincidence that the woman I have loved more than any other was also the one who was always attacking me sexually.

    Like


  51. 48 Elizabeth:

    If it’s a long-term love people want, there’s a lot of compromise involved, and I think sexual chemistry is often one of the compromises.

    That’s precisely the problem, and you expressed it beautifully, but only from the woman’s perspective. She’s sacrificing sexual chemistry for other considerations. But the guy views it differently: he’s sacrificing random variety for what he thinks is a sure thing, never realizing she’s already discarded sex as an object. To the guy, this exchange seems mercenary, since sex with his wife remains a prime motivator for marriage.

    I’ve seen three marriages among my friends founder this past year on this point, when the wife stops “feeling it” for her husband (little surprise there, since she’s never really felt it to begin with, since she married him for other reasons). And since the reasons why she doesn’t “feel it” any more remain locked within the female subconscious, he’s left scrambling to get back in her good graces without knowing exactly how. She eventually gets addicted to the power this gives her over her husband, it’s a game where she defines the rules at her whim.

    Married women who want to avoid all of this should have lots and lots of sex with their husbands — there’s a reason why it is called marital duty.

    Like


  52. @48 miik, very interesting post. It did get me thinking, 1/3 of my check is deducted. I sure would like to keep a bit more of that. It’s why people keep wanting those tax cuts.

    @51 Kevin, the wife always feels it in the beginning, when the whole thing is new and fresh. It’s exciting, it’s new, her psychology says this is it! This is the “one.” These women marry because of that rush of feeling “in love” combined with the other objectively great qualities that the men have.

    However, almost always, she stops feeling those highs, because that passionate dopamine rush inevitably cools to oxytocin-style long-term bonding. It’s simple brain chemistry. Lots and lots of sex alone will not make her feel those passionate feelings of arousal again. And women get addicted to those chemicals, and we want more and more. So we look for some new man to kick start the burning fires of lust and bonding all over again.

    It is very self-destructive, of course, particularly when a woman throws away her long-term relationship and possibly children in exchange for a shot of the new high. It’s not unlike the drug addicts who sell their cars and houses to get another hit of euphoria. Back in the old days women would be shamed into not doing it, only fantasizing about it. These days, many still hesitate, but many simply take the plunge.

    The female body and brain are a curse, I tell you.

    Like


  53. I think the point is that people expect women to be more sensitive and sympathetic to weakness and unattractiveness than men due to the perception of them as the more empathetic and emotional gender. That’s the irony.

    Women are very sympathetic to weakness and unattractiveness — in certain situations. As a rule, women only feel this way towards people in their own “tribe,” “group,” or “family.” Those feelings generally do not extend to the unfortunates of the whole entire world.

    When a woman sees characters on TV, in movies, in books, etc. she might mourn, weep, feel a great deal of anguish for the person who is rebuffed, etc. That is because their stories have been allowed to transpire before her, and psychologically it is as if she has already folded them into her social circle.

    In the older days it would have been someone in the village or in her immediate social circle that she was hearing the story of, and so she would respond accordingly with caring and sympathy. But in the anonymous urban jungle, alienated from most relatives and friends, she will feel defensive and cold toward strangers. Rather than feeling their pain as her own, she will be hostile toward them.

    Remember stories of the wicked step mother or non-biological aunt? Women simply do not feel much for anyone who are not immediate to them. We women are simply very self-absorbed creatures, and our higher empathy is highly tuned to specific individuals who may help us perpetuate our own well-being existence — our chosen lovers, our families, and our genetic offspring.

    Like


  54. Thanks for the explanation, Hope, I’m glad you’re still commenting!

    Maybe you can answer a question that has been on my mind for months: I am a dude. Sex is pretty fun no matter with whom — I mean, there are some basic aspects to it that are pleasurable regardless of the circumstances, assuming a base level of attractiveness in one’s partner. And I know enough women who have sex “by themselves” to know that there are certain pleasurable aspects of it that are also independent of one’s partner.

    Ok, assume the base level of attractiveness met for a woman in her husband. Wouldn’t sex with him, even if it no longer produces a chemical rush, be better at least than no sex? I can see why the drive can ebb to a steady simmer, but I can’t understand why it goes out completely, unless there is something else.

    I suspect, watching my friends, that the something else is the ability to manipulate their husbands (to get better jobs, buy new furniture, have another kid, move to a bigger house, upgrade the wedding set, you name it), which waxes in importance as the sexual attraction wanes. Is this too dark a view?

    Like


  55. Ok, assume the base level of attractiveness met for a woman in her husband. Wouldn’t sex with him, even if it no longer produces a chemical rush, be better at least than no sex? I can see why the drive can ebb to a steady simmer, but I can’t understand why it goes out completely, unless there is something else.

    The urge to have sex does not go out completely, but a woman can easily go for weeks or months without sex, particularly if she does not feel good. When a woman is in love, she can be totally exhausted, hungry, tired, in pain, etc. but her brain will be bathing her in a swath of chemicals, making her naturally high, giddy and wanting him and only him all the time. That is when she’ll be wanting it a ton, “going all night.”

    Like I said, that feeling does not last. It is temporary insanity, as the ancient Greeks described it. Brain scans show that being in love looks a lot like being addicted to a drug, but the brain eventually stops producing those high-inducing chemicals.

    Another thing about the physiological aspect of sex for women is that we mistreat our bodies. Many women are not very connected with their bodies. I certainly was not when I was younger! I had no idea why I was tired all the time, had all these headaches, or would get hungry and eat, and then feel like crap afterwards. In fact our whole lives, women are almost at “war” with our bodies, with getting the first period, PMS, bleeding, cramping, hormonal changes, childbirth, breastfeeding, childrearing, menopause, etc.

    After I started exercising and cutting out caffeine/soda and junk food, I got a lot better connection with my body. I stopped eating too much / the wrong kind of thing, being so tired and stressed all the time, and stopped getting so stressed out. Stress chemicals really make a woman not want to have sex either. It does not matter if the guy looks great, she just won’t be interested. Even if he has “game,” even if he tries to make her jealous, or hit her to make her “hot,” if her mind is not into it, her body won’t be either.

    I suspect, watching my friends, that the something else is the ability to manipulate their husbands (to get better jobs, buy new furniture, have another kid, move to a bigger house, upgrade the wedding set, you name it), which waxes in importance as the sexual attraction wanes. Is this too dark a view?

    No, it’s not too dark. She’s just replacing one set of brain chemical rush for another — sexual gratification for material gratification. Men and women both experience a temporary high when they buy new stuff, again the “newness” which is transient but excitement-inducing. This is more socially acceptable, so a lot of women push for that. They want the “stability” and “security” of their husband having a high-paying job, a nice house in the suburbs, and the “status” and “nicer appearance” of new furniture, more expensive wedding jewelry, new clothes, etc.

    These are things that can and probably do make her slightly happier in the short term, and they mask a lot of the underlying problems with the relationships. She also stops wanting to “put out” because her brain chemistry now has her in “nesting” mode, and having sex is “procreation” mode. Procreation mode is induced by newness and excitement, and her doting and accommodating husband is not so new or exciting.

    When a woman is not turned on, it’s like a man trying to have sex with a limp penis. If she’s not turned on, often it just won’t feel too good, and to her it’ll feel like putting a semi-hard object into her nose vigorously, over and over again. It can actually hurt, if she is not sufficiently lubricated and having sex. Then that becomes a self-perpetuating cycle where she withdraws, and then the relationship deteriorates, and she won’t feel affectionate enough to have sex at all.

    The brain chemical baths are extremely powerful for a woman. All she wants is to be aroused psychologically, but unlike men who are easy and visual, women do not often know exactly what turns them on. There are lots of studies in which a woman experiencing “sexual dysfunction” in a research will be given sugar pill placebo, and she will get hot and horny, but return to her normal state afterwards.

    Yes, this is why we are famously fickle. Like I said, our very bodies and brains are a curse.

    Like


  56. 54 Kevin:

    Is this too dark a view?

    Nope. It’s the unvarnished truth.

    Like


  57. “And I know enough women who have sex “by themselves” to know that there are certain pleasurable aspects of it that are also independent of one’s partner.”

    When you have sex with yourself, it is still loving sex. Sleeping with a man you do not love or you know does not love you and never will is offputting if not bordering on traumatic for a normally wired woman.

    Men and women are very different about this. I guess for men, mediocre sex is better than no sex at all. For women it is very different.

    For a woman:

    Loving sex = physical pleasure + emotional pleasure
    Masturbation = physical pleasure + imagined emotional pleasure
    Loveless sex = emotional pain overschadowing physical pleasure

    Kind of like eating chocolate cake while someone is cutting you in the leg.

    Like


  58. 50 Animus

    But I think you will find that women are more willing to sacrifice ‘sexual chemistry’ than men.

    51 Kevin

    Married women who want to avoid all of this should have lots and lots of sex with their husbands — there’s a reason why it’s called marital duty.

    I would think that a good wife would want a please her husband, and a good husband would want to please his wife. That means doing certain things when one is not always inclined to do them — I don’t have a problem with that in principle or in practice.

    But I’m a little confused by this:

    That’s precisely the problem, and you expressed it beautifully, but only from the woman’s perspective. She’s sacrificing sexual chemistry for other considerations. But the guy views it differently: he’s sacrificing random variety for what he thinks is a sure thing, never realizing she’s already discarded sex as an object. To the guy, this exchange seems mercenary, since sex with his wife remains a prime motivator for marriage.

    Let’s assume that there’s a beautiful woman with two guys competing for her interests. Guy No. 1 is handsome and charming, the classic player type. He’s also unreliable and uninterested in a long-term relationship, marriage, children. Guy No. 2 is hardworking, responsible, and has many of the same long-term interests as the woman — that is, marriage and children. The woman has more sexual chemistry with Guy No. 1, but she is also attracted to Guy No. 2, and she feels more genuine affection for him than for Guy No. 1. So she sacrifices a few weeks or months of hot, unbridled passion with Guy No. 1 for lifetime love with Guy No. 2.

    Assuming she’s a good, honorable woman who doesn’t use her husband’s desire to manipulate him — how exactly is that mercenary? It seems to me she made the right decision. Passion fades. It would be utterly insane to discard someone you really love, someone you can build a life with, just because you have more passion for someone else. I don’t think you guys are saying that women should try to pair permanently with the guy they have the most passion for — I guess I’m a little confused by what you are trying to say. I’m not saying people should get married to someone they have no sexual desire for. I’m just saying that best person for someone to marry isn’t always going to be the person they have the most chemistry with.

    Like


  59. Oops, sorry for not closing the italics there.

    Like


  60. @ 55 Hope

    Your comments seem to support my theory that women are sexless, or just too fickle to deal with in any long-term sexual relationship. After reading what you wrote, it makes no sense to rely on a long-term relationship for any sex.

    Like


  61. Kevin,
    I’ve circled back to your earnest question three times, so will answer it.

    Yes, your view is too dark, and insulting. I’m a woman and really don’t believe married women intentionally withhold to manipulate, although I can see how men interpret as such. If I am angry, I can not possibly imagine sex with my husband. Thus, he has occasionally interpreted it as withholding.

    I’ll list some reasons I’ve experienced for not desiring sex:
    -I hate my body, especially after childbirth. I don’t feel worthy of physical attention.
    -I’m literally too tired, and having sleep-deprivation headaches. This is especially true after childbirth, when I can not sleep uninterrupted for more than a few hours.
    -He spends no time with me. He’s a workaholic; we’ve had no emotionally intimate time in three weeks. I’m angry and can’t get intimate with the stranger he has become.
    -I rank 99 on the 100 items on his priority list; just squeaking past taking out of the garbage.
    -He’s gained 75 lbs. and his voice is prematurely aged. He’s not sexy to me. Men delude themselves to think appearance doesn’t matter.
    -His thinking has become sclerotic, predictable, and he’s lost his curiosity of life.

    Your “manipulation” theory is flat out insulting. If I am angry, I am consumed, and , I can not become aroused. Can you become aroused when you are angry?

    To reassure you, we’ve gone through these sex problems and more. All are remedial, and we’re now enjoying ourselves.


    Like


  62. 55 Hope:

    No, it’s not too dark. She’s just replacing one set of brain chemical rush for another — sexual gratification for material gratification. Men and women both experience a temporary high when they buy new stuff, again the “newness” which is transient but excitement-inducing. This is more socially acceptable, so a lot of women push for that. They want the “stability” and “security” of their husband having a high-paying job, a nice house in the suburbs, and the “status” and “nicer appearance” of new furniture, more expensive wedding jewelry, new clothes, etc.

    These are things that can and probably do make her slightly happier in the short term, and they mask a lot of the underlying problems with the relationships. She also stops wanting to “put out” because her brain chemistry now has her in “nesting” mode, and having sex is “procreation” mode. Procreation mode is induced by newness and excitement, and her doting and accommodating husband is not so new or exciting.

    Somewhat ironic, I think, that on a blog whose raison d’etre is the destruction of “pretty lies”, that it was not Roissy, but one his commenters — a woman, no less — who drove the final stake in the heart of that final, sacred cow: Romantic Love(*).

    And before anyone starts tut-tutting, I’m not talking about Companionate Love.

    TC

    (*) None of the above is to be taken in any way as contradicting the special way I feel about My Precious. Yes, I’m looking at you, darling.

    Like


  63. Thanks, Hope, for the great summation. If it’s any consolation, I see the same tendencies in my gay friends: the “married” ones get fat, stop having sex and start manipulating each other. You’d think two dudes would be more compatible, but if anything the life cycles of most gay relationships I see resemble a frenetic parody of my straight friends’. I’m not entirely convinced that it’s a female-brain-chemical thing as much as it is a power-dynamics-of-sexual-relationships thing.

    Like


  64. 61 some spoiled, entitled princess:

    -He spends no time with me. He’s a workaholic; we’ve had no emotionally intimate time in three weeks. I’m angry and can’t get intimate with the stranger he has become.

    Horseshit.

    Like


  65. After reading what you wrote, it makes no sense to rely on a long-term relationship for any sex.

    People did not really rely on it in the past. The idea of punishment for any and all adulterous activity is a cultural phenomenon.

    Even the scientists who previously thought birds were exclusively monogamous now know that they cheat quite often.

    Incidentally, sexual activity did not take place exclusively between men and women throughout the ages. Remember the ancient Greeks?

    Time after time you say this is all proof for a life of masturbatory sessions. That’s your own choice, David Alexander, not one you should impose on others.

    Like


  66. to #64. I am no entitled princess. I am a workhorse. During that ignomonious period of our lives I was a drafthorse pulling a plow through clay sod. Excessive work kills libido.

    Like


  67. 61 anony — thank you, I’m not trying to insult, only to understand. If I’m insulting anyone, I guess it’s my friends — leave the moral implications of that alone for a minute.

    Though I’d point out that, excepting the first two things on your list, which I can certainly understand, per the remainder, you’d start feeling attracted towards your husband if he 1) spent more time with you, 2) made you a higher priority, 3) lost weight and became more youthful, and 4) showed more openness in his thinking. So you deny him sex until he does them. Hmmm.

    Like


  68. TC 62:

    (*) None of the above is to be taken in any way as contradicting the special way I feel about My Precious. Yes, I’m looking at you, darling.

    [Blushing] Why Tupac! How sweet! I didn’t know your feelings had become so strong.

    I’ll make sure to tell Clio the next time I see her that you have transferred your affections from her to me.

    Slightly embarrassed but perhaps just a bit secretly pleased,
    Patrick

    Like


  69. Somewhat ironic, I think, that on a blog whose raison d’etre is the destruction of “pretty lies”, that it was not Roissy, but one his commenters — a woman, no less — who drove the final stake in the heart of that final, sacred cow: Romantic Love(*).

    Romantic Love is an amazing, wondrous, short-lived drug. And we are all addicts or recovering addicts.

    Even knowing all that, we still want to deeply inhale every now and then, don’t we?

    Companionate love is healthy, sweet, warm, comforting, relaxing, familial and stable. Romantic love is unhealthy, spicy, fiery, exciting, exhilarating, and explosive.

    We want both. We want it all.

    So predictable we are.

    Like


  70. #67 Kevin,
    I do not deny him sex. I am not attracted to him but we still have sex–often. During the cold years of our marriage, we did not have sex. I dropped the hate, and can compensate for it and make it work. I love the way he touches me, and can become aroused.

    Like


  71. 68 PatrickH:

    <I’ll make sure to tell Clio the next time I see her that you have transferred your affections from her to me.

    Canada is surely a beautiful place. But I’m certain it gets mighty cold in the winter time. Did you take any interest at all in David’s railfanning discussion? If so, I would like to extend a sincere invitation for you to join me in Miami. You might even accompany me on the fabled Metrorail, where I would very much like to introduce you to some “””colorful neighborhoods”, up close and personal. An erstwhile Renaissance Man such as yourself could scarcely refuse the opportunity, no?

    Like


  72. @ 71 TC

    I’m guessing unlike most systems, Miami Metrorail conveniently only serves where non-whites live which means the bulk of the ridership is non-white?

    @ 65 Hope

    One could say that I’m frustrated when people tell me that women are interested in sex and that I need a girlfriend to replace my masturbatory habits because my choice isn’t normal, but when I see everybody else engaged in relationships complaining about the lack of sex or their partner, it makes me cringe. Hell, when I see guys with smiles on their faces with their so-so looking girlfriends in love, it makes me cringe too. I just can’t understand how they’re so happy and content when their girlfriends are hideous while I can’t even imagine having sex with a girl who’s remotely attractive to me because the concept seems comedic. I guess despite being tired of masturbating sometimes, it still makes more sense because the fantasy is more addictive and alluring than dealing with the real life.

    Like


  73. Marriage almost always means that the woman will compromise in terms of sexual attraction.

    Even girls with minimal sexual experience have encountered at least one alpha guy (the 9’s and 10’s, if you will) that her crotch was burning for.

    He did what alphas do – and ultimately left her craving for “stability”.

    Given this dilemma, you can find some girls cycling between alphas and betas for a while. They are caught between moments of outstanding sex (feeling like the naughtiest little whore in training for Big Daddy) and periods with mediocre sex, but lots of cuddling and finally being treated like a princess.

    Ultimately, she decides that the emotional pain associated with alphas is not worth the investment (except for occasional flings, of course – who wants to spend an entire life without bed-soaking, minute-lasting multiple orgasms?). And her long term plans shift over to betas with a handful of alpha traits (the 7’s and 8’s).

    Things get really tricky when her next set of natural instincts kick in. The poor bastard of a husband, being a beta to begin with, will be continually tested for weaknesses and simultaneously emasculated by her attempts to smoothen out and deform the “good raw material”. He can either choose drama or do what she asks for and lose her sexual attraction in return.

    So it goes and she gets less and less horny for her man. This creates scarcity and thereby increases the value of sex. He can’t help but wanting it more. And this neediness is a further turnoff for wifey.

    Simply demanding more sex (marital duty) will result in sore pussy and even less attraction. Treating her to classy dinners, candlelights and expensive jewelry lets her feel his neediness (and true motives) and thus won’t win her back either.

    But – hubby will get more BJ’s after a while. At this point, somebody else has “re-awakened” her vagina and she can enjoy sex again when closing her eyes.

    Like


  74. 72 David Alexander:

    I’m guessing unlike most systems, Miami Metrorail conveniently only serves where non-whites live which means the bulk of the ridership is non-white?

    For the most part. It does serve downtown, so it recieves significant use by the Suits, but it is primarily ridden by POC.

    Here in Miami, it goes by a different name: “MetroFail.” It was a beauracratic boondogle that has been losing money every year, and whenever the local politcos start their handwringing about “what needs to be done”, no one ever dares point out the elephant in the room: whites don’t want to ride with non-whites.

    Like


  75. 73 Czar:

    EPIC TRUTH

    And the women who take the devils bargain of opting for

    “periods with mediocre sex, but lots of cuddling and finally being treated like a princess”

    will be the ones to denigrate the….err….”ambitious”… choice of her more libidinous sisters.

    Like


  76. It was a beauracratic boondogle that has been losing money every year

    With the exception of the Japanese and Chinese in Hong Kong, the vast majority of rail transport projects are unprofitable whether in Europe, the Anglosphere, or the United States.

    no one ever dares point out the elephant in the room: whites don’t want to ride with non-whites.

    Well, of course, it helps if you build a line to where whites actual live…

    Interestingly, here in New York, whites ride the subway with blacks without problem, and I’ve seen similar practices in Philly, Boston, San Francisco, and San Jose. In contrast, MARTA in Atlanta was basically mostly black people outside of rush hours.

    Like


  77. “Ultimately, she decides that the emotional pain associated with alphas is not worth the investment (except for occasional flings, of course – who wants to spend an entire life without bed-soaking, minute-lasting multiple orgasms?). And her long term plans shift over to betas with a handful of alpha traits (the 7’s and 8’s).

    Things get really tricky when her next set of natural instincts kick in. The poor bastard of a husband, being a beta to begin with, will be continually tested for weaknesses and simultaneously emasculated by her attempts to smoothen out and deform the “good raw material”. He can either choose drama or do what she asks for and lose her sexual attraction in return.”

    If the 7 or 8 happened to be my type of 7 or 8 I would be genuinely turned on by him and if we were reasonable compatible (close in age, similar views on life, similar goals but also complementing personalities) I could control any urge to ‘improve’ him most of the time. But then again, according to some people I’m into nice guys anyway.

    A lot of women mess up their life by marrying someone too far from their ideal. If you are lukewarm about him sexually, imagine things when the newness fades. Trying to improve him will not change him anyway, I have never seen it accomplish anything. Actually, I think improving myself would be more effective. When I lost a lot of weight, several of my friends were inspired to do the same, even my mother was and telling her never helped, even if the doctor did so. You can unilaterally work on a marriage by working on yourself and not accepting bull.

    Like


  78. Damn, Hope. I’ve been away for a while, and if you are the same Asian gamer chick from a while ago, I have to say: while you were always eloquent, your writing has new passion and fluency that leave me breathless even while the cold truths you impart flood over me, turning my already-frigid heart to ice.

    #70 anony
    Thank you for the glimmer of hope. I dearly hope my unhappily married friends can come to the same understanding. They loved each other passionately once. It’s painful to see that turn to bitterness and hatred with such predictability.

    Like


  79. Czar-God:

    Marriage almost always means that the woman will compromise in terms of sexual attraction.

    Even girls with minimal sexual experience have encountered at least one alpha guy (the 9’s and 10’s, if you will) that her crotch was burning for.

    He did what alphas do – and ultimately left her craving for “stability”.

    Given this dilemma, you can find some girls cycling between alphas and betas for a while. They are caught between moments of outstanding sex (feeling like the naughtiest little whore in training for Big Daddy) and periods with mediocre sex, but lots of cuddling and finally being treated like a princess.

    Ultimately, she decides that the emotional pain associated with alphas is not worth the investment (except for occasional flings, of course – who wants to spend an entire life without bed-soaking, minute-lasting multiple orgasms?). And her long term plans shift over to betas with a handful of alpha traits (the 7’s and 8’s).

    Things get really tricky when her next set of natural instincts kick in. The poor bastard of a husband, being a beta to begin with, will be continually tested for weaknesses and simultaneously emasculated by her attempts to smoothen out and deform the “good raw material”. He can either choose drama or do what she asks for and lose her sexual attraction in return.

    So it goes and she gets less and less horny for her man. This creates scarcity and thereby increases the value of sex. He can’t help but wanting it more. And this neediness is a further turnoff for wifey.

    Simply demanding more sex (marital duty) will result in sore pussy and even less attraction. Treating her to classy dinners, candlelights and expensive jewelry lets her feel his neediness (and true motives) and thus won’t win her back either.

    But – hubby will get more BJ’s after a while. At this point, somebody else has “re-awakened” her vagina and she can enjoy sex again when closing her eyes.

    I just wanted to see that again.

    Like


  80. 73 Czar & 79 Tupac, thanks for reposting!

    The voice of experience I presume? I can’t say that I’ve ever seen it presented more devastatingly.

    We aren’t chasing a chimera, though. A couple of weeks ago was my favorite aunt & uncle’s 50th anniversary. They are real, heart-on-sleeve people and very much in love. I nearly wept for the rare beauty of it.

    I said nearly. God damn romantic weakness keeps poppin out.

    Like


  81. 80 Kevin:

    We aren’t chasing a chimera, though. A couple of weeks ago was my favorite aunt & uncle’s 50th anniversary. They are real, heart-on-sleeve people and very much in love. I nearly wept for the rare beauty of it.

    I said nearly. God damn romantic weakness keeps poppin out.

    Tell be about it. I thought I had it all under control and then Alias Clio has to slip past my blinders, infecting me with the “accursed affliction” once more.

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to prowl the night in search of new flesh to erase the memory from my mind.

    Like


  82. Czar saidWomen are receptive beings. They feel what you feel,/i>

    I agree.

    Like


  83. on September 13, 2008 at 1:31 am Pope on Dope, Comare on Lap

    Czar @73, god is with you in your holy person until the part about the BJs. Here in the west, this is the first, not last, thing to go after she get the rock and the “royal” wedding.

    In the big picture, Roissy and the FRD make a case for female hypergamy. I find this case to be very powerful based on the antedotes and personal history. His holiness enjoy many women. But his holiness would like to see some data. Some, how do you say, natural experients? How big a problem is the hypergamy? Does median woman really have many more partners that median male, and is male distribution that skewed? And now that its in the open, will it increase hostilities in “beta” males as they learn about this hypergamy and that woman is settling for them after big fun with alpha? And last, is this why those damn Dutch so tall? All women mate with tall men while husband too stoned too know and object to support that bastard baby.

    But this is not the inquisition of the women. The men are evil, we all know, they like only the cute and shapely women (though his holiness very liberal with the full figured ones). But if women have this hypergamy, they are at least as evil, no?

    Peace be with you.

    Like


  84. whiskey, it is interesting that you say beta males will block vote against feminism and continuation of the matriarchy. I don’t really see it happening. If it was, almost all white, dorky young men would be voting McCain, and from what I see, that is certainly not the case. If anything, I would expect more alphas to vote Republican and more betas to vote Democrat from what I see. I don’t know how Palin influences this – most conservatives love her, but I don’t trust her in the least and I am still undecided. I think she is kind of a hidden feminist (she IS part of a group called Feminists for Life). Most conservatives are such sheep to fall for this. Not to mention her ethical issues in Alaska.

    Like


  85. 81 Tupac

    Good luck with that one, brother. Though Clio isn’t a chimera either, I once saw a picture of the woman herself, in stony contemplation of a begonia. Was but a fleeting glimpse, like a fan dance, or the aurora borealis, or maybe the Flying Dutchman, here one minute, gone the next, but I swear I saw her! Don’t think Rapunzel’s gonna be letting her hair down from her ivory tower any time soon, either.

    Love ya darling!

    Like


  86. 86 Kevin:

    Don’t think Rapunzel’s gonna be letting her hair down from her ivory tower any time soon, either.

    You know what Kevin, I just had an intuition that you are entirely correct.

    Fine. So be it, Clio.

    My head bloodied but unbowed,

    I bid you adieu.

    Do you still keep paper flowers
    In the bottom-drawer with your Belgian lace
    Taking them out every year
    To watch the colours fade away?

    Do you still believe in fairy tales
    In battlements of shiny castles
    Safe from the dragons
    That lie beneath the hill?

    Are you still a Russian princes
    Rescued by a gypsy dancer
    To anyone who’ll listen
    Is that a story you still tell?

    You live a life of fantasy
    Your diary romantic fiction
    Can’t you see it’s hard for me
    Can you see what I’m trying to say?

    It’s a gentleman’s excuse me
    So I’ll take one step to the side
    Can you get it inside your head
    I’m tired of dancing?

    For every one step forward
    We’re taking two steps back
    Can you get it inside your head
    I’m tired of dancing?

    I know you still like old fashioned waltzes
    Your reflection in the mirror that you flirt with
    As you glide across the floor
    But if I told you the music’s over
    Would you want to hear
    That your dance card is empty
    That there’s no-one really there?

    Do you still believe in Santa Claus
    There’s a milionaire looking for your front door
    With the key to a life
    That you’d never understand?

    And all I have to offer
    Is the love I have, it’s freely given
    You’ll see it’s value
    When you see what I’m trying to say

    It’s a gentleman’s excuse me
    So I’ll take one step to the side
    Can you get it inside your head
    I’m tired of dancing?

    For every one step forward, I’m taking two steps back
    Can you get it inside your head that from this one step forward
    There’s no turning back?
    Can you get it inside you’re head I’m tired of dancing?

    We’re finished dancing.
    — Fish

    Like


  87. on September 13, 2008 at 1:20 pm Pope on Dope, Comare on Lap

    Related to comment 84, Politics of the hypergamy:

    1. Good for alpha males, can have many women, freedom, family, everything.

    2. Good for most pretty girls, can do what they want, “play field” for years, still nab husband. But some will miscalculate and end up ridiculed in Roissy post.

    3. Good for ugly girls, large pool of desperate beta men, much greater chance of quality husband than in old monogamy days.

    4. Beta males take it where sun no shine. Most still clueless of hypergamy, but won’t have votes to change it anyway.

    Many alpha males will be conservative because it signal non-betaness and no fear of censure from the female. But if big part of alpha power comes from money alpha will often show contempt for money by advertising liberal.

    Like


  88. Jack —

    If anything, I would expect more alphas to vote Republican and more betas to vote Democrat from what I see.

    Yeah.

    But that’s because almost no beta men have read Roissy still. I honestly think if all beta men did read Roissy or other’s with Roissy’s message for a three month period, at least three times a week, it would GREATLY change their voting behavior.

    Married men already vote Republican or are independent leaning that way. Singles in many ways would even more if they could get out from under the pervasive feminist mindset. These issues are more important than anything else for beta men who are having trouble finding a decent wife, so …

    I’m an independent. I don’t even like Republicans that much, at least a lot of them. I’m of a non doctrinaire libertarian frame of mind, and equal opportunity anti-dogmatist, if you will. Because political correctness is the regnant dogma of the intellectual elites of our time, I spend most of my time being against that, but I’m certainly against religious right dogma too, and so on. I tend to like bohemians who don’t take themselves too seriously. Well, I like all kinds of people who don’t. But the people who tend to take themselves most seriously of all in our culture at the moment, and who brooke any serious dissent very badly, are leftists.

    Like


  89. Wow, some great stuff on this thread. From the women in particular — they are being I think very accurate to both the possibilities and difficulties in making long-term relationships work. Post 61, by the anonymous woman, struck me as particularly honest and revealing — any guy who wants to keep a LTR going sexually would be well advised to read that post carefully. But lots of other good stuff too. A lot of Roissy’s advice is way off (on LTR in particular, he can be good on pickup), but his shtick is so over the top that it sometimes has the benefit of triggering real honest dialogue between the sexes.

    Speaking of over the top, the post by Czar at 71 is so ridiculous and extreme (only say 5% of men, the 9s and 10s, can ever sexually please a woman? And then only if he doesn’t really commit to her?) that it made me think. It strikes me that just as a lot of women build up walls of repression against understanding their need for hot nasty casual sex, a lot of men repress their need for intimacy. Long-term intimacy is much riskier proposition, after all. Easier to convince yourself that it’s impossible.

    Like


  90. 83: Read this ebook:
    http://womensinfidelity.com/
    and you will understand why spouses receive more oral the moment they start to cheat.

    89: There is a difference between pleasing a woman and the kind of sex (and orgasms) the top 5% of men can offer.

    Sex with an experienced beta is pleasurable for women, no doubt. But the things that happen to her when a high status male wears her like a sock – that’s what she thinks about when making herself happy.

    And why wouldn’t the top 5% of guys settle? Why would they? Life is one big party for them. No woman will be able to chain them down by means of a legal contract. This is one of the reasons they are so attractive after all.

    Like


  91. Czar, are men who are 9’s and 10’s really better lovers than 8’s?

    I don’t intimately know a woman who has been around enough to have a representative sample, otherwise I would ask.

    Like


  92. I do agree that more men need to read this blog, especially single men in their 20’s. Basically for young men (alpha AND beta), Republicans are bad, and Democrats are worse. The current system of subsidizing irresponsible female behavior is horrible for our future. I don’t understand why more people don’t get it. Young men like us don’t have an interest in the election because these issues don’t make it into the forefront. Reps are stuck in the past and Dems are actively against us at every turn. And again, the question is “what are we going to do about it”?

    Sure, develop “game” and try to play the game as it is. But that’s a bandaid. Too many “beta” males are in complete denial as to the forces opposing them and their chances of a good relationship and family life. I think it’s funny when there are surveys on the issues for the election. The economy? Health care? Environment? Dude, these all mean shit compared to the polygamist system developing here. What good is an economy or health care if everyone is alone and miserable?

    And if our votes don’t matter in the end, then “betas” will have to do things another way. Blacks didn’t get civil rights just cause people thought MLK was a great speaker. They got them because white people KNEW that some blacks were willing to fuck shit up (Malcolm X, riots, etc.) Now, I am not saying to be violent, but some sort of civil disobedience in regard to taxes might be a start. Then again, some vandalism and rioting may be necessary at some point. They won’t care until we make them care.

    Like


  93. What good is an economy or health care if everyone is alone and miserable?

    Just shut up and take your soma!

    Like


  94. Yours truly —

    I don’t know about male 8’s vs. 9 or 10, those are fairly arbitrarily assigned numbers. But the difference between good and great sex is yes, enormous. Absolutely vast.

    Let me just say good sex is about technique. Very good sex is about really being able to vary and play your repertoire according to what your partner likes best, in that moment, because you just feel it, and need to do it for her.

    Great sex is about deep seduction and deep mind bending and body shattering power exchange. At it’s maximum it’s even life changing or destroying, but that’s going way too far, and the right men won’t go there, but if you’re not sure you won’t trust so much unless you’re completely deliciously reckless, so it won’t be as good, though still great. It’s about causing a woman to want to totally surrender, to lose it all, to total male sexual dominance in the moment. It’s incredibly thrilling for both her and him. It’s a lot easier to do with some women (who are the best in bed, or anyway the easiest best) than others, but really the ultimate measure of how good a woman is aside from how hot she is which is always important, is how totally she’s able to surrender to a good enough man.

    All sorts of sex play can be involved by it’s all ultimately about this cat and mouse game, this power exchange, this dance of seduction and surrender.

    When newly in love, otherwise quite ordinary sex can be great sex because the love and just a little bit more of the guy’s part, just real natural hunger for her alone often enough, will cause her to lose herself to him, to just give it up and surrender. But that never lasts at that level, without more.

    Good sex is about technique. Very good sex is about really being able to vary and play your repertoire according to what your partner likes best, in that moment, because you just feel it, and need to do it for her.

    Great sex is about deep seduction and deep mind bending and body shattering power exchange. At it’s maximum it’s even life changing or destroying, but that’s going way too far, and the right men won’t go there, but if you’re not sure you won’t trust so much unless you’re completely deliciously reckless, so it won’t be as good, though still great. It’s about causing a woman to want to totally surrender, to lose it all, to total male sexual dominance in the moment. It’s incredibly thrilling for both her and him. It’s a lot easier to do with some women (who are the best in bed, or anyway the easiest best) than others, but really the ultimate measure of how good a woman is aside from how hot she is which is always important, is how totally she’s able to surrender to a good enough man.

    All sorts of sex play can be involved by it’s all ultimately about this cat and mouse game, this power exchange, this dance of seduction and surrender.

    Like


  95. Lord do I want an edit function about now. I pasted over from word onto an already partly completed post I guess. Sorry.

    Like


  96. 90: Sex with an experienced beta is pleasurable for women, no doubt.

    Much more than you know. Or want to know.

    But the things that happen to her when a high status male wears her like a sock – that’s what she thinks about when making herself happy.

    It really, really isn’t.

    Like


  97. Thanks for the explanation. So the whole numbers thing is not about the looks, personality etc. but moreso about the sexual talents of men?

    Like


  98. And what percentage of men is able to do the power thing you described?

    Any way of telling if a man can without actually sleeping with him?

    Like


  99. There is a difference between pleasing a woman and the kind of sex (and orgasms) the top 5% of men can offer.

    See, this is true but silly and irrelevant. For men, there’s a difference between the kind of sex that a hot 19 year old supermodel who’s totally infatuated with you can offer, and the kind of sex that your loving, reasonably attractive but no bombshell 40 year old wife can offer. But that doesn’t mean that every 40 year old husband in America has a lousy sex life because he spends all his time fantasizing about “what if a 19 year old supermodel totally fell hard for me”. Some do, sure, but they’re pretty immature.

    Of course, that kind of thing is exactly what sometimes gets pushed around here as a lifestyle, endlessly dreaming about banging the next hot young thing.

    Great sex is about deep seduction and deep mind bending and body shattering power exchange. At it’s maximum it’s even life changing or destroying, but that’s going way too far, and the right men won’t go there, but if you’re not sure you won’t trust so much unless you’re completely deliciously reckless, so it won’t be as good, though still great. It’s about causing a woman to want to totally surrender, to lose it all, to total male sexual dominance in the moment….

    All sorts of sex play can be involved by it’s all ultimately about this cat and mouse game, this power exchange, this dance of seduction and surrender.

    There are lots and lots of forms of great sex, lots of different kinds of connection. What you’re pushing is a particular kind of Fabio romance cover / soft S&M fantasy, which exists, sure, but is only one kind.

    Like


  100. Also, this dominance thing is complicated…in great sex, there’s always a profound surrender to the moment going on. Men are often primed to see this as a surrender to *them*. But most of the time that’s not really accurate. For most women in a LTR, nothing will kill sexual desire faster than the man acting in a way that makes her feel truly disrespected, like he really doesn’t care about her feelings. It makes her feel like he’s not in it as an equal with her on some level. I have a feeling a lot of guys around here will eventually trip up on that one.

    Like


  101. TC (quoting Fish) on Clio:

    Can you get it inside your head that from this one step forward
    There’s no turning back?
    Can you get it inside you’re head I’m tired of dancing?

    I’ll ask her!

    Get back to you soon! Have a good one!

    Your friend,
    Patrick

    Like


  102. I see my name is still being taken in vain here. Careful, boys. Never mess with a Muse, or one who is under the protection of a Muse, a Musette, as it were. Just remember what happened to uppity mortals in Greek mythology…

    Clio

    Like


  103. Too late, already smitten 😉

    So Clio, MFK: Ares, Dionysus and Hephaestus

    Like


  104. “Also, this dominance thing is complicated…in great sex, there’s always a profound surrender to the moment going on. Men are often primed to see this as a surrender to *them*. But most of the time that’s not really accurate. For most women in a LTR, nothing will kill sexual desire faster than the man acting in a way that makes her feel truly disrespected, like he really doesn’t care about her feelings. It makes her feel like he’s not in it as an equal with her on some level. I have a feeling a lot of guys around here will eventually trip up on that one.”

    A man can be dominant sexually while honoring a woman.
    I think the problem is that many people were led to believe that acts of dominance or kinky acts are signs of disrespect in the man and of lack of self respect in the woman.

    Actually, the truth may be very complex, because sometimes they actually are, but it is not necessary. Some men are frustrated and bitter and want to vent through voluntary sexual abuse. Some women do not accept themselves and seek out self abuse. Actually, this may be the dark side of beta males and we see this most obviously in prostitution; men who want to degrade a target to vent their frustration with the opposite sex. Also in men who saved their pennies to ‘buy’ a woman and get even.

    A healthy dominant man who cherishes his wife is acting out of love and desire. I do think there is some drive to posses, to own the woman which is a form of objectification, but she is more like a treasured object. If he has repeatedly shown her how much he loves her and cares about her, the woman can trust him enough to welcome him animal side at night, confident that he will be the gentleman again in the morning.

    This is completely unlike the man who objectifies a woman in order to treat her like trash because he can deny her feelings or justify his actions by telling himself that she deserves it because she is easy/a whore/a golddigger or by telling himself he deserves it because he paid/has been hurt by women/has achieved much financially. The woman is often rightfully scared because the man has done very little to prove trustworthy.

    Except perhaps in the golddigger case, which is a close transvesty of the healthy dominant male/submissive female union. Sometimes it is extremely difficult to tell the two apart. It cannot be told from statistics for the most part, just from observing the couple closely.
    In the healthy couple the man may support the woman financially, but what she gives in return is not sex, but other nonmaterial things. So there is equity outside the bedroom, which leaves room for equity in the bedroom. The woman can enjoy sex as much as the man does even if their roles are unequal.
    In the unhealthy couple, the man experiences negative inequity outside the bedroom and feels entitled to get positve inequity inside the bedroom. It is not enough for him to receive pleasure; his wife must also *not* receive it in order for the balance to be restored.
    I guess many women are afraid of the latter situation and hence are afraid to have inequality outside and inside the bedroom. I’m pretty sure the unhealthy union created a fertile breeding ground for feminist doctrine.

    Anyway, just my controversial 2 cents.

    Like


  105. Whiskey’s political theory is right when it comes to me.I am a beta male who is a staunch Republican. By far and away what attracts me to the GOP is that they give less money to single mothers.

    Like


  106. George Bush said that “being a single mom is the toughest job in America.”

    The GOP as a whole is hardly a conservative party any more.

    Like


  107. Can you get it inside your head that from this one step forward
    There’s no turning back?
    Can you get it inside you’re head I’m tired of dancing?

    When Clio is somehow mentioned in this post I think of how hot it would be not only to get inside her head but to get inside her pants too.

    D.

    Like


  108. Yours Truly sort of showed me up in 104 by going on about her own submissive fantasies. Truth is, many (though hardly all) women do have submissive fantasies, it’s so common, and for a fair fraction it goes beyond the bedroom. But what I was getting at was the subtlety of the whole thing — if you read 104 carefully you can see that YT is fantasizing about a dominant who will *serve her*:

    A healthy dominant man who cherishes his wife is acting out of love and desire. I do think there is some drive to posses, to own the woman which is a form of objectification, but she is more like a treasured object. If he has repeatedly shown her how much he loves her and cares about her, the woman can trust him enough to welcome him animal side at night, confident that he will be the gentleman again in the morning.

    Pretty typical, the “submission” is quite demanding. If you disturb the woman’s belief that she’s treasured, cared for, blah blah blah then it’s possible for everything to blow up. Of course, there is also that more raw level where people can be emotionally masochistic — I’ve had that experience where a woman gets more submissive to you when you sleep with other women and don’t hide it, it’s a real head-spinner. But I bet that could happen with men who are with distant, out-of-their-league women who step out on them as well.

    It’s all so complicated, it’s raw human shit.

    Like


  109. MQ 108 —

    Truth is, many (though hardly all) women do have submissive fantasies

    I’ve never known a woman who didn’t. It’s just a question of who she’ll reveal them to, or act on them with. Often, especially in these really feminist messed up times (but it was way worse in the 90s), women WON’T much do that with their husband or boyfriend. Because of this programmed belief that sexual surrender and respect are mutually exclusive. Nothing can be further from the truth.

    Like


  110. Yours truly 104 —

    I started to quote parts of your post, but then I just wanted to quote nearly the whole thing.

    You really get it hottie, at a deep level.

    You have made me hot for you. Very.

    One thing about this word “objectification”. It’s really sort of bs. I guess it’s accurate in that men ARE attracted to just the physical beauty of a woman, to whom they assign fantasy personalities of one kind or another (and it’s not all one kind). But really men, especially confident but very highly sexualized men, are most attracted to living breathing challenging sexbots with personalities and agency. To real live girls in other words. BUT the do want there to be an edge of male dominance, and to tell the truth, usually a slight edge outside the bedroom too, but slight. While she’s his number one adviser and confident, whose judgement he will often trust more than his own. That sort of thing. That’s where perfection lies. Radical feminists want to call this too “objectification” because they are pushing equivalence equality even in deepest emotional / love relationships.

    It’s like how they’ve tried with considerable success, but I among many other men are having none of it, in co-opting the term “misogyny” to mean, essentially, any apostacy from whatever lines of uber-feminism the accuser has in mind. Well horse sh*t. That has nothing remotely to do with misogyny and everthing to do with rejecting marxist radical feminism.

    Like


  111. Yours truly 97 —

    So the whole numbers thing is not about the looks, personality etc. but moreso about the sexual talents of men?

    Well, maybe you DON’T get it in some ways. Talents sounds like technique.

    Technique can help just like pickup skills can help, but really more in the way of developing natural talents, and scrubbing away inhibitions.

    The numbers thing is about measuring the overall male dominance of a guy, with greater weight given to the parts of that that translated directly in complex full spectrum, SEDUCTIVE cat and mouse dominance of a woman, of YOU.

    Some women need lots of male intelligence in that mix and others find it gets in the way, even if it’s coupled with feelin’ it male sexuality. But what’s in common is that edge.

    And yeah that gravitational pull, that male sexiness, which isn’t about pretty to look at nearly as much as it’s about sexual power to get lost in, is what it’s all about.

    Except male status in the hierarchy, or some hierarchy or another the woman cares about, is important too, to a greater or less extent, and really all part of the same overall, stitched together picture.

    Now perhaps it makes perfect sense why men and women are attracted to different things.

    Only I’ve always thought that Roissy was wrong to put so little emphasis on a woman’s SEXINESS in addition to her looks. That to me is VERY important as well. I’m simply not attracted to ice princesses who I don’t feel ever really thaw. I’ll give you an example: Nicole Kidman. Someone who’s the polar opposite of her in sexy abandon is Angelina Jolie. Yeah she seems like incredibly high maintenance, but sexy – HELL yeah. Or Kate Winslet — who isn’t even all that pretty, and definitely seems to tend to blow up in weight if she gives herself half a chance. But that girl can feel, you just know she can. Or Helena Bonham Carter. Massive loses herself in the moment city. Many others. Really I’m talking about ones who wear it more on their sleaves for anyone to see what I’m talking about. In real life wearing it on your sleave isn’t necessary; it’s probably not even a good thing for a wife. Slut advertising and all. It’s actually when it’s just below the surface that it’s maybe hottest to me — such that some of us see it and most not so much.

    Like


  112. Thanks for the compliments!

    I think the word objectification may be a bit loaded, but essentially seeing a woman as an object of desire is a form of objectification. This does not have to be a negative thing as long as the man does not *only* see the woman as an object. I would argue that it is a very useful force in the male desire for a more permanent relationship, which partly stems from the male desire to posses. I guess if you don’t want to elicit that desire, it will be very difficult to get a typical man enthusiastic about commitment.

    “I guess it’s accurate in that men ARE attracted to just the physical beauty of a woman, to whom they assign fantasy personalities of one kind or another”

    I guess when a man is able to see his woman as a fantasy object some of the time and as a real living, feeling, thinking person some of the time, there is a sort of synergy between the two perspectives. When all a guy does is project fantasies, that is pretty delusional and keeps him from seeing reality and enjoying the real woman, but when all he sees is the cold hard truth, there is no romance and I strongly feel he is also not seeing part of the truth, the poetic truth so to speak.

    Like


  113. It’s highly ironic to note that all of this talk about female submissiveness in sex creepy and disturbing to me, yet I have a large collection of porn which I admire due to its “cock-worshiping” which is for all intents and purposes a proxy for submissiveness…

    Like


  114. “Objectification” is the name women give to being viewed sexually by men to whom they are not attracted (this can, of course, be most men, including men they interact with only casually).

    The “transgressive gaze”, beloved of feminist theorists, is the sexual gaze of a man at a woman who does not find that man attractive.

    “Sexual harassment” is the name given to sexual advances toward a woman by a man whom the woman does not find attractive. The game is given away by the synonym for sexual harassment that you sometimes hear: sexual harassment = unwanted sexual advances.

    Key word: unwanted. Harassment is not a specific set of behaviours, it is a set of behaviours from specific men, i.e., men the woman does not find attractive.

    If a woman is attracted to a man, she not only wants to be “objectified”, nothing turns her on more. She not only wants to be looked at “transgressively”, no other kind of look so arouses her. If a woman wants a man, “sexual harassment” becomes impossible: sexual advances by the wanted man are precisely what she is waiting for, wanting, willing him to do.

    Submissiveness is inherent in the female response to male sex. She has to open herself to him (quite literally) for sex even to happen. The challenge in seducing a woman is getting her into that state of relaxed openness and energetic desire that are so often antithetical, especially in us guys.

    Immortal scene from Buffy the Vampire Slayer:

    Faith (a very bad girl, very hot) to Xander, beta nerd extraordinaire:
    Relax. Take off your pants.

    Xander (understandably): Those two concepts are antithetical.

    Not to women they’re not. To get a women to take off her pants, you have to get her to relax.

    Submissive fantasies are the perfect indication that the woman feels this: submission is relaxation, letting go, giving up and giving in so as to give out, so to speak. And yet it’s not sleepy relaxed, it has to be energetic.

    Submission is not the absence of behaviour. It is an elaborate form of communication, itself something that arouses, even manipulates in the dominant partner a whole set of responses. Submission is itself a form of control and power exchange.

    It is the essence of female sexuality.

    Like


  115. DA,

    I think when you seek to fullfil all your dominance needs in the bedroom, they become a bit exaggered, see hardcore SM folks. If you then reduce is to 2D visuals, it needs to be more extreme to make up for one less dimension and the lack of engagement of the other senses.

    But in what way does this talk disturb you, what demons does it cause you to face, if any?

    Like


  116. PatrickH 114–

    Bang up post Patrick. Hall of fame.

    The main thing I’d add or qualify is that while submission is in the end a final surrender and utter relation, it’s made hot by all the incredible tension and build up that preceeds that.

    When many women hear submission they think doormat.

    As you and I both know, that isn’t what we’re talking about at all. There has to be a game played to get the fullest measure of submission; there has to be build up. Either that or the submission has to go further and further. Or some of both.

    Ways to keep it hot are to keep recycling. She takes back ground and you have to start again. Not from the beginning, but back there further from the goal post again nonetheless.

    Like


  117. Yes, that’s it, dougjnn. I said the woman needs to be relaxed, but not in a sleepy way. The key is to build the tension, so that when she says that most female of words, “Yes”, there’s all of this pent-up energy to be released. When she lets go, there has to be something to let go. Otherwise she’ll just fall asleep.

    Relaxed and energetic. Build up and release. By gum, dougjnn, you’ve got it!

    Like


  118. All this talk about male dominance/female submissiveness makes me realize I’m not long for this world. I’m into femdom myself. Yet I’m against feminism because I feel it (ironically) rewards the worst in male dominance..i.e giving welfare and tax benefits to single mothers who had the babies of bad boys.

    Like


  119. 102 Clio:

    I see my name is still being taken in vain here. Careful, boys. Never mess with a Muse, or one who is under the protection of a Muse, a Musette, as it were. Just remember what happened to uppity mortals in Greek mythology…

    Oooh. Ouch.

    Patrick, I think she’s talking about you, bro. That’s gotta smart. Better luck next time buddy.

    Like


  120. 103 Kevin:

    So Clio, MFK: Ares, Dionysus and Hephaestus

    I imagine Clio’s experience at her computer monitor is like being ensconced within a clear, egg-like shell, the three of us bobbing expectantly just on the other side in the cyberplasm, flagellum flagellating in eager anticipation.

    (btw, what is mfk?)

    Like


  121. 119 The Tupe:

    Why should she have to talk about me when she can talk to me? Face to face. Know what I mean?

    “Better luck next time”? At least there’ll be a next time.

    Love ya bro,
    Patrick

    Like


  122. 121 Patty:

    Ok, I can’t restrain myself any longer. I have to ask. Are you really able to gaze upon Her Elegance in meatspace or are you just yanking my chain?

    Like


  123. I would love to dominate a lovely and submissive Clio during an evening of incredibly hot, passionate, animal sex. I bet Clio would enjoy that too.

    Like


  124. 123 some uncouth mountebank:

    Never put the cart before the horse, son.

    Like


  125. I’ve never known a woman who didn’t. {have submissive fantasies}

    well, I have, and I always check (not by asking, just by doing). Liking rough sex or getting spanked playfully is different than being submissive (even being an S&M bottom can be different than being sub, but that’s another story). I’d say 20-25% of the women I’ve been with have had a serious submissive streak, the kind where they want the bruises to last for days and it can be moved out of the bedroom.

    I think PatrickH’s post in 114 is insightful on some points (relaxation and objectification), but the last line (‘submission is the essence of female sexuality’) is mistaken, a typical male mistake. Women’s sexuality is way more complicated and variable than that. Men see being penetrated as an incredibly submissive act, especially when it’s done roughly and passionately. That’s what it is in the male world. For women, it’s deeper and more complex. There’s vulnerability and surrender there, but there’s lots more as well. You can go very wrong by assuming you control a woman because she behaves in a way that you see as submissive in the bedroom. Real control is hard to get.

    Look at that para I quoted from Yours Truly in 108 — there’s a woman who clearly does have submissive fantasies, but she’s submitting to a man who “repeatedly shows her how much he loves and cares about her”. It’s very typical for women to fantasize about being overwhelmed and possessed by a man who *also magically understands, cares for, and serves all her needs*. When those two things collide — when a man is trying to overpower her but is also not serving her needs or making the effort to understand her as an equal — your “submissive” woman may not be so submissive any more.

    Trying to make a LTR last is very different than trying to bang lots of 25 year olds for a few weeks at a time.

    Like


  126. “Trying to make a LTR last is very different than trying to bang lots of 25 year olds for a few weeks at a time.”

    You are right about that. I mainly observe happy couples and have no interest in the casual sex crowd.

    Like


  127. I know I’m coming in on the tail end, and these are some interesting comments, but hold on a minute. MQ? You say you give women bruises that last for days, and you don’t ask, you just do? How on earth do you know they like it?

    Anyone else here troubled by the idea of men who like to hit women?

    Like


  128. on September 15, 2008 at 3:07 pm lame ad hominem attacks

    He didn’t say he likes to hit them.

    Like


  129. MQ’s scarily insightful about the female submissive streak.

    Honestly, I do not know much about it except by intuition, since I’ve never actually been really a sub, though I’m curious. I’m not into the rough stuff or bruising or physical pain, but emotional pain and psychological stuff I can understand more. I do think women are more complex than simply being sexually submissive all the time. There is the give and take, acting aloof and acting vulnerable, and the intricate dance.

    sadielou, there is a difference between consensual acts and non-consensual acts. A woman getting beat up by a man can have different psychological (which in turn translates to physiological) implications depending on the context. If they are in love with each other and deeply care for each other, or if one is a casual acquaintance who is being very violent — these can invoke very different reactions in a woman.

    My theory is that when a woman is most submissive is when she’s in love. The same woman could be very dominant in bed with a man she does not care too much for, and be very submissive in bed with a man she is in love with, and let him do just about anything he wants with her. The way to different women’s hearts is different. It’s possible that with some women, simply being dominant alone can get her to fall, and fall hard. With others, the man must demonstrate that he cares deeply for her, loves her in turn, and will not betray her trust.

    And this also goes back to Tupac Chopra’s wise words in 124: “Never put the cart before the horse.”

    Like


  130. MQ? You say you give women bruises that last for days, and you don’t ask, you just do? How on earth do you know they like it?

    I would never start at that level of intensity. The “just do” part is simple things like holding down the wrists, a couple of spanks to see how they react, etc. Then observe and discuss. It’s pretty easy to tell — most women who want more intense stuff are pretty aware of their own fantasies and are looking for someone to explore them with. You just have to signal you are that person.

    My theory is that when a woman is most submissive is when she’s in love.

    I think that for both sexes real, true love has a profound mix of submission and domination. In fact, it mixes them so thoroughly that it can transcend categories like “I am submissive” or “I am dominant”. You want to give yourself over to the other person as completely as possible, but you also want to possess them completely. I think a lot of dominant/submissive stuff is a sort of quickie fast-food attempt to access the emotions involved in love. D/s is less risky too. Love can leave bruises that last a whole lot longer than a few days.

    Like


  131. I think that for both sexes real, true love has a profound mix of submission and domination. In fact, it mixes them so thoroughly that it can transcend categories like “I am submissive” or “I am dominant”. You want to give yourself over to the other person as completely as possible, but you also want to possess them completely. I think a lot of dominant/submissive stuff is a sort of quickie fast-food attempt to access the emotions involved in love. D/s is less risky too. Love can leave bruises that last a whole lot longer than a few days.

    That’s true, and more. There’s also the sadism and masochism involved with love. Maybe that’s why I never was able to really get into the “scene.” I prefer real to fake emotions. Merely physical acts usually only inspire fear and loathing in me rather than genuine feelings of want and desire. It doesn’t help that I rather like the emotional pain and bruises that come so potently with true love.

    And you are dead on about people who are in love feeling the simultaneous urge to give themselves completely and wanting to possess completely. This often crosses over to being real co-dependency, and that’s where the painful madness, psychological torture and unhealthy obsession begin. Most well-adjusted people probably don’t like this aspect of love so much, but many “broken” people will embrace it.

    It seems, then, that much of what we do is trying to recreate the feeling of being in love. As I said, I think we’re all addicts or recovering addicts. Women in particular seem prone behaving according to their winds of passion. I really despise this kind of female weakness in myself, but at the same time it’s one of those amazing things that makes life itself worth living.

    Like


  132. “My theory is that when a woman is most submissive is when she’s in love. The same woman could be very dominant in bed with a man she does not care too much for, and be very submissive in bed with a man she is in love with, and let him do just about anything he wants with her. The way to different women’s hearts is different. It’s possible that with some women, simply being dominant alone can get her to fall, and fall hard. With others, the man must demonstrate that he cares deeply for her, loves her in turn, and will not betray her trust.”

    Yes, I agree with this. Some people are also more trusting than others and some project “The trustworthy leader” of their fantasies on any dominant man that arouses them. With some women, true dominance is not even required, just enough hints to activate her fantasies.

    “I think a lot of dominant/submissive stuff is a sort of quickie fast-food attempt to access the emotions involved in love. D/s is less risky too. Love can leave bruises that last a whole lot longer than a few days.”

    This is a very good point.

    I think the SM crowd uses all the checklists and the contracts and the formal rules and whatnot as a bandaid for the missing elements that can only exist when you know a man by observing his character and behaviour. That kind of deep trust and respect does not grow in a day or a few weeks. Though some D/s couples have been built over a solid amount of time and are built on real love and many vanilla couples are of the instant variety.

    I could find a good author and go play out our fantasies on this very day and involve some emotions. Instant relationships, while real on a physical level, are a lot like that on a mental level. People are more interested in their fantasies than in truly unwrapping the nature of the other person.

    Like


  133. Did Hope give the “scene” a try? Eager to hear more about that!

    Like


  134. 122 La Chopracabra:

    More to the point, luv, is that she is able to gaze upon me.

    I jerk no chains. And am not jerked in turn. I do so solemnly swear. Meatspace has indeed been the medium for direct contact between yours truly (the real one, not the impostor who comments here with distressing regularity) and our Beloved Muse. Patrick and Clio have in reality gazed upon one another’s mortal instantiations.

    I must confess, however, to the following. (Damn! I was hoping against hope it wouldn’t come to this! Damn and blast!)

    I think–I fear, really–that our Beloved in her mortal incarnation may be inclined in a mild, tentative way towards a certain generalized fondness for me as a potential friend.

    If I were to describe Her Elegance’s attitude to me after she gazed upon my corporeal form, I would have to quote Ninotchka’s response to the smitten character (played by Melvyn Douglas; I forget the character’s name, but MD was so great in the role I always think of him), when he asked her (pleaded, really) what she thought of his looks. Her reply (somewhat paraphrased–I’m working from memory here):

    Your physiognomy is not entirely repugnant to me.

    So. The truth is out. Clio and I may be, may (!) be kinda sorta, well, friends. Kinda!

    Much as it pains me to say it, there’s hope for you yet, Tupac. I may shamelessly tout my home field advantage, but I haven’t homered yet.

    Not even at first base, actually.

    Ah heck. I’m barely in the batter’s circle, warming up! Okay?! You happy now you effin’ bastard Chopra-man?! Happy?! Yeah, well sod off! At least I’m not repugnant to her! Can you say that? Huh? Can you punk?

    Sob.

    Patrick

    Like


  135. MQ: the last line (’submission is the essence of female sexuality’) is mistaken, a typical male mistake.

    The line before read: Submission is itself a form of control and power exchange.

    I think that sentence is completely compatible with your point, MQ.

    Like


  136. Did Hope give the “scene” a try? Eager to hear more about that!

    Hah, no. I have read about it, though. I’ve known about it since I was 12, curious little kid I was.

    I think pregnancy hormones are making me feel weirder than usual, or more accurately, more emotional than usual. I am a bit fascinated by the submissive streak women have, something that manifests in different ways. I could never fathom how some women seem to be able to give into it so easily. I somewhat envied them.

    But I am able to relate to it a little bit now, with the changes I’m going through, some of which are very scary. I think that women do feel often very vulnerable, and want a “dominant,” take-charge anchor of a male figure to hold onto in times of need and distress. Giving up control and surrendering is probably something women have had to learn through the years.

    There is another side to the long-term vs. short-term fling/passion dichotomy. Intimacy and comfort built through years of togetherness is accompanied by changes in brain chemistry. Neurologically speaking, oxytocin and vasopressin’s effects are closer to MDMA, and dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin released during infatuation act more similar to amphetamines.

    In domination/submission, power is more “easily” exchanged during infatuation, but with long-term attachment, the dynamic is more of a willful, conscious give and take. I still do not understand how this conscious decision to surrender is made. Giving someone that kind of power over oneself seems foolish, and almost like abdicating personal responsibility. So I guess I still don’t understand!

    Like


  137. 91: There are tons of studies out there demonstrating that male body symmetry (a measure of “hotness”, if you will) directly correlates with the number of Big O’s in their female partners:
    http://biology.unm.edu/Biology/Thornhill/rthorn.htm
    This does not imply that handsome guys are better lovers, it just shows that going to be with a 9 will turn on a woman more than screwing a 7.

    What makes female sexuality more complex is that a 9 is not necessarily defined by body features alone. The “shag, marry, kill” game is fascinating because it reveals true attractiveness. Often it is simply the biggest jerk who will get the shag, consistent with everything repeatedly stated in this blog (jerk behavior reflects high social status, center of attention and resulting social proof, natural confidence and dominance).

    Yes, there is another side to what women want. The trust and confidence and emotional connection a relationship can offer is the kicker when these other criteria are met.

    A lot of the discussions here are typical for this topic. Betas naturally err by providing the later (in abundance). When they discover the power of masculinity in the bedroom, they go out and tell everyone (who listens) how great it is to reduce her to a wet puddle of orgasmic ecstasy by calling her names, being assertive and selfish right at the point where she is close to climax anyway.

    Women, on the other hand, had this kind of experience before (thanks to the cherry-popping jerks out there), and ask for more beta-ness in the alphas they get to bed with.

    The result is what you see here: Men preaching D/s as a magic tool in the bedroom, and women responding by asking for more post-coital cuddling.

    Psychologically healthy women need both. That’s why they try to beta-ize their guys. That’s why they prefer LTR to ONS once they reach a certain age.

    The problem I pointed out is that no sex is still better for women than lame sex. And the routine kissy-cuddly coitus that characterizes what most betas slip into during longer relationships leaves many females craving for raunchy alpha secs – a fact they only admit in certain situations.

    Like


  138. Point taken, MQ and Hope; I just needed the explanation. There does seem to be an element of truth in this whole thing about female submissiveness and surrender.

    Like


  139. sadielou 138–

    element of truth in this whole thing about female submissiveness and surrender.

    There is a reason it’s called power exchange.

    A deep, profound reason.

    Taking what a woman doesn’t want to give becomes rape, and at a lower level of taking, because ugly control freak behavior that women positively hate, hate hate. This difference is very profound and something men absolutely have to grasp in the core of their emotional being if they are going to start successfully unleashing more of their inner psychic male dominant — the kind of dominant that is who seduces women, rather than taking them at sword point.

    I also have hardly ever talked about BDSM here. That’s just a subset and wasn’t what I was thinking about above at all, though that’s really just a set of techniques that some use to go quite or very far in this direction, when it isn’t happening enough naturally for the tastes of the participants.

    I was really talking about fundamentals of male / female deep sexual communion, not fringes or specialty practices.

    As well there is role reversal and it too can be thrilling — though for most primarily as a REVERSAL rather than a primary mode. There are actually a lot more primarily submissive hetrosexual men, often not so in touch with their feelings, than there are primarily dominant women. I’m talking about in their sexual and love relationships remember, not how they inter-act with their underlings or even colleagues. Women have always loved having male servants.

    Like


  140. “Giving someone that kind of power over oneself seems foolish, and almost like abdicating personal responsibility. So I guess I still don’t understand!”

    Even while you obey another, you are still responsible for your own life.

    For example, if you let your husband take the financial decisions and you never see what he does, that is pretty foolish. If he draws up a budget for the month and you see that it is sensible and you work with it, you are still acting responsibly. I think it is important for a man to be trusted, but trusting blindly will probably make him think of you as a doormat, while trusting him because he has a good charcter and is handling the finances well will more likely make him feel appreciated for things that not every man possesses.

    The women I see having succesful marriages also intervent, although sparingly. Speaking up if he is about to make a dangerous decision or you are not getting what you need is also something different from arguing an okay decision just for the sake of having power. If you comply 9 out of 10 times, chances are he will consider your input far more seriously when it really matters. Many wives argue over things that do not matter much. Is a 40$ cheaper fridge really worth cutting off your husbands balls?

    “The problem I pointed out is that no sex is still better for women than lame sex. ”

    Yup!

    “Taking what a woman doesn’t want to give becomes rape, and at a lower level of taking, because ugly control freak behavior that women positively hate, hate hate.”

    You must give me sex X times a week because of reason Y may get men laid if the consequenses of disobedience are serious enough, but it won’t get the woman to feel respectful, loving or submissive. More likely contempt, resentment, despise.

    A truly dominant man will make a woman crave his power over her. He does not need to be a control freak because he has confidence in his power. The way she sees him in the bedroom becomes part of how she sees him as a whole person, also in daily life. She is not looking to castrate him when she disagrees, for she gets to enjoy his masculinity.

    Like


  141. 108 MQ:

    But what I was getting at was the subtlety of the whole thing — if you read 104 carefully you can see that YT is fantasizing about a dominant who will *serve her*:…Pretty typical, the “submission” is quite demanding. If you disturb the woman’s belief that she’s treasured, cared for, blah blah blah then it’s possible for everything to blow up.

    I believe this is referred to as “topping from the bottom” in the BDSM community.

    It’s all on a spectrum. It may start with light spanking, maybe some wrist and ankle restraints, to what you described above , to more “dangerous” territory where some pretty raw and primal psychological forces are liberated. The first time I encountered a girl who was into such things (to a moderate degree) I was a bit disoriented initially, but came to see how erotic it *can* be.

    Like


  142. 104/108/141: Also note
    “the woman can trust him enough to welcome his animal side at night, confident that he will be the gentleman again in the morning.”

    Here is another factor to point out. The biggest fear of women is social embarrassment. She needs to know that the guy who unleashes her sexual potential and makes her do things she hardly knew from porn will not walk around and let everybody know.

    That’s why one night stands can be so exciting to women when conducted under circumstances of extreme anonymity.

    Also, “the gentleman” in a woman’s mind is more associated with a Don Draper-kind of masculinity rather than an ass kissing rug to trample upon.

    Like


  143. 111 dougjnn:

    Only I’ve always thought that Roissy was wrong to put so little emphasis on a woman’s SEXINESS in addition to her looks. That to me is VERY important as well. I’m simply not attracted to ice princesses who I don’t feel ever really thaw. I’ll give you an example: Nicole Kidman.

    Or Gwyneth Paltrow.

    Someone who’s the polar opposite of her in sexy abandon is Angelina Jolie. Yeah she seems like incredibly high maintenance, but sexy – HELL yeah.

    It’s been my experience that women who are the best in bed are batshit crazy. By crazy, I mean — emotional lability, poor impulse control, daddy issues, etc. It seems apparent that part of the acculturation process involves saddling that pesky libido, and the women who may have gone overboard in their quest for civility find it difficult to unclench that psychological muscle during what is the most primal of activities: sex.

    And then there are women who will never be tamed, they simply don’t have the mental resources to restrain their id. I love them. I think it was Blake who said “those who restrain desire do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained.”

    Like anything else in life, there is a trade-off. I used to adore the chaos but I’m getting to the age where it might be wise to start thinking about a little stability.

    Just a little, though 😉

    It’s actually when it’s just below the surface that it’s maybe hottest to me — such that some of us see it and most not so much.

    Agreed.

    This might be just me, and perhaps your experience differs, but I’ve noticed a slight nystagmus in the eyes of docile cats who later turned into tigers.

    Like


  144. 113 David Alexander:

    I have a large collection of porn which I admire due to its “cock-worshiping”

    Congratulations on coming out of the closet, David.

    In all seriousness however, your problem here (see above post) is that you have become too civilized.

    To quote Jane’s Addiction:

    SEX IS VIOLENT.

    Yes. Read it, live it, love it. Sex is a penetrative act, and in that sense, the radical fems are right. It is an aggressive act, a dominant one (for the male). Whether it’s a spermie breaking into the egg, or a purple headed warrior piercing a quivering vulva, what is basically happening is something strong is overpowering something weaker. Those words are loaded of course but you get my point.

    In human terms the same thing occurs in a test of wills. Until you know the pleasure of kissing a tense, “resisting” female, who eventually reaches that exquisite point of surrender whereupon you can feel all her muscles melt against your body like putty…well buddy, you haven’t lived.

    At this point you are a voyeur, experiencing such things vicarously. So try and stop being such a pussy, and maybe just maybe those BB’s you call testicles will finally drop.

    Like


  145. Czar 142 —

    Don Draper-kind of masculinity

    Wow. I guess “Mad Men” on the pretty obscure channel AMC really has gone a lot more viral than I’d realized. Well Nip/Tuck went pretty viral on a less than markee channel also, though FX has always had a “vintage for youth” sort of demographic.

    I’ve seen a few episodes of Mad Men so far. I’ve alsogathered torrents of the first season and second to date a week or two ago, so maybe I’ll go back at some point.

    When did you guys (meaning anyone here who cares to answer) first get wind of this thing and start watching it?

    Like


  146. Tupac 144–

    Preach it bro.

    (But remember guys, you have to be able to distinguish seductive, ratcheting up, and male obviviousness to her genuine lack of interest.

    In other words you can’t get ahead of yourself and her. It utterly doesn’t work if you do. It is in fact ugly if you do. Very.

    Like


  147. 129 Hope:

    MQ’s scarily insightful about the female submissive streak.
    Honestly, I do not know much about it except by intuition, since I’ve never actually been really a sub, though I’m curious. I’m not into the rough stuff or bruising or physical pain, but emotional pain and psychological stuff I can understand more.

    A wise man in the seduction community named Franco has often said that women are more perverted than men – emotionally. The most shocking hardcore porno doesn’t hold a candle to the often bizarre, contradictory, masochistic and grandiose inner emotional world of the average female.

    For them, it’s good when it’s good and it’s even better when it bad.

    My theory is that when a woman is most submissive is when she’s in love.

    Not necessarily or even most of the time. Women are often most submissive when they are in awe. It’s different.

    Like


  148. 134 PatrickH:

    That made my day.

    Like


  149. Yours truly 140–

    A truly dominant man will make a woman crave his power over her. He does not need to be a control freak because he has confidence in his power. The way she sees him in the bedroom becomes part of how she sees him as a whole person, also in daily life. She is not looking to castrate him when she disagrees, for she gets to enjoy his masculinity.

    You understand much Yours Truly.

    You are sounding a very, very fine woman here. In this whole post. In many of your posts lately. Me like.

    Like


  150. “That’s why one night stands can be so exciting to women when conducted under circumstances of extreme anonymity.”

    What men told me is that they kiss and tell on short term lovers but not on girlfriends.

    I don’t live in a tiny place, but if you sleep with more than a dozen men, word can easily get out.

    You would have to be pretty stupid to think you can have lots and lots of flings without the word spreading. Especially if you do kinky stuff.

    “You understand much Yours Truly.

    You are sounding a very, very fine woman here. In this whole post. In many of your posts lately. Me like.”

    Thank you!

    Like


  151. Congratulations on coming out of the closet, David.

    Obviously you know what I mean. Porn is essentially the worship of the male penis by a hypersexualized female in terms of appearance and actions.

    In all seriousness however, your problem here (see above post) is that you have become too civilized.

    As a black man, the choice is between being civilized and assimilated and accepted, or being uncivilized, uncouth, and the subject or derision by everybody except for one’s fellow vagabonds. Given the situation, the former is preferable, and no female is worth the latter choice.

    SEX IS VIOLENT.

    The submissive sex acts on porn are abstract and easy to rationalize away due to the fact that it’s highly scripted and mostly faked with the participants simply acting their roles out for entertainment. The problem is that even simply imaging myself replicating those acts with women in real life simply causes my brain to fail in a spectacular fashion.
    Despite hours of masturbation and porn viewing, I still see real life sex as a mutual act engaged upon by two equals with no submission on anyone’s part. I don’t want resistance or submissiveness, but I simply want an mutually achieved orgasms in method that benefits both partners. At this point, per the comments written above by both male and female writers, it seems that my version of real life sex doesn’t exist, and that it’s probably just easier and simply to avoid the weirdness and quirks of the female sex drive and it’s bizzare inability to mesh perfectly with the male sex drive. I guess it’s just simply easier to wank myself than to deal with these various human quirks. One doesn’t need balls, but just a high degree of tolerance for insanity to deal with women in the real world…

    Like


  152. 145: When did you guys (meaning anyone here who cares to answer) first get wind of this thing and start watching it? (re: “Mad Men”

    Since the beginning. I’d read about it before it debuted, thought it an intriguing premise, and wasn’t disappointed. I’m surprised that it’s getting such a following — not because it’s not good, but because it’s very, very dark.

    Like


  153. 151 David Alexander

    I still see real life sex as a mutual act engaged upon by two equals with no submission on anyone’s part.

    For what it’s worth, I agree with you, but I’m a freak, so perhaps we’re in the minority. 🙂

    Like


  154. 153 Elizabeth:

    For what it’s worth, I agree with you, but I’m a freak, so perhaps we’re in the minority.

    For Elizabeth (and Hope), may this shed a little light:

    ———————————————————

    THE WILL TO SURRENDER
    AND THE WILL TO SELF-MASTERY

    The will toward self-mastery and the will to surrender are the head and tail of the same snake.

    To surrender to love is one of the most misunderstood experiences
    in human existence.
    Intuitively we all know that to love and be loved is both the
    spark and fuel of life. But how does a mortal surrender to love when
    fear is so pervasive in our lives? Without love life feels empty and
    meaningless. It is unfortunate but true that most of life’s miseries
    are caused by our inability to surrender to love. In a desperate
    attempt to fill this void people become addicted to alcohol, food,
    sex, endless affairs, fame, fortune and, of course, drugs.
    Frequently the use of love substitutes is not simply an attempt
    to deaden pain but is also an attempt to bridge the gap of
    seperateness and join with the Beloved. In Western Civilization the
    preoccupation with these “substitutes” is “proof” that our society
    doesn’t really concern itself with love and surrender. In fact much
    of Western psychology regards the desire to unite with the Beloved as
    pathological. In the West love is dangerous until it is licensed like
    a car.

    SURRENDER IS NAUGHT

    One of the primary obstacles to surrendering is the mistaken
    belief that you can actually “lose” yourself. This fear is based on a
    deep primal feeling that to love and be loved is a form of
    “cannibalism.”
    The desire to consume the love object and thereby merge with the
    beloved has been a romantic image that poets and lovers throughout the
    ages have struggled with.
    Though the boundaries of the individual must necessarily fade
    away, there is no way in the world that you can lose your Self. Your
    true Self is *hard-wired in* and even if it were possible to lose
    one’s self or be possessed it would have to be the result of one’s
    true will.
    One real danger in love relationships is that most people
    secretly believe that they must control the love object in order to
    feel safe in loving and being loved. The cause of this is simple —
    children are made to feel that they must “give themselves up” if they
    are to be loved. Thus, for most humans the act of surrender has meant
    the loss of autonomy. Or worse — loss of one’s own mind.
    Surrender is neither control or morbid dependency and can’t be
    made contingent upon giving away your “soul”; although the person
    surrendering opens himself completely to the moment, and does run the
    risk of being deeply hurt.
    Sadly, in our society this is not uncommon and frequently serves
    to harden or embitter a person toward life in general. Or, on the
    other hand being deeply hurt in the act of surrender can lead to angry
    and painful “cries for help.” When this occurs there is an insatiable
    and wrathful desire to be cared for as a child is cared for *and* the
    horrid fear of loss of independence.
    Similar to the inate will for self-mastery, the *will to
    surrender* has been exploited by religion, government and even the
    family. Far too frequently when little children surrender to their
    parents they are humiliated, shamed or even worse. When they become
    adults they, in turn, do the same to their children.
    Radio and television are constantly attempting to exploit the
    desperate need for love. In their perverse forms of “entertainment”
    they create hysteria, foster the anti-life morality of collectivism
    and sell “pornography” as love.
    They peddle their perverted ideas of romantic love and sexual
    union as ecstasy but their fiat currency cannot fill the hearts and
    loins of their viewers. The world still yearns for a love which few
    of us know. And this love is beyond anything any one individual can
    satisfy, yet at the same time this love can only be actualized through
    the love of another living person.
    Much of psychopathology and many physical ailments are the result
    of the inability of the individual to surrender, to let go
    completely…to mergy momentarily; be it with a person, divinity or
    one’s own “secret lover.” This is one purpose of this book, to help
    you discover your *will to surrender.*
    Most so-called “sexual perversions” are abortive attempts at love
    and surrender. This is particularly true in “sadomasochistic”
    relationships where the inability to voluntarily surrender is
    dramatically “overcome.” In fact many so-called pathological or
    perverse individuals are closer to understanding the true need for
    surrender and the willingness to experience it than those considered
    “normal” by society. The association of pain, bondage or brutality to
    love is not happenstancial. The facts are that in our culture love
    has been so intertwined with pain and loss that the so-called
    “pathological” are often simply expressing the truth of how love
    really feels. They express a greater degree of honesty than the
    “average” person who in fact can express nothing about love and
    surrender.
    Many murders and suicides have at their foundation the frustrated
    *will to surrender.* These violent acts are often attempts to be
    released from the hardened boundaries of one’s private hell — to feel
    union with the “Other” or the Universe. The assassin of John Lennon
    is an example of a pathological attempt to merge with the beloved
    through the act of murder.
    Most people feel unable to surrender or be in the presence of
    someone who is surrendering because of the pain it brings to the
    surface. They feel they pounding force of life pushing through their
    skin and they are horrified of losing what sense of autonomy they do
    have.
    Often people who are unable to surrender place themselves in
    situations which force defeat — a pseudo surrender. Frequently
    failure of this type is “caused” by the person himself in a desperate
    attempt to consolidate diffuse feelings of anxiety.
    In the afterglow of utter failure they allow themselves to
    indulge temporarily in an illusion of surrender. They can let go but
    only in a sham fashion. This provides some sense of relief from the
    obsessive feeling of holding on to their tenuous sense of autonomy.
    People who require strict bounds of individuality (guardedness)
    are usually the least capable of surrendering. Individuals firm
    within their autonomy are more capable of surrendering. This is
    identical to the notion that one must actually have a viable ego
    before one is qualified to lose it.
    Those who have had their *primal sense of autonomy* severely
    impaired by an environment which stressed chronic self-defense in
    order to maintain their autonomy are all but incapable of surrender.
    Their sense of autonomy is so fragile, held together by pain and
    suspicion, that the idea of surrender brings forth intense feelings of
    shame, anxiety and guilt. Thus, they are incapable of giving love or
    receiving it. Their habitual defensive posture, learned when they
    were too vulnerable for differentiated defense, makes it next to
    impossible for them to drop their guard long enough for love to come
    in or for love to come out. Ironically, individuals such as these are
    often those who talk the most about love yet treat their relationships
    as an endless chain-reaction of negotiations centering around the
    issue of control.
    The entire idea of “control,” in this context, contradicts the
    result people believe “control” might yield — self-mastery. Here
    control means “control” of anxiety, smallness and the feeling of
    falling apart which an impaired sense of autonomy has created.
    These fears and maneuvers are unfounded and unnecessary, once the
    person realizes that in reality they can only truly surrender to their
    Secret Lover. This act of surrender can do nothing but add to one’s
    autonomy and power, but it is important to keep in mind that the
    benefits brought about by love are always a consequence — a result —
    of surrender and never the reason for surrendering. The need to
    surrender is “caused” by life fulfilling itself. Surrendering is a
    necessary experience for complete living and the *will to surrender*
    is the ultimate realization of this fact.
    Giving love, being tender, showing compassion are as necessary as
    receiving them: none are a morality. They cannot be legislated. They
    cannot be enforced. They are a *result*, not a *cause*, of complete
    surrender.

    — Christopher S. Hyatt

    Like


  155. 154 Tupac Chopra

    I don’t think what you posted is really what I was talking about. What you posted looks like it’s talking about something — “surrender” — that all people must do in order to love and be loved; that is, two willing partners are “surrendering” to their mutual passion. It’s something equal, something mutual. Both parties are giving and receiving something they both want. But my impression of “submission,” as discussed in this thread, is that it’s something the woman does for the man. That’s not really an idea I’m comfortable with. It seems like she’s giving more than he is, and I haven’t gotten the impression, from life in general, that relationships in which one person gives more than the other last very long.

    Like


  156. Elizabeth 155–

    It’s something equal, something mutual. Both parties are giving and receiving something they both want.

    Absolutely yes. That is essential. But it’s not essential in the sense of a brake on excess. It’s essential for anything to be genuinely erotic.

    But my impression of “submission,” as discussed in this thread, is that it’s something the woman does for the man.

    No, no, no, no, no. A thousand times no!!

    If anything it’s a lot closer to the other way around. It can be a lot of work. But oh so rewarding work. But … women ALWAYS get far more out of great sex than men do. In fact, the greatest male joy in great sex is really rather vicarious. But really it’s all a muturality. It’s a dance. The roles are not the same (though there can be role reversal) but they are inextricably dependent on each other.

    I promise you that this is absolutely true. It’s true of fetish kinds of D/s activity but what I’m talking about here primarily and have been talking about primarily is just straight up great sex with a real thrill to it. That thrill is a power exchange thrill.

    There’s also comfort, loving caress sex, and that is wonderful too. But it’s never as thrilling, except maybe sometimes as a respite or recentering. The combo is great.

    Yes there can be just bullying dominance with sex thrown in, and female submission to that. But that’s not very sexual and it is very repugnant. It doesn’t lead to soaring feelings and greater mutual love and growth, but withering and shrinking on both sides. It’s enormously different.

    I realize this is hard to grasp or believe for those that haven’t yet been there, but it’s absolutely true.

    Like


  157. Tupac, it sounds to me like you’ve just chosen to conceptualize the mutual exchange of power that occurs in great sex in terms of submission by the woman to the aggressive and overwhelming force of the man, violence, etc. That’s fine, if it works for you and your partner. I mean, I can see that perspective. But there are lots of ways to see the flow of forces that occur in sex. It’s like a mountain that looks different from different angles. There are perspectives from which you can see it as an interaction of equals. In great sex the power can switch back and forth so quickly and deeply between the partners that all distinctions between the “dominant” and “submissive’ partner are lost.

    We’re all getting mystical here.

    Like


  158. There’s also comfort, loving caress sex, and that is wonderful too. But it’s never as thrilling, except maybe sometimes as a respite or recentering.

    not so, grasshopper, not so. But that’s a typical early 20s sort of view.

    Like


  159. MQ 158–

    But that’s a typical early 20s sort of view.

    I’m far more weather beaten than that. Far more.

    Like


  160. MQ 157 —

    There are perspectives from which you can see it as an interaction of equals. In great sex the power can switch back and forth so quickly and deeply between the partners that all distinctions between the “dominant” and “submissive’ partner are lost.

    Yeah, I agree with that. In fact at a fundamental level it’s always an interaction of equals.

    Like


  161. 157 MQ:

    I can see why you got that impression, but it’s not really like that for me — well, not so much. That post was aimed at DA who obviously has some issues with regard to sexuality. His problem lies in his applying a rational analysis to what is most decidedly a non-rational act. If one attempts to “fairly” and “humanely” derive how sex “should” be, then of course one will reach the conclusion that sex as is usually practiced is somehow decadent, degrading and “unjust”. Most people don’t have that problem because their instincts thankfully overide the central processing. David however is tripping himself up. There is a psychological rubicon that he needs to cross to liberate his eros and that lies in understanding and accepting the “aggressive”, “violent” aspect of the sex act (for the male). The experience for the female is different which is why I posted that cut-n-paste above.

    David needs to learn to metaphorically “kill” before anything else can happen. Otherwise, he is fast on the road to becoming a full-time voyuer, or even worse, a cuckold fetishist.

    Believe me, I’m not into all that weird shit. Tupac is not a violent lover.

    Vigorous, maybe.

    Like


  162. 161 Tupac Chopra

    Ha ha, you mentioned the Rubicon.

    (Ahem. Yes. Caesar fangirl coming out. Back to your regularly scheduled discussion…)

    Like


  163. 155 Elizabeth:

    I don’t think what you posted is really what I was talking about.

    Actually, it was. These things exist on a continuum. Learning to let go of fears in the process of surrendering to the finer feelings is similar to letting go of fears in submitting to your lover’s will.

    But my impression of “submission,” as discussed in this thread, is that it’s something the woman does for the man.

    This is where you are all mixed up. It is something a woman does for *herself*, for her *own* pleasure. You just aren’t aware of it yet. As doug mentioned, the male only gets to experience it second hand (and that ain’t so bad in itself, nyuk nyuk).

    An argument could be made that some women are not physiologically “built” for it, but I say it’s always worth a try. You are so guarded, so worried about about your “pride” and “dignity” that you are not willing to look down that dark corridor to discover the carnal delights that await you.

    That’s not really an idea I’m comfortable with. It seems like she’s giving more than he is…

    More “fairness”. Blah.

    How in the world do you expect us to consumate our love if you can’t get past this???

    I haven’t gotten the impression, from life in general, that relationships in which one person gives more than the other last very long.

    Au contraire. My observation is that, sadly, some of the most intense and lasting bonds are of a “co-dependent” nature. But one shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. The fact that such bonds exist should impel us to look a little closer at such power dyads.

    TC

    Like


  164. 162 Elizabeth:

    Ahem. Yes. Caesar fangirl coming out.

    I wouldn’t know about that but I’ll take your word for it.

    Like


  165. Perhaps a propos: Toni Bentley’s wonderful erotic memoir “The Surrender.” Proud, naive, commanding woman learns the joy of giving over, in the most … intimate of ways.

    Like


  166. 164 Tupac Chopra

    I wouldn’t know about that but I’ll take your word for it.

    It’s probably best if you remain ignorant. Otherwise, you might be liable to babbling about the Gallic Wars to random innocent passersby, and your family might start making discreet inquiries about having you committed. 🙂

    163

    You are so guarded, so worried about about your “pride” and “dignity” that you are not willing to look down that dark corridor to discover the carnal delights that await you.

    Yes, well, I’ve always been afraid of the dark. Night lights are my friends.

    How in the world do you expect us to consumate our love if you can’t get past this???

    Uh, sorry. But we could totally do a chaste chivalrous sort of thing, right? Dante never consummated with Beatrice, and Petrarch never consummated with Laura, but boy did they write some lovely poems!

    Like


  167. 166 Elizabeth:

    Upon further reflection I’ve realized that all this talk is WAY beyond your ken at this point. You need to begin at the beginning:

    RELAX, baby.

    Just relax.

    Like


  168. 166 Elizabeth:

    Uh, sorry. But we could totally do a chaste chivalrous sort of thing, right?

    Homie don’t play dat.

    Like


  169. His problem lies in his applying a rational analysis to what is most decidedly a non-rational act.

    Sex is a rational act!

    Well, there has to be some way that sex can be practiced in fairly and humanely without creating feelings of anger, guilt, weakness, sadness, or violence on the part of the participants.

    If one attempts to “fairly” and “humanely” derive how sex “should” be, then of course one will reach the conclusion that sex as is usually practiced is somehow decadent, degrading and “unjust”.

    Admittedly, it’s weird because I have a large collection of porn that with movies that lean towards the aggressive side of sexuality activitiy, and some of those movies have some of my prefered scenes and porn stars, yet I still can’t see myself engaging in such activity. The same can apply to my preference towards so-called bimboization stories which are essentially male-dominant mind control stories where the male induces changes in females turning them into hypersexualized women in constant need of sex. And all of this competes against an interest in light femdom stories which really read like male-written femdom where the women are dominant, but the men still have lots of sex. All of this stuff seems to work in an abstract sense, but combining sex with a real life female that partially meets my fetishes is nearly impossible, and fails to work in any reasonable daydream. Hell, even thinking of the girl that I’m “dating” just leads to something that resembles a shitty and inferior porn flick.

    Mind you, one could argue that I was “aggressive” and “vigourous” with the Canadian mistress, and that while my puny low IQ mind can’t comprehend thinking about it, the baser instincts play out when engaged in such activities. Also, I wouldn’t say that she was submissive, but she was just as aggressive in the entire process. In contrast, I see female submissiveness in the context of sex as passivity without much enjoyment. I want my female partner to be just as aggressive and strong so we can orgasm of each other.

    Of course, it helped greatly since I was confirmed of her sexuality before hand, and she “led” us into sex. She pretty much laid out her sexual history and practices to me, and her kiss along with a glass of wine and her hands in my pants sealed the deal.

    Otherwise, he is fast on the road to becoming a full-time voyuer, or even worse, a cuckold fetishist.

    I couldn’t become a voyeur because amateur porn is filled with hideous looking people, and most people are too ugly to watch engaging in porn. As for being a cuckhold fetishist, as much as I’m a big softie liberal pushover, I assure you that watching somebody else who’s bigger and stronger fucking my girlfriend/wife isn’t an option, and just much to degrading for any man to cope with. I may not be able to beat the shit out of the guy, but I’d rather deal with years of alimony and child support than to deal with being a loser cuckhold.

    Like


  170. 168 Tupac Chopra

    Homie don’t play dat.

    Ah, well. Guess I’ll have to find some other fellow to write sonnets praising my eyes and epic poems about my virtue. 🙂

    Like


  171. 169 David Alexander:

    Sex is a rational act!

    Sure, it’s rational in the sense we need it for survival, but one could just as easily argue bashing someone over the skull with a club and stealing his woman is a rational act too.

    But I think you knew what I meant. Sex does not map to our humanistic notions of morality with any sort of accuracy.

    Well, *good* sex, anyway.

    Well, there has to be some way that sex can be practiced in fairly and humanely without creating feelings of anger, guilt, weakness, sadness, or violence on the part of the participants

    Yeah, learn to dispense with certain self-concepts that contain hidden “metaphysical” implications about your self-worth, and try and remember that, while we may be human, we are still animals.

    Many psychosocial ailments in modern American culture are a result of elevating the inhibitory aspects of the human self-system to the detriment of the free-flowing libidinal forces.

    Too much brain/restraint, not enough heart/cock.

    Like


  172. last post mine

    Like


  173. 170 Elizabeth:

    Ah, well. Guess I’ll have to find some other fellow to write sonnets praising my eyes and epic poems about my virtue.

    That poor poor soul. I weep for him, I really do.

    You and DA might make a good couple now that I think about it.

    Like


  174. Elizabeth 170–

    epic poems about my virtue

    Your “virtue” is hardly the result of your epic struggle to kept the firey cauldrons of your sexuality untasted and untainted by unworthy men who have not committed their lifetime to you.

    It is fundamentally a fraud.

    Because there is no cauldron. At all.

    Like


  175. 169 DA: _”combining sex with a real life female that partially meets my fetishes is nearly impossible, and fails to work in any reasonable daydream.”_

    Look up “Madonna/Whore complex”. You got it big time. It will prevent you from leading a relationship to the level that is needed for long term success.

    Everything that people like Tupac post is 100% real for some of us guys on here. A couple of years ago, I wouldn’t have understood either.

    For most women _”the male induces changes in females turning them into hypersexualized women in constant need of sex.”_ becomes true at some stage of their lives (and that includes Elizabeth – her cognitive block will melt away like butter in the sun once she meets The Man).

    Be the guy who does it to them. Otherwise somebody else will fill in that gap.

    Like


  176. 173/174: You guys are quite advanced. You should know that you cannot argue with a woman on a rational level about these things.

    All girls dream of Prince Charming who will seduce them to warm, cuddly love making next to the fireplace. With lots of kisses, and poems and gifts. After taking a shower. And followed by another shower.

    And it is not like a masterful lover would never do that.

    It is just that all of this would be worth nothing, if it is without unleashing her Inner Beast.

    Women are socialized to get committed men who kiss their ass. That’s why they will argue in these ridiculous ways.

    It is ridiculous, because many of us have been exactly that kind of man – and ultimately failed to gain her heart. Or at the very least, we lost our princesses to some biker dude, who wouldn’t even be able to spell the word poem.

    But, he took her and made her feel like a woman.

    And she gave up all her resistance because her body told her so. And she confused that with really being in love, after all the phony “romance” of gentleness and commitment a “nice boy” has to offer.

    Here is what women really want:
    Romance novels aren’t about a “soft”, intellectual Prince Charming who sings to her virtue. They are about tough guys who got around quite a bit, writing poems for the first time of their life because they are falling for her. For her. All the other girls he had were lesser beings, and he treated them badly because of that. For her he becomes a better man. And monogamous (all of a sudden) for the rest of his life. That is why roissy is pointing out the love letters to serial killers. And that alone should be proof that you cannot argue with a woman about that.

    Like


  177. 176 Czar:

    Whenever I read your comments, Czar, I feel a strange sense of familiarity, like I know you. Any thoughts on why that might be?

    Like


  178. I get that a lot.

    😉

    Like


  179. Czar 176–

    You are absolutely right that the large majority of women who have strict bounds to their sexuality won’t when it is unlocked by the right man.

    But just as there are asexual men, there are asexual women. Usually not totally asexual, but with a very low sex drive, and great aversion to many things.

    No doubt some progress can always or nearly always be made, but to assume it’s always the same fiery cauldron at the end is not right. It isn’t.

    Like


  180. dougjnn 179 – Yes, I know what you are talking about. There’s a bell curve for anything, sexual appetite included.

    Screening for a match in sex drive is one of the secrets for dating success. Ideally, hers is slightly higher than your own.

    Still, I wish I would get a dollar every time I hear “I don’t like X – it’s gross!” turn into “I don’t understand myself anymore. Why do I like X so much?” – I think you know what I mean…

    Like


  181. Yeah, learn to dispense with certain self-concepts that contain hidden “metaphysical” implications about your self-worth, and try and remember that, while we may be human, we are still animals.

    It’s hard to explain, but somehow, I can’t see myself acting like the rough/badboy guy since I’m a big old pussy/softie/weenie omega male, but admittedly, as I pointed out, I had somewhat aggressive tendencies when I was with Canadian mistress who for all intents and purposes is a fluke when compared to most females. We were both admitted perverts and weirdos, so one could argue that I felt comfortable enough around her to act in such a manner.

    You and DA might make a good couple now that I think about it.

    I’m too stupid, credentialed, poor, short, ugly, weak, and undesirable for her.

    Look up “Madonna/Whore complex”.

    I’ve admitted to having such issues on my blog in my most recent post. Personally, I just don’t see any sexuality on most women, and given the issues with trying to even discover said sexuality, I’ve determined that it’s just simply easier, faster, and less complicated to masturbate to porn and avoid dealing with so-called female sexuality. I’ll open admit to being bored with porn more often with lack-luster masturbation sessions, but it’s just so much easier and cheaper to use porn to masturbate to a fantasy than to deal with real world. Porn is cheap, always available, and doesn’t say no or insult you. It’s a heck of a lot more compatible with the male sex drive than the female sex drive…

    Like


  182. 180 Czar:

    Still, I wish I would get a dollar every time I hear “I don’t like X – it’s gross!” turn into “I don’t understand myself anymore. Why do I like X so much?” – I think you know what I mean…

    Yes, but keep in mind what Elizabef has revealed:

    1 – an aversion to physical contact from a very early age
    2 – a revulsion to rather tame sex acts
    3 – at age 27 (apparently) a virgin(?)
    4 – not revealed, but I have a hunch she is nonorgasmic

    I don’t know about you but that sounds like one hell of an uphill battle. Sometimes it’s better to cut your losses and move on to greener pastures. It just ain’t worth it.

    However I will admit that a part of me (a small part) relishes the idea of “breaking” such an ice queen. You know, the challenge and all that.

    TC

    (can it be?? is The Beast[s] about us yet again? *shudders involuntarily*)

    Like


  183. 181 David Alexander:

    It’s hard to explain, but somehow, I can’t see myself acting like the rough/badboy guy since I’m a big old pussy/softie/weenie omega male…

    It’s all relative. You don’t need to be badass. You just need to be your best self.

    I’m too stupid, credentialed, poor, short, ugly, weak, and undesirable for her.

    That’s the spirit.

    Like


  184. on September 18, 2008 at 2:09 am SovereignAmericanMale

    Hmm…

    Since the BDSM angle has been broached a few times in this thread, I will chime in with a few more points:

    There are other aspects that haven’t been aired.

    1. Scene Vs. Lifestyle

    2. the Differences between D/s, S&M, B and GLBT and they can and often do overlap.

    According to a study mentioned by Naomi Wolf in The Beauty Myth (New York: Doubleday, 1992) on page 141, Dr. E. Hariton finds that 49 percent of American women studied have submissive fantasies.

    While about 80% of women, I personally have known, have submissive traits and/or fantasies, they are more comfortable with a vanilla relationship.

    But only 20% are perpetually unhappy within a vanilla relationship, and are a Real Submissive. They have a psychological makeup that requires an inordinately large amount of direction and leadership to find/have happiness and satisfaction.

    While most males enjoy the thoughts of playing with handcuffs and a ridding crop in the bedroom, they are totally unprepared for the commitment and authority required to care take a genuine sub.

    In fact, only real Doms/Dommes have the intuitive know how to keep a girl happy. All the while the real Subbies or True Subs (women) have the hardest time sorting the wheat from chaff, as a extreme number of men who are really vanilla, pretend to be Doms and really havn’t a clue what they are doing, leading to nightmarish relationships that fail 99%.

    An excellent article about A.P.E. aka Real 24/7 Lifestyle BD/sSM for the informed and the uninformed alike can be perused at

    http://www.submissivewomenspeak.net/ape.htm

    And an excellent article written by a A.P.E. slave girl Polly Peachum that was to be included in a book of feminist essays written by third wave fem Naomi Wolf, her Editor Killed it off, because:

    Apparently Women cannot choose for themselves, and make it widely known that the option of male led submission is a valid choice.

    Polly Peachum wrote Violence in the Garden for inclusion in a collection of Third Wave feminist essays.

    It can be read at:

    ht tp://www.submissivewomenspeak.net/garden.htm

    Remember to remove the space between the two “t”s

    Like


  185. on September 18, 2008 at 2:14 am SovereignAmericanMale

    oh and btw

    DA

    You should go fap at the pretty pain whores at http://www.paingate.com

    Like


  186. You should go fap at the pretty pain whores at http://www.paingate.com

    Bzzt, no. That’s not attractive at all.

    That’s the spirit.

    I’d consider that to be realism.

    You just need to be your best self.

    I think that’s the most sensible thing I’ve heard all day.

    Like


  187. 186 David Alexander:

    I’d consider that to be realism.

    I ain’t tryin’ to hear dat.

    The realism of the present moment doesn’t necessarily constrict you from changing the realism of the next moment.

    Like


  188. 49 Yours Truly: The unattractive guy that is fantastic on the inside is largely a myth. Most guys who are a 7 have better characters and personalities than 5’s.

    That was a joke… right?

    Like


  189. On average, no.

    See, it takes backbone to go to the gym regularly and self control to watch what you say and be verbally charming. It takes understanding of yourself and of how to avoid stress to have relaxed rather than tense motorics. It takes humility to realise that your appearance needs work and pride to actually improve it.

    Of course, sometimes a boy is just born with a strange looking face and will be unattractive even if he fully develops himself.

    But most people are born with an appearance that can be made attractive with work and an alluring personality and can also be made unattractive by laziness, stress and bitterness.

    Like


  190. ” I don’t think being gay automatically precludes one from being an alpha” — T

    Agree with that 100%. Charles Haley: all-time great NFL defender, 5 Super Bowl Rings. Liked to place his massive schlong onto his JMU hallmate’s faces; would jerk off in front of fellow 49ers while yelling that they wanted to suck it.

    I’ve worked with two different guys who get a lot of female tail (strippers and the like) who blatantly checked out guy’s asses.

    In Kandahar men are hypermasculine and also connoiseurs of pre-pubescent boys.

    Sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with the size of one’s testes.

    @ Affe

    LOL

    Like


  191. on January 23, 2010 at 10:13 am Not naming myself this time

    It its true. Girls are especially merciless towards guys who pull the “I’m a virgin, pity me” card. I knew this one guy in college… a nerdy 22-year-old Srilankan,(probably had asperger’s) who still played with legos, was big into computers, and had a weird collection of tics (he would “bleep” into song like he was R2D2.). He made the mistake of broadcasting his virginity to almost everyone of our hippie friends. EVEN WORSE, HE ADMITTED HE HAD NEVER BEEN KISSED. Bad Mistake. Instead of getting the pity fuck he was probably looking for, the girls in our group would rip on him the most for being so heavy handed by dropping his baggage on everyone.

    For the record, I have the exact same problems he has… not the ticks but the aspergers and zero experience. The difference is I don’t air my dirty laundry to the outside world. It’s tasteless and it’s a sign of weakness.

    As much as betas now feel vindicated in this Apatowian world where the loosers are the heroes, guess what? Women HATE your neurosis, your self pity, and narcisitic sexual martyrdom. Sure I maybe walking death according to Roissey’s standards, but at the very least none of my friends every knew nor suspected my celibacy.

    STOP being a drama queen. Confessionals are the purview women who can’t shut up because it’s in their genes not to. That Michael Cera shit may look cute on the big screen, but in real life is uglier than female ugliness.

    Like