Lying For Sex

Getting laid is so critical to a man’s well-being that if he needs to lie to get it I’m not morally scandalized. I liken it to the unemployed man who has to steal bread in order to feed his starving family. The sexless man would be negligent not to avail himself of the shadier moral choices to cure his condition.

If lies are necessary to avoid the walking death of celibacy then it is worth the soulpence it may cost in whatever personal code of integrity a man follows. A lie to bed a woman does her little harm. After all, what exactly has changed… what actual harm has been done to her… if the next morning she finds out he works at Taco Bell instead of Goldman Sachs? The sex will still have felt as good because a discovered lie cannot undo the past. Unless she has made important life decisions with him on the first night together the lie will not have any influence on her future. At best, she can say that had she known the truth she would have enjoyed one more night of sleeping alone.

The reason men lie for sex is because it is an option that is available to them. It’s a courtship tactic that exists because women look for non-obvious signals of attractiveness in men. Lying takes advantage of a woman’s base motives — her lust for powerful men, conspicuous displays of resources and confidence, and the feeling of being seduced — by feeding her what she wants to hear. Women lie as well when they wear makeup and act coquettish but that is not of the same order of magnitude as the lies men have at their disposal to beguile women into sex. Men pretty much know with a quick glance whether they want to bang a girl so girls don’t have much room to lie their way onto a man’s erection. Therefore, it is easier for girls to assume the moral high ground because their virtue is born of necessity. They’d lie like men if easy sex were on their agenda or it helped them as much to get what they want in a partner.

If a loser has trouble getting laid the normal way I see no reason why he should handicap himself by adopting a posture of perfect moral rectitude and telling the truth when it will obviously hurt his cause. The reward for such good behavior — many nights alone with his hand — hardly compensates for the sex he could have gotten through amoral means. Lying can be an attainable way for a beta to get a few early notches under his belt and purify himself of the stink of desperation.

Take the following two scenarios illustrating why lying for sex is not always the black-or-white moral decision many women want men to believe.

  1. She asks if he’s a virgin. (Odd question to ask, but let’s assume something about him gave her cause for concern.) He’s a 30 year old man and is, in fact, a virgin. If he answers “yes” he has seriously impacted his chance to get laid. If he lies, he keeps his goal in sight and she loses nothing.
  2. He has terminal cancer and will die in one year. He has been dating a girl for two months and it is going well. Both of them feel the first stirrings of love. She doesn’t know of his disease. He wants to spend his remaining time on earth in the arms of a woman who loves him. If he tells her the truth she may leave him or withdraw her love so as to avoid wasting a year of her life on a man who won’t be around to support her and the family she eventually wants. If he lies he has, in effect, stolen a year of her prime dating marketability, though he has given her a year of love she was not guaranteed to get without him.

While I have no abstract moral hang-up about lying I don’t recommend it as a seduction tool for three reasons.

  • It’s weak game

Lying is the cut & paste, band-aid version of game. It’s quick and dirty and often effective, but won’t last. It has no roots, no foundation. It’s better to spend the effort to learn good solid game that will be there for you in any situation than to use the crutch of weak game where you have to waste energy keeping track of all your lies. You will feel a greater sense of accomplishment winning over a woman without resorting to outright lies and this will redound to your self-confidence.

  • It complicates the pursuit of long term relationships

Lies work well for one night stands and even short term flings if the guy doesn’t contradict himself. But long term relationships — the ones where you go shopping for a condo together or she visits you at the office to drop off your lunch — will crumble under an edifice of lies. If you work at Taco Bell she’ll find out eventually. False advertising moves product only up until the first recall. So if you are looking for lasting love it pays to resist the temptation to lie away perceived flaws.

  • Lying is self-reinforcing

The big problem with lying is that once you start, you can’t stop. One lie requires two more to sustain, and two lies requires four. You will soon find yourself mired in a fantasy world of talented Mr. Ripley proportions (which isn’t so bad if you have his skills of deception) that will kill any chance at a healthy relationship unless the girl is a complete masochist for your lying bad ass. (Those girls do exist.) Plus, lying encourages reliance on other bad habits to seduce a woman. If you lie to attract a woman then other parts of your game are likely to be equally sloppy.

Moral of this post: Don’t lie. Evade.





Comments


  1. Two kinds of lies that are among the most commonplace and actually do hurt women: pretending that you want a “serious relationship” when you don’t; and pretending that you are not already involved with a woman when in fact you are. Neither of these can be justified by “sexual drought”. A man who wants a casual encounter can usually find one without the former kind of pretense; and in the latter case, if he’s already involved with a woman he is unlikely to be experiencing such a drought.

    These lies are not only dangerous to women, they poison the dating well for other men – as an experienced man should know.

    Another point to bear in mind: look carefully at the women you pursue for casual encounters – for more than just their appearance, I mean. Make sure they can handle it. Some women when hurt by a lie can extract a terrible revenge. Fatal Attraction was a paranoid male fantasy – most women aren’t bunny-boilers any more than most men are wife-beaters – but women don’t have to resort to violence to make a man’s life a misery.

    Like


  2. What should I lie about, then? Presumably being a virgin is OK…she really has no way to check.

    Like


  3. “Women lie as well when they wear makeup and act coquettish…” While I do wear makeup, I don’t know I would consider it a lie. It is not like I take it off and look like demon spawn. I do not see it as any different than wearing cologne, a unique shirt…whatever. It is enhancement. As far as acting coquettish, isn’t that just another form of game?

    Like


  4. We all put our best foot forward, but we need to know where the line is between augmentation and deception. Makeup is simply augmenting your natural beauty. It’s not like I’m a hag without it. So it’s not deceptive, it’s putting my best foot forward.

    And, if you’re so pathetic that you’ll resort to deception…just pay for it. Seriously. There is really nothing worse than someone who fools another person into thinking they want a serious relationship, then bails the morning after. It just poisons the well for all the other guys by turning another woman into a man-hater.

    Like


  5. heat, heat, in the dirt, on the outside, inside brush-off, heat, junk, slider, sinker…but i was waiting for the change up.

    Like


  6. but i was waiting for the change up.

    i know. that’s why i didn’t throw it.

    Like


  7. It’s not always clear whether an omission is quite the same thing as a lie. Telling a woman that you’re not involved with anyone else when you actually have a steady girlfriend is an obvious lie and is morally very dubious. But what if it’s not intended to be more than a one-night fling and she never asks about your status? Is your failure to volunteer the information wrong (from the fling’s standpoint, of course the whole deal is wrong from your girlfriend’s standpoint)? Another scenario: you work at Taco Bell, but you’re very well-dressed and in an upscale nightclub, the sort of place that i-bankers patronize. Should you volunteer the information that you make burritos all day, if you think that the woman might be thinking you’re a highly paid professional but doesn’t actually ask?

    Like


  8. I once told a girl I was a third string corner back for the Redskins and it worked. What I was really proud of was when I told her Mark Brunell is a complete homo and tried to hit on me once in the shower. She bought it.

    Like


  9. Peter, to answer your question about lies vs. omissions: playing on assumptions is a form of lying.

    If a woman is going to have a one-nighter with you, she assumes you’re single. I don’t think I’ve ever asked a guy who’s trying to pick me up if he has a girlfriend – I assume he does not have one, and that is why he is hitting on me. What you are doing is making the one-nighter girl an accomplice to cheating, and that would hurt her. Nobody wants to be the “other woman.” (Never mind what it would do to your girlfriend.)

    The Taco Bell scenario is actually less likely, especially if you live in DC. DC people blab on about their jobs until you want to kill them, so the Taco Bell night manager job isn’t going to stay a secret for long.

    Like


  10. There is a grey area when evasion is the best policy, especially if the woman is grilling you with interview-style questions.

    Those are best deflected with humor (even when you have nothing to hide) because you don’t want a dunamic where you’re “applying” to be with her — she should be trying to win your apprioval instead.

    Should you volunteer the information that you make burritos all day, if you think that the woman might be thinking you’re a highly paid professional …

    My policy is “don’t explain – don’t apologize.” You shouldn’t conceal your profession or status in life out of shame. You are who you are. If you’re in a tactical situation where you may have to reveal a lower-status occupation, spin it attractively.

    Also, a highly-paid professional women might be looking to “slum” or take a break from her other high status professional males.

    Like


  11. VK, I think my only bar scene lie is my fake name. Every St. Patrick’s Day, I change my name to Valerie so I don’t have to explain a thousand times over that I’m not Irish. My friends get so into it that they call me Valerie for a week.

    Like


  12. There is really nothing worse than someone who fools another person into thinking they want a serious relationship, then bails the morning after.

    I think the reason why I’m not so bitter towards men is that this has never happened to me. My attitude has always been that if the guy doesn’t love me emotionally, he doesn’t get sex from me — the husband pointed out that I might have my first boyfriend to thank for this. I’ve always had relationships with guys who wanted more of me than just my body, and I’ve never gotten involved in the casual scene.

    My first boyfriend treated me so well, when I was so young, and with such profound love that he set my standards extremely high for men thereafter. He never pushed anything sexually, so I was the one who made all the moves. Any guy that tried to get in my pants afterwards had to wait at least a month of chatting, e-mailing, phone conversations in which we find out all about each other to establish emotional rapport.

    By the end of that, I knew a guy had put up with enough not having of anything that he should have something. I tended to reward brutal, naked and deeply personal truths, and the more interesting and closer to the person’s core the better. I easily self-disclose with people, something that I’d been doing since I was 3 and sharing my life story with strangers on a train.

    It’s so difficult to connect with other human beings already. Why make it more so by withholding information, misdirection and deception? I don’t wear makeup or have coquettish acts either, so it has never really been about games with me and men. I just loved them for who they really were, flaws and all.

    Like


  13. Hope, sadly, not all women have been so lucky. Some have been naive and thought that sex automatically equals a relationship. And others have been deliberately misled by the sort of guy who will stop at nothing because he’s too cheap to get a hooker.

    I have a policy of insisting on straight talk from a guy before hopping into bed with him. I wish more people would do the same.

    Like


  14. Wait? Sex doesn’t mean a relationship? I thought all these men were my boyfriends…

    As far as straight talk…you can insist on it, bu still not get it. People are selfish and just want to get off. Understand that and you are fine.

    Like


  15. Hope, sadly, not all women have been so lucky.

    There is certainly such a thing as luck, and I know that I have been lucky. But I also believe that choices make a difference. To use a gaming (poker and video game) analogy, both luck and skill help determine the outcome. Even if you are dealt a great hand in a card game, sometimes you might not realize the value of it or worse, you might toss it to try to get a better deal.

    In so many ways life itself is just a game, and we are but unwitting players. I’ve been dealt pretty good hands, but relationships take persistence and the right attitude. Nothing comes magically. Fairy tales are like stories about Santa and the tooth fairy told to kids; by the time they were told to me, I was too old to believe in them.

    I wish more people would do the same.

    There is no need to wish for anything. People will think what they want to think and do what they want to do, regardless of outcome. It takes a lot of willpower to override most baser biological urges, and we won’t be successful most of the time. Ultimately, only you can control your actions and care for yourself. Everyone else is looking out for his or her own self. Just keep your eyes open, your feet grounded, and your head even with reality. 😉

    Like


  16. What about this hypothetical situation:

    A man has been sleeping with a woman for about a month or so. He has no intention of getting into a serious, committed relationship with her, but he can sense that she’s growing more and more attached. They haven’t yet discussed the status of the relationship, however.

    Is the man obligated to inform the woman that he isn’t interested in a long-term relationship if she doesn’t ask? If she does ask, he will tell her the truth, but if she does not, he will simply avoid the topic altogether. What do you all think?

    Like


  17. “My attitude has always been that if the guy doesn’t love me emotionally, he doesn’t get sex from me”

    Does anyone here not see the insane power imbalance that we’re up against?

    The thing is, girls, is that you CAN’T lie to a guy to entice him, because your looks are your main value.

    But, because guy’s value is so intrinsically related to their game, lying to some degree, or at least exaggeration, can contribute quite significantly to a woman’s attraction.

    From a message board in real social dynamics forum

    “From reading the book, I interpreted it as saying that the guy tricking/forcing the girl into sex, and leaving her was the girl’s way of CONFIRMING that he was the kind of guy that she wants. (sort of to say that the jerk/******/untamable behaviour was some sort of CERTIFICATION that the girl has been fertalized by an alpha-seed, or something bizarre to that effect).”

    I’m extremely skeptical of moralizers when it comes to sex because, understand, folks. Sex is an economic game, where the woman either wants resources or alpha genes. The reason why women get upset about pumpers and dumpers is because they thought because the man’s genes weren’t up to par, he was going to provide economic value also. Instead, he bounced, therefore allowing him to fertilize a woman and not bear the cost of raising the kid, screwing over the woman in terms of her reproductive fitness. So now she has to raise a beta male son without the contributions of the father. This prevents her from gaining the resources of any other men or the alpha genes for 9 months.

    However, if the guy was a rock star, she wouldn’t mind the pump and dump because she knows that with the great genes, her son is going to get laid alot and perpetuate his mom’s half of the genes.

    Selfish gene theory determines human behavior.

    Like


  18. From the forum

    “I recall having a convo with Toecutter about his friend who would walk up to women, and tell them that he was rich and wanted to marry them.

    He would weave the story, work it, and sleep with them that night. Then he’d blow them off the next day, leaving them heartbroken.

    Now my first reaction to this was to be appalled.

    I questioned my respect for Toecutter, and generally wondered what he could possibly be thinking. How could he justify this sort of thing?

    He said that I was living in an AFC mindset, and that women LOVED “to have their hopes and dreams shattered by scoundrels like Han Solo” and such, and that it was something that they actually WANTED.

    He suggested that I read NANCY FRIDAY “My Secret Garden”, to read about women’s rape fantasies, and how repressive society has generated a common female fantasy for ******s who will break down their socially-taught resistance, and treat them like the “dirty” girls that deep down they know themselves to be.

    From reading the book, I interpreted it as saying that the guy tricking/forcing the girl into sex, and leaving her was the girl’s way of CONFIRMING that he was the kind of guy that she wants. (sort of to say that the jerk/******/untamable behaviour was some sort of CERTIFICATION that the girl has been fertalized by an alpha-seed, or something bizarre to that effect).”

    Like


  19. I’ve seen #2 (lying complicating long-term relationships) happen to friends of mine. My friend lied to a girl outrageously about irrelevant shit because he didn’t think he’d have a chance anyway. Turned out she was interested in him and was checking him out all night. The more he got to know her, the more awesome he realized she was, but he always had a wall up because he told so many lies that he could not now tell the truth. So they ended up never going far. Cured him of the lying thing though.

    Like


  20. Selfish gene theory determines human behavior.

    Selfishness is written in our genes just as altruism, love and social bonding are biologically human. The monkeys and chimps have these, too.

    Not everything about human behavior is repulsive. Interactions between men and women do not have to be antagonistic.

    Self-fulfilling prophesies may apply. See your local bar scene for details.

    Like


  21. I think Alias Clio summed it up well. And I think Roissy is making men look pathetic. Self control really isn’t an option for a man? You expect women to make all the reasonable choices and demand an emotional inventory at every turn, while men just push and push and push for sex because they’ll DIE if they don’t get it? That’s a pretty sad fate for both sexes.

    How about we switch? Men figure out how to control those urges, as you expect women to do. And women start to ask for what they really want, instead of playing some game? Wouldn’t that just be… easier?

    My two cents anyway. Now do your chimp dance Roissy, and call me names.

    Like


  22. Fair enough, Hope. Altruism, love, and bonding are also very well explained by selfish gene theory too.

    It’s just that when anyone tries to impose moral judgment on people trying to get laid or get married, it tends to ignore the deeper drives of people, which are explained by their genetic interests.

    Beyond this, I think it’s pretty messed up if a guy lies about having an STD.

    And to Alias #1, pretending to not be involved when involved is very complicated. Because women intrinsically find involved men more attractive than single men. Whenever I was dating someone it always seemed like girls were more receptive to me. So, sometimes girls shoot themselves in the foot when going after guys that are involved and acting heartbroken when that guy isn’t able to commit.

    Like


  23. “Whenever I was dating someone it always seemed like girls were more receptive to me.”

    Did you say that you were taken, or wear a ring, or anything that made it obvious? If you didn’t, and women still seemed more responsive to you, it’s possible they were responding to an aura of ease and relaxation that you don’t usually have.

    A man who seems indiscriminately needy is seldom appealing. (That’s one trait that holds true across the sexes. A pretty woman who seems too desperate puts men off, except for the seriously abusive.) Unless, that is, he is usually very self-possessed but seems to be frantic for your notice and affection in an exceptional way.

    Like


  24. What about this hypothetical situation:
    A man has been sleeping with a woman for about a month or so. He has no intention of getting into a serious, committed relationship with her, but he can sense that she’s growing more and more attached. They haven’t yet discussed the status of the relationship, however.
    Is the man obligated to inform the woman that he isn’t interested in a long-term relationship if she doesn’t ask? If she does ask, he will tell her the truth, but if she does not, he will simply avoid the topic altogether. What do you all think?

    At some point the man is going to have to bring up the issue even if the woman doesn’t ask. It would not be morally right to string her along forever.
    As for the question of when he should speak to her, it depends on the circumstances. If the woman is over 30 or 35 and has said she wants children, he shouldn’t wait too long; the same is true if he has reason to believe other men are interested in her. If these conditions do not apply it might be okay to wait a little longer. It’s impossible to give a firm deadline such as one month.

    Like


  25. Things you can never lie about:
    1) STDs you possess
    2) If you have the HIV
    3) If you have AIDS

    As for everything else, why should you ever believe that someone is telling the truth? If you’re just having a one night stand with them, why should it matter?

    As for this situation:
    What about this hypothetical situation:
    A man has been sleeping with a woman for about a month or so. He has no intention of getting into a serious, committed relationship with her, but he can sense that she’s growing more and more attached. They haven’t yet discussed the status of the relationship, however.
    Is the man obligated to inform the woman that he isn’t interested in a long-term relationship if she doesn’t ask? If she does ask, he will tell her the truth, but if she does not, he will simply avoid the topic altogether. What do you all think?

    The man should just tell the woman ASAP. The shit storm he will have to deal with bc of not telling her is going to be much worse than ending it early.

    Like


  26. John Smith:

    “The reason why women get upset about pumpers and dumpers is because they thought because the man’s genes weren’t up to par, he was going to provide economic value also. Instead, he bounced, therefore allowing him to fertilize a woman and not bear the cost of raising the kid, screwing over the woman in terms of her reproductive fitness. So now she has to raise a beta male son without the contributions of the father.”

    Oh, of course. Because every single time you sleep with someone, you get pregnant. And it’s always a boy, and it’s always a beta male. Seriously, this is quite a reach you’re trying to make. Are you seriously trying to argue that a pump-and-dump is hurtful for purely economic reasons? What a sad, sad world to live in.

    And then…

    “From reading the book, I interpreted it as saying that the guy tricking/forcing the girl into sex, and leaving her was the girl’s way of CONFIRMING that he was the kind of guy that she wants. ”

    I’d love to see this book. I imagine it’s filed in the fiction section. It seems you’ve interpreted some random book to say that you have a biological imperative to wreck souls and hurt people. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Biological urges are not destiny. You can rise above and be better. As Hope so nicely put it, you can make choices. Having a dick does not give you the right to BE a dick. Do better. Try harder. No bullshit excuses.

    Like


  27. Shannon,

    How long have we had serious birth control? A few decades? How long as humanity been evolving? Something on the order of hundred thousand years. So, rise above nature?

    Sure, you can try, but all our urges are ultimately rooted in genetic predispositions. Actually the book, “My secret garden,” was hailed as a landmark in female sexuality. Check out the message board that I linked.

    What I’m saying is that the pump and dump does not have many consequences in the modern day. But because it was SO harmful to women 100,000 years ago in the cold caveman times where she had to raise a kid all alone, her emotions evolved to make her extremely averse to the pump and dump situation. Hence why it’s so upsetting to women today.

    Hey, the reason why I believe in genetic engineering and biotechnology so much is because I want us to rise above our biological predispositions. But social engineering and tons of women’s studies courses aren’t going to erase the underlying dynamics of human interaction.

    Like


  28. Re: Franklin’s hypo

    If a guy can’t come out and give a girl the “this is going nowhere right?” speech I mean really. Guys do it all the time. You just have to get over that hurdle of the fear of losing the puss. Relax, really you can do this. There are better ways than others. Try to word it in such a way… I mean for goodness sake *don’t say “I noticed you getting attached.” You might get away with “If you met someone else I’d be happy for you even though it meant our friendship would have to change.” But there’s no guarantee.

    Answering the “is the man obligated” question — I’d say yes, because that’s the man’s role. Women ask open-ended questions “where is this going” and men make decisions “you know this is just friends right?” Even the questions like “will you marry me” are clear statements of intent.

    Like


  29. John Smith, unlike animals, human beings have free will. We can make choices and do better, which isn’t easy. The issue I have with biological predisposition arguments is that they’re used as a free pass for bad behavior. Of COURSE I can treat women like dirt, because that’s what the cavemen did! It’s also used to say that women are less worthwhile then men…kind of a hoot when you consider that gatherers (women) provided more food than the hunters (men).

    Getting back to the point, being pumped and dumped is not exclusively procreation-related. There are far more obvious reasons that it would be so upsetting. It’s a breach of trust, plus, nobody enjoys being rejected or taken for a fool.

    (Please note that I’m talking about a very specific situation here: a growing romance over a period of several weeks or more, followed by an evening of sweatiness, then….nada. Conquest completed, time to move on. One-nighters are a whole separate issue. I’m anti, but I don’t judge others for it.)

    Also, the link didn’t work, sorry!

    Like


  30. Neither lying or evasion are good options in my limited worldview. If they were great tools in creating a happy life, most of us would be fabulously happy. I’d be the biggest liar, concealer and evader on the planet if it made me happy. Problem is if you lie and get the “results” you’re looking for it’s like a fix or addiction. Great in the short term. Disaster in the long run. Evasion of course, is just a lie of omission. How exactly does one feel when one is in the process of conjuring the lie and executing the lie? How does one feel when “evading”, exploiting, etc.? Is it a happy feeling compared to jerking off? If so, please feel free to enjoy every minute of it.

    Personally, I never feel bad about masturbating. And I’ve never had a problem getting laid either if that’s what I wanted. I’m a woman, so granted it’s much easier. But I can remember when I was much younger having some great men friends who provided me with some fabulous servicing when that was what I wanted. It was completely satisfying for all concerned. No guilt, no anger, no blame. Just great fucking sex.

    Not an option? Perhaps you’re just not attractive enough as a man or human being to create that type of arrangement. If you have to resort to lying and evasion I feel sorry for you, but no one is going to stop you either. Like I said, if you can feel good lying or evading and you think you are getting what you want and after you get what you want after said lying and evading you feel terrific and can’t wait to do it again, have at it.

    Like


  31. Dear Peter comment #24: Nice of you to ask. In essence a woman’s “time” is more important than yours when her goal in being with a man is to find one to spend the rest of her life with and have children. She has limited time to reproduce. She does not want to waste her time. In that case she will feel that any amount of time she spends with you is wasted if it doesn’t result in marriage and children or at least a true partnership. It’s how most of us are built. So it seems you answered your own question. If it feels wrong to lead a woman on then don’t do it. If you feel protective of women in general, that’s great. Some of us will greatly appreciate your honesty and be glad to call you friend.

    Like


  32. What I’m saying is that the pump and dump does not have many consequences in the modern day. But because it was SO harmful to women 100,000 years ago in the cold caveman times where she had to raise a kid all alone, her emotions evolved to make her extremely averse to the pump and dump situation. Hence why it’s so upsetting to women today.

    This is ridiculous, along with 90% of the comments on this blog that refer back to pre-historic human behavior. In the “cold caveman times”? What does that mean. I assume you mean non-sedentary hunter-gatherers. Do you even know what the social rules were for social contracts among pre-historic hunter-gatherer males and females? Are you assuming they were the same everywhere? Do you know how human emotions have evolved since then? You don’t, because no one does.

    Coming up with justifications for barbaric actions by imposing your preconceived notions about prehistoric times upon modern/changing social mores in the USA is pseudoscience. Thanks for playing my freng.

    Like


  33. Dear paully, in caveman times as I understand it, women traded sex for food and it was a pretty simple arrangement.

    Like


  34. I knew it!! Things make so much more sense now.

    Like


  35. “Coming up with justifications for barbaric actions by imposing your preconceived notions about prehistoric times upon modern/changing social mores in the USA is pseudoscience.”

    Uh, it’s called evolutionary psychology. Check out “the mating mind” for further clarification.

    And I wouldn’t call lying for sex barbaric.

    Deceptive, maybe, but the true barbarians are the people who think that women should have no relations outside of marriage .

    http://www.rsdnation.com/showthread.php?t=2385

    Like


  36. Dear John Smith,

    “I’m extremely skeptical of moralizers when it comes to sex because, understand, folks. Sex is an economic game, where the woman either wants resources or alpha genes.”

    I’m thinking you must have been spawned in some cynical scientific cesspool of sterility.

    Like


  37. Dear paully,

    Stick around and I’ll tell you the meaning of life.

    Like


  38. What I’m saying is that the pump and dump does not have many consequences in the modern day. But because it was SO harmful to women 100,000 years ago in the cold caveman times where she had to raise a kid all alone, her emotions evolved to make her extremely averse to the pump and dump situation. Hence why it’s so upsetting to women today.

    Back in the cold caveman days, at least in the colder-weather societies that relied on hunting, if a man died while hunting (not uncommon, what with hostile climates and dangerous game), his wife and children would starve to death unless the wife found another husband. Life was too close to the subsistence level for other families to offer some of their food. It has been theorized that blonde hair evolved in northern Europe around the time of the Ice Ages as a way for women to appear more physically distinctive and make it easier for them to find new husbands if necessary.

    Like


  39. Now here’s one of the areas where talk of evolution confuses me. You speak of the difficult climate and say “blonde hair evolved in Northern Europe…as a way for women to appear more physically distinctive”, as if the former circumstance somehow created the latter. But surely it could not have done so? All “evolution” means, as I understand it, is that a certain number of genetic mutations appear in a population and are either successful – i.e. attractive to the opposite sex – or not. Even then, mere reproductive fitness in this sense is insufficient to make a particular mutation successful – one’s offspring then have to live long enough to reproduce themselves, or the mutant gene will die out.

    So you could justifiably say that the gene mutation that produced blonde hair proved to be “adaptive” in that when it first appeared men found it attractive and chose blonde women for mates. What you cannot say is that the gene mutation that produced blonde hair evolved because of environmental pressures of some kind or other.

    Or can you? When I read some theorists I could swear that this is in fact what they are saying. If so – if there is now a theory that suggests that genes are triggered by environmental constraints to produce certain adaptive mutations – I would like to hear more about it.

    Like


  40. on December 19, 2007 at 6:21 am secret asian man

    Let’s look at this from an evolutionary perspective.

    You think that lying to women to gain sex is OK, because it gains you an evolutionary advantage. Fine, they control sex.

    Is it similarly OK for a woman to lie to a man to gain resources? She could have sex with you while you provide for her, while nailing some other guy on the side for his superior genes.

    Same deal, in my mind.

    Neither is OK.

    Like


  41. The truth is nobody knows how caveman lived. I suspect however that they didn’t live in monogamous or even polygamous fiathful relationships. Marriage (poly or monogamous) is a product of agricultural society. Cavemen lived in groups, probably around 20 members excluding children. There was a alpha male who had sexual preference over the other males and probably tried to inforce sexual exclusivity with his favourite young female, but in essence all males were copulating with all the females, without exclusivity, and the children belonged to their mothers, because paternity couldn’t be established. Obviously the lower ranked males would have a lot less sex. But the food was for the group, because the whole group was the family. So the death of a hunter wouldn’t be that bad as long as enough other hunters were alive.

    Like


  42. the way men and women interact today has much much less to do with evolution and much more to do with society.

    the underlying desires and perhaps some of the behaviour may be biological (and figuring out which is which is a good challenge) but most of the behaviour we are interpreting will be societal.

    example: biology makes men want to fuck women, and (to some extent) women put up resistence to men (in some places women just won’t fuck without a ring, in others they fuck at the drop of a hat, so exactly what biology says is questionable).
    we might think that because we are biologically driven to want to fuck we lie to women out of biology. why not just rape them? if you and some broad were in the jungle and you just flipped her over and pounded her, you could be nice to her afterwards and she’d think you were the king (you would be by default). we don’t know what we would do exactly outside of our society, but figuring out where the line is drawn is very important and the hand waving and generalizations don’t explain it very well. it is hard to say what we would do given no society, because our actions now are so influenced, we’d have to live in that mess for a while to really figure it out.

    if you look at say, sweden vs the sudan you’ll see places that treat women very differently. in sweden if a woman doesn’t like a guy she works with, she can present a pretty strong case to have him removed from work. in the sudan, women are sent to get water because the packs of thugs will only rape her, as opposed to killing a man in the same place. biology isn’t particularly different between those places, but the differences are kinda big overall.

    “game” is much more about dealing with women in a given social setting vs any underlying biological understanding. every white nerd has “game” in japan because there are tons of japanese girls that just want to fuck a white guy. move her to LA, give her fake tits, and see how much attention your chubby gameboy playing nerd gets.

    Like


  43. clio –
    You are right, I was using the word “evolution” when “adaptation” would have been more accurate. Here is a discussion of the theory.

    Like


  44. I second Paully’s comment. 90% of the comments on this blog are absurd with equally ridiculous assumptions and more non sequitors than an autistic kid on speed.

    For example, “…but the true barbarians are the people who think that women should have no relations outside of marriage.”

    Say what?!

    Suggestion: Revisit the definition for barbarian.

    What of this treasure trove of logic…”The truth is nobody knows how caveman lived…” which is then followed by a detailed description of exactly how caveman lived in this same post no less!

    Suggestion: Revisit how to write a coherent thought.

    Then there are the dudes that paste a link to another blog, and pass it as fact to support their theory of the world.

    Suggestion: Revisit the scientific method.

    This blog is becoming my number one destination for comedic relief…aside from VK’s blog of course.

    Like


  45. DF, I think many of the male posters try far too hard to use science to justify assy behavior. Hey, y’all, “Darwin Made Me Do It” isn’t a valid defense. (But it would make an AWESOME t-shirt.)

    Like


  46. science doesn’t justify. it explains.
    shannon, you write like a puritan.

    Like


  47. “I think many of the male posters try far too hard to use science to justify assy behavior”

    Uh I think far too many people assume that we can live in a perfect utopia because everyone is exactly the same and genetics means nothing.

    Look, if you want idealistic dating advice that totally ignores our biological drives, go read that dating articles on MSN and Yahoo. The pickup community has utilized evolutionary psychology. While I don’t agree with everything they say, they come up with some pretty solid strategies to make men more attractive.

    We have 2 debates going on.
    a) Conflict about how humans actually evolved during the caveman times.
    b) Conflict about the role that our biology and evolutionary history play in current society, and whether we can rise above it.

    On a, there are disagreements, but it is highly dependent on what part of the world people evolved, so people of different races will have different mating patterns.

    On b, almost every single thing that we do in society is related to our nature. We still make decisions on an emotional basis. These emotions have not evolved with the times and are still stuck in the cave 100,000 years ago.

    And look, I’m a vegetarian. I think it was natural for people to eat meat 100,000 years ago, and so humans evolved a preference for meat. Does that mean meat eating is right? No. Biological preference and morality have little to do with each other. BUT, if we pass moral judgement, we should be aware that some “assy” behavior may be extremely difficult to control if it’s in total conflict with our nature.

    And DF, if you want to call our arguments ridiculous, please refute them. There is a whole body of evo-psych literature that backs us up, so be aware that we’re not pulling this stuff out of thin air. And my barbarian comment was to illustrate that an anti-sex or prudery philosophy is usually more harmful to the woman than the man. We should stop this monogamy obsession.

    Like


  48. Roissy, I agree that science is supposed to explain, not justify. Unfortunately, on this board anyway, science is a Twinkie Defense for meatheads. Evolutionary psychology is even more full of BS than those women’s studies courses you bash.

    Trust me when I say I have an inner bad girl, you’re just not going to meet her.

    Like


  49. science is a Twinkie Defense for meatheads.

    do you agree or disagree with the following statement?:

    eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.

    Evolutionary psychology is even more full of BS than those women’s studies courses you bash.

    proof by assertion is no way to go through life, son.

    you’re just not going to meet her.

    when did i say i wanted to?

    Like


  50. “BUT, if we pass moral judgement, we should be aware that some “assy” behavior may be extremely difficult to control if it’s in total conflict with our nature.”

    John Smith, I don’t believe we can deny our humanity. We’re all imperfect. What I believe is that we should try to rise above the compulsions that will hurt others. The effort is what matters. Please don’t dismiss me as some naive person who believes in utopia. I’ve seen some of the best and the worst parts of human nature, and I choose to be an optimist because the other option is bleak.

    I’ve never said that sex is bad. Done right, it’s fun and bonds you to your partner. Or, if you enjoy one-nighters, more power to you. It’s not for me, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong for everyone. I’m not the Puritan Roissy would like to dismiss me as.

    My point is this: we, as human beings, can do better. Despite all of our flaws, we have great capacity for love and kindness.

    Also, I think most dating advice is absurd because it fails to see people as individuals. If you ever want a really good laugh, read an issue of Cosmo. All men are exactly the same, apparently.

    Like


  51. All men are exactly the same, apparently.

    give or take some minor aesthetic preferences, men *are* pretty much the same. we all want sex with lots of hot young fertile women who fall within certain restricted physical and emotional parameters which include: youth, clear skin, symmetry, 0.7 WHR, large eyes, small chin, 17 – 22 BMI, and a feminine personality.
    the fact that not all men have these women in their lives, and will even go to lengths to whine they they aren’t really looking for those types of women, is more of a testament to their lack of choice in the sexual market rather than their discriminating tastes.

    Like


  52. wait for it….. wait for it….. wait…… RAPE

    Like


  53. Very funny, VK.

    Actually, now that we’re over 50 comments, we’re going to have to just go totally random. So let’s relate sex to the law of thermodynamics.

    Like


  54. #40 Secret Asian Man: HALLELUJAH!

    “You think that lying to women to gain sex is OK, because it gains you an evolutionary advantage.” “Is it similarly OK for a woman to lie to a man to gain resources?” “Same deal, in my mind. Neither is OK.”

    Have been trying to get someone, ANYONE to see this point. There is a God and his name is Secret Asian Man. When can we meet? ^_^

    Like


  55. Analysis is an endless pursuit. We’ve gone all the way back to the cave man days here. Couldn’t we go back even further? Like to the big bang for example? I’m sure that must have some bearing on all of this too. After all that’s what started the expansion of the universe. So why is the universe expanding? What causes the expansion? What does that have to do with men, women, sex, desire, fulfillment, eggs, sperm, and survival? Is universal expansion the only purpose of life? Does life have meaning? Does it need to have meaning? Why?

    Like


  56. Actually, I think the universe stopped expanding. Because of women and their stupid nesting instinct. The male drive for conquest is what kept the universe moving outwards, now, the universe is a neutered beta male who likes to shop at Target.

    Like


  57. ^ You make me laugh, Shannon. Never say die!
    Good men are still out there and you may even find one at Target.

    Like


  58. ^ Actually I take that back. “Good” men are not worth finding. “Good” men are so busy denying their “bad” that they end up not “good” for anything. I prefer an AWARE man. A conscious man. From consciousness good comes of it’s own accord.

    Like


  59. “For the past 500 million years, every member of the animal kingdom has utilised certain signals to communicate their interest in mating. These boil down to the message: ‘I am harmless; I won’t bite.’

    Like


  60. Then there are the dudes that paste a link to another blog, and pass it as fact to support their theory of the world.

    If you meant me, and the cavemen –> hunting deaths –> blonde women theory, I’ll point out that the theory is hardly my own, and is quite controversial. I have no idea whether it’s true or not.

    Like


  61. it’s obvious when a guy is a virgin

    Like


  62. Peter, I wasn’t directing my comment at you specifically because I didn’t mention unshaved blonde pubes.

    John, as I said, I come here for comedy not for scientific inquiry and debate. I recall your misappropriation of the endogenous growth model and your absurdly presumptuous statement that economists have failed for ignoring the smart fraction theory. Next time, tell your economics professor he doesn’t know shit and he should shut the fuck up. Let’s see how that goes over.

    I didn’t refute evo-psych and don’t intend to as it is a viable theory but this isn’t the forum to debate it anyway. I only question your approach to scientific inquiry which leaves much to be desired.

    Shannon, what a great idea for a t-shirt.

    Sara, damn girl! Just how badly were you burned? You must be over 27, according to some that is when women become instantly grotesque and at least 13 years past your prime or so I’m told.

    Rape.

    Like


  63. s.a.m.: You think that lying to women to gain sex is OK, because it gains you an evolutionary advantage. Is it similarly OK for a woman to lie to a man to gain resources?

    your analogy is off.
    as i explained in my post, a lie to bed a woman leaves her no worse for the wear. in fact, she has the memory of a night of pleasurable sex.
    a lie that leaves a man poorer without payment in sex has exacted a toll on him.
    of course, it is his responsibility to ensure that he not get used in that fashion.

    df: Next time, tell your economics professor he doesn’t know shit and he should shut the fuck up.

    it’d be a start.
    how many economists are familiar with lynn and vanhanen’s ‘iq and the wealth of nations’?
    how many seriously consider the facts laid out in that book when devising their economic theories?
    economists suffer from a blind spot when discussions turn to human nature. we are not empty game theoretic vessels.

    but this isn’t the forum to debate it anyway.

    sez who?

    Shannon, what a great idea for a t-shirt.

    shannon fears the id because it has bested her.

    Like


  64. ^ 3rd degree DF. Thanks for asking. Your extrapolation as to my grotesqueness is nonetheless inaccurate. Assumptions…you know. But I can certainly understand why you might think that. I turn down many offers and am not bullshitting here. Amazing, isn’t it?

    Like


  65. I do not fear the Id. The Id is the Homer Simpson of the psyche. (The ego is Bart, the superego is Lisa.) I accept the id for what it is and mock it cheerfully.

    Like


  66. Dearest DF: This MORNING I was told to “rest up” because a certain much younger male friend is coming over with the hopes of experiencing my hotness which is being squandered and wasted on my right hand for going on six months now. Seriously I have men from 25 to 70 that hit on me. Yes, I’m somewhere in between those two numbers. You were at least right about my being over 27.

    Like


  67. give or take some minor aesthetic preferences, men *are* pretty much the same.

    the fact that not all men have these women in their lives, and will even go to lengths to whine they they aren’t really looking for those types of women, is more of a testament to their lack of choice in the sexual market rather than their discriminating tastes.

    You’re saying that all men want the same thing, and if they say they don’t, they’re lying. That’s remarkably convenient.

    Like


  68. “as i explained in my post, a lie to bed a woman leaves her no worse for the wear.”

    Roissy, obviously you have no idea what it does to a woman’s ego to be blatantly used for sex. Or maybe you don’t care, as you seem to see dating as a kind of war of the sexes anyway.

    Like


  69. Roissy! Regarding comment “as i explained in my post, a lie to bed a woman leaves her no worse for the wear.” You’re an idiot!! An intellectual idiot, but very good for a laugh. Then I can say “as I explained in one of my earlier posts that a lie to gain money from a man leaves him no worse for the wear.” Perhaps I need to use more emoticons because like DF I’m here for mostly for amusement. Who could take all this mental mastication seriously?

    Like


  70. Perhaps I need to use more emoticons because like DF I’m here for mostly for amusement. Who could take all this mental mastication seriously?

    Not that I’m singling you out, sara, but this is a great example of where the women commenters are going wrong on this forum. Loudly insisting you’re “mostly here for amusement” is protesting too much — you’re qualifying yourself to Roissy, which is exactly what he wants women doing because it shows they’re in his frame, or world, or whatever you want to call it. You’re playing into his hands by engaging in the argument on his terms.

    Also, it’s redundant. Why else would you be here if not for amusement? Serious academic discourse? That’s like asking for a reasoned discussion about, say, gun control on an NRA forum.

    Like


  71. I’m here because it’s a surrealist freakshow. That’s more specific than “amusement.”

    Like


  72. I’m here because it’s a surrealist freakshow.

    the truth often is to those who have spent their lives living in the valley of the shadow of lies.

    Like


  73. we all lie…though women ..( more often than men)…we lie to ourselves…
    xoxo

    Like


  74. “it’d be a start.
    how many economists are familiar with lynn and vanhanen’s ‘iq and the wealth of nations’?”

    Plenty of peer review has been conducted in the Journal of Economic literature, Journal of Economic Growth, and the Economic Journal. Gee I wonder who reads those?

    “how many seriously consider the facts laid out in that book when devising their economic theories?”

    The endogenous growth model was developed in the 1980’s, Lynn’s book was published this decade.

    “economists suffer from a blind spot when discussions turn to human nature. we are not empty game theoretic vessels.”

    Behavioral economics. behavioral finance.

    I hope you are qualified to diagnose what economists collectively suffer from.

    “sez who?”

    This does not qualify as peer review to a credible academic but its damn entertaining.

    Like


  75. sara, I hope you realize I was being facetious.

    Like


  76. eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap

    I think I’ve scribbled that on at least 60 classroom desks and bathroom walls in the past 3 years…

    it’s obvious when a guy is a virgin

    Yes, virgins suck and have no clue as to what to do, except for alpha males who were born with gifts…

    Like


  77. I’m here because it’s a surrealist freakshow. That’s more specific than “amusement.”

    However you want to phrase it, you’re trying to establish yourself as “above the fray,” as if you’re just dropping in for a quick look and then flitting away, untouched by any controversy. But the way you take pains to point out this affected aloofness indicates that you actually do care more than you let on.

    Now, I’m not saying this is necessarily so. I’m simply saying that it makes it seem that way.

    Oh, and Roissy, it was pithier when it was just “Where pretty lies perish.” The “eternal hellfire” part makes you sound like a Dungeons & Dragons nerd.

    Like


  78. Thank you DF. I’m no worse for the wear. ^_^

    And Reggie? Roissy can go to hell. Men don’t qualify me, but I get your meaning. We fall into anyone and everyone’s hand when we REACT instead of ACT. And of course I was reacting. Here’s my favorite non-reactive story for your amusement and/or edification.

    “Buddha was passing through a village and the people came and they insulted him. And they used all the insulting words they could use–all the four letter words that they knew. Buddha stood there, listened attentively, and then said, “Thank you for coming to me, but I am in a hurry. I have to reach the next village, people will be waiting for me there. I cannot devote more time to you today, but tomorrow, coming back, I will have more time. You can gather again, and tomorrow if something is left that you wanted to say and have not been able to say, you can say it to me. But today, excuse me.”

    “Those people could not believe their ears, their eyes: this man has remained utterly unaffected, undistracted. One of them asked, “Have you not heard us? We have been abusing you like anything, and you have not even answered!”

    “Buddha said, “If you wanted an answer, then you have come ten years too late, then I would have answered you. But for these ten years I have stopped being manipulated by others. I am no longer a slave, I am my own master. I act according to myself, not according to anybody else. I act according to my inner need. You cannot force me to do anything. It’s perfectly good–you wanted to abuse me, you abused me. Feel fulfilled; you have done your work perfectly well. But as far as I’m concerned, I don’t take your insults and unless I take them, they are meaningless.”

    ^_^

    Like


  79. Reggie, now you’re forcing me to take pains to show that I am not taking pains to affect aloofness! Aaaargh! I’m in a loop of hellacious self-justification (much like the Darwin Made Me Do It crowd).

    So, once and for all: I don’t really care if random Internet people think I’m not pretty or that I’m a Puritan. I contribute to the discussion until Post #50, then I cease to have anything even semi-serious to say. Because after Post 50 the surrealist freakshow begins.

    And, here’s the more important question: Why are the men here? Why doesn’t anyone ever ask that, and instead focuses on female posters?

    Roissy is a 12th-level gnome magic-user.

    Like


  80. Roissy is a 12th-level gnome magic-user.

    no.
    try try try to understand
    i’m a magic man.

    Like


  81. Reggie, now you’re forcing me to take pains to show that I am not taking pains to affect aloofness! Aaaargh! I’m in a loop of hellacious self-justification (much like the Darwin Made Me Do It crowd).

    I wasn’t trying to trap you (or myself) in a web of logic. I just meant to point out something I’ve noticed around here.

    So, once and for all: I don’t really care if random Internet people think I’m not pretty or that I’m a Puritan.

    That’s just the ammo Roissy uses to snipe at female commenters who disagree with him. It’s intentionally hyperbolic because sometimes a responder will bite, and then the fun begins (for him).

    And, here’s the more important question: Why are the men here? Why doesn’t anyone ever ask that, and instead focuses on female posters?

    For some men, it’s because this blog offers an appealing promise: that by mastering certain skills and attitudes they can have more sex with attractive women. Other men, many of them bitter, enjoy the cynicism towards women, since they perceive society as having been tilted far in women’s favor by the feminist movement — never mind the centuries, if not millennia, in which men were dominant. (Of course, they would use this history as justification for it being the natural order of things.)

    Myself, I’m here because it’s a surrealistic freakshow. And because despite my disagreement with a lot of what Roissy says, he makes some interesting points and does it with an excellent prose style. That’s all I ask from a blog.

    Like


  82. Reggie, I think the Roissy argument goes something like this:

    “C’mon baby, everybody’s doing it. Sex is goooood. What, are you uptight or something? Men have NEEDS, y’know.”

    Roissy, didn’t you take me to the prom?

    Like


  83. sara: Roissy can go to hell.

    you first.

    shannon: Sex is goooood.

    make love when you can, because it is good.

    What, are you uptight or something?

    you don’t sound happy.

    Men have NEEDS, y’know.

    and you despise and resent those needs for reasons that i suspect have to do with some terrible hurt you have suffered to your pride.

    your puritanism lies in your insistence that men deny themselves the pleasure that you will not deny yourself. i have heard it all before from you breast-beating feminist types. you’re nothing but updated femmebot versions of the fire-breathing televangelist preacher.
    and
    you
    hate
    the
    comparison
    because
    it
    is
    true.

    feminism = puritanism minus jesus.

    “you have free will! just because you CAN do it doesn’t mean you SHOULD! KEEP THAT PENIS IN YOUR PANTS!!!”
    – some sanctimonious feminist

    Like


  84. Roissy, did you catch on to the fact that I was joking?

    “C’mon baby, everybody’s doing it. Sex is goooood. What, are you uptight or something? Men have NEEDS, y’know.”

    …That’s what high school boys say when they beg for sex.

    Like


  85. “Other men, many of them bitter, enjoy the cynicism towards women, since they perceive society as having been tilted far in women’s favor by the feminist movement — never mind the centuries, if not millennia, in which men were dominant. (Of course, they would use this history as justification for it being the natural order of things.)”

    Reggie, it IS the natural order of things, and we will be returning to it soon as feminized societies in Europe and North America die out and are replaced by Islam.

    And while it is true that birth rates in places like Iran are plummeting, they are still higher than those in the West. It’s a matter of the last man standing.

    Like


  86. sestamibi, Europe did quite well against Islam even as it was supposedly feminizing itself – feminizing itself by Islamic standards at any rate.

    I have no doubt that between A.D. 570 (birth of Mohammed) and 1571 (major Muslim defeat at battle of Lepanto), the ancestors of today’s Muslims were happily congratulating themselves that they had not been/would not be feminized like those Europeans with their rejection of polygamy and their increasingly emancipated women. They began by giving up veils; they went on to go to school; they learned to read like men! What horrors! What would come next? No wonder those effeminate Europeans kept losing territory and converts to Muscular Islam. Until 1571.

    And the feminization process didn’t stop all the while European learning and techology and armies and economies gathered strength and, for good or ill, conquered the world. Indeed, it too gathered strength.

    By all means, argue that it has gone too far, or become self-defeating – I would even agree with you there. But it would be absurd to argue that this process – feminization (whatever you may mean by that, exactly) – has been responsible for the decline of the West. It seems to me that history suggests the opposite is true.

    Like


  87. Reggie, it IS the natural order of things, and we will be returning to it soon as feminized societies in Europe and North America die out and are replaced by Islam.

    By “feminized,” do you mean societies that have embraced the feminist idea that men and women should be equal before the law, or societies that have become effeminate? (“Pussification,” I believe is the term.) Or does the second inevitably follow from the first, in your view, making them effectively the same? I’m curious.

    As for Islam replacing Western society, I doubt it, as I don’t find the birth rate theory particularly compelling. What confuses me is the relish some people seem to take in the idea, as if the destruction of Western society is worth it if it’ll show those feminists that they were wrong.

    Like


  88. Sara, were you worrying about finding a man for life when those male friends were “servicing” you?

    Seriously, the scientific stuff is over myhead but back to the post:

    Lying is acceptable if you really need to get laid and the lies don’t harm anyone, for example, I’ve been with lots of women, or I make six figures.

    It is not acceptable, in my opinion, if you are married or you promise a long-term relationship or something like that. Be wary of pretending you have a girlfriend; that can actually backfire often. I had a smokin hot girl visiting my college from a nearby one eating out of my hand until I tried to close the deal by going too far…

    Like


  89. Reggie, it IS the natural order of things, and we will be returning to it soon as feminized societies in Europe and North America die out and are replaced by Islam.

    We have B-52s and daisy cutters. They have Allah. Your point?

    Like


  90. We have B-52s and daisy cutters. They have Allah. Your point?

    it doesn’t matter how many B-52s we have if we don’t have the will to use them.

    Like


  91. Jack 88: No I was not looking for a life partner when I was being serviced by male friends. It was a fun time in my life when a whole group of us just traded off. No jealousy between the women or the men. We had three-somes and four-somes at times. If someone got jealous or serious in a relationship the rest backed off. There were a lot of parties with live music, dancing, and big houses with lots of bedrooms. Drama was kept to a minimum. It would still be possible today if that’s what I wanted. In the town where I live there are groups doing just that.

    Like


  92. roissy 83: I realized after I said “roissy can go to hell” that you’re already there. ^_^

    Like


  93. Sestamibi is right. Societies where women benefit of an education until they are 30, and then they eventually marry and have one child are headed for destruction. Also, because of non fault divorce more and more men are joining the marriage strike. No society where women marry later than their early twenties can subsist in the long run.

    Like


  94. Gannon, I disagree. And I have just as much evidence as you: none whatsoever.

    Again, why the gleeful embrace of the idea that Western society is on a path to oblivion because of the evil women who don’t choose to have babies early and often instead of pursuing what they want? And remember, the second option still allows women to have babies early and often if that’s their desire; it just doesn’t require it.

    Another question: What’s your solution to the what you believe is the decline of Western society? Should we take away women’s right to vote? Own property? Vote? Please propose a viable solution that does not involve women “remembering their place,” because that genie is already out of the bottle.

    Like


  95. This is a classic case of correlation does not equal causation, and false dichotomy. Let’s start with the issue of bombing Muslim countries. You seem to be under the impression that this is a war against all Muslims. That is incorrect. However, I do agree that the classical understanding that it is a war against terror is also radically incorrect. This is a war against an Islamic movement, which seeks to restore Islam as the dominant force in the world and replace western culture. The details and explanation of this plan and theory can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kilcullen

    Women and feminism have not hindered our ability to do anything, feminism by itself eliminates certain restrictions of violence, such as don’t hit girls. What you are referring to is the feminization of men, which should be regarded as different from the passification of men. The latter is a feminist wet dream, while the former is a hippy liberal ideal that has been pushed on us by the government.

    Some examples:

    Banning of violent video games:
    Actors: Hillary Clinton and other liberal posers
    Cause: Free speech Nazi
    Effect: Restrictive society
    Goal: Totalitarian domination

    another one:
    Banning of games at recess:
    Actors: Individual schools
    Cause: Law suit happy, entitlement society caused by a generation of free loaders, who got this mindset guess how? Thanks to that scumbag Lindon Johnson and his socialist programs. The same can be said for FDR and his gross abuses of the Constitution, however given the state of the country at that time I still like the man.
    Effect: Restrictive, anti violence (even legitimate violence)
    society
    Goal: Law suit avoidance which indirectly results in the passification of men

    I could go on, but I think you see the picture.

    Anyway, back to this idea of Islam taking over:
    Yes, birthrates are declining, but that is the byproduct of economic factors, not purely women’s liberation. Arguably women’s liberation multiplied Western economies because of the added workforce and many other benefits. It is also the natural state of things for people to seek freedom. The only place where a woman need be the “reciever” and the “taken” is the bedroom. You seem to be a big fan of Nancy Friday as evidence of women’s desire to be taken well women’s fantasies have changed, read here newest book “Women on Top” it demonstrates that culture does in fact change the desires of women in the bedroom. However, the one thing that doesn’t change is what triggers attraction in women. Those are: leading, being dominant, good inner game, etc… You are trying to allow the issue of attraction to enter the system of government. I have no idea how this is relevant at all to war.

    Furthermore, Islamic societies, as they become liberal democracies, which is the natural state of things, will incur the same problems as the west. Perhaps on a global scale it is nature’s solution to the overpopulation humans have caused at the height of their technological achievement, but before our psychological progress matched that level of achievement.

    Like


  96. To Reggie: sorry, population growth and age of first time marriage is absolulety correlated. All countries were a woman’s first time marriage moves from early twenties to late twenties show negative growth traits. And that is to be expected, since women in their early twenties are still in their prime fertility. The age limit for a woman for marriage is at around 25, because of biological limitations. Here a change in culture is required. Also, the bonding betwen the man and the woman will be much weaker.
    The other big culprit is non default divorce, which heavily favors women. Here legal changes are required

    Like


  97. “All countries were a woman’s first time marriage moves from early twenties to late twenties show negative growth traits.”

    What negative growth rates, birth rates or GDP? If you mean GDP you are absolutely positively wrong and don’t have a goddamn clue what you’re talking about. At least you’re consistent.

    Like


  98. Gannon, you’re leaving out a key thing: immigration. The US is basically the only developed nation that is still producing kids at the level of replacement (2.1 kids per couple). The reason? Immigration. We import our baby-producers! Consider it part of the new global economy.

    Like


  99. Why are people considering more kids to be signs of a healthier nation. Who has a better chance for survival, the 10 kids with slingshots or the one kid with the missiles?

    Like


  100. @DF: of course I meant human population growth, you materialist.
    @ Shannon: a country which favours a lot of inmigration changes his essence and therefore transforms itself in another country. The older country de facto disappears (or gets destroyed).

    Like


  101. To #99:
    Countries need at least replacement birthrates.

    Like


  102. Shannon–

    Yes, just another example of Jobs Americans Won’t Do.

    Like


  103. on December 20, 2007 at 7:22 pm David Alexander

    The other big culprit is non default divorce, which heavily favors women. Here legal changes are required

    Ganon, I’d suspect that if Argentina became a more secular society, and abortions and divorce were legalized, along with a delay in marriage, Argentine GDP would increase considerably, and you’d have a lower poverty rate. Hell, maybe Buenos Aires might be able to buy new subway cars to replace the ancient 60 year old units that are running on the new line. OTOH, with a lower Argentine birthrate, you’d end up losing a cheap supply of maids, and you’d be forced to do stuff for yourself. Ooops. :-/

    As I’ve stated before, we don’t have to worry about fertility issues in regards to “invasion” by the Muslims. We have advanced weaponry that can not only kill large numbers at the hands of one of our soldiers, but it can also reduce their ability to reproduce and wipe out an entire generation with ease. Mind you, morally, we think it’s wrong, but if pushed, we have the capability to do so. Hell, if need be, we can make gasoline and diesel fuel from coal. The best they can do is to kill themselves with suicide bombs…

    Now, as for older men marrying young women, I don’t think it would scale well in the US either. A thirty year old male who marries a thirty year old working female bitches about barely affording children. I don’t see how a thirty year old male can support a 21 year old stay at home wife and two to three kids without massive sacrifices in standards of living or massive subsidies from the government.

    Like


  104. on December 20, 2007 at 7:25 pm David Alexander

    you materialist

    Madonna’s right, we live in a material world. Hell, how do you think the global economy works? People with money want stuff, and people work in making and selling stuff with others assisting in the process…

    Like


  105. Sestamibi: Think of it as the latest sort of outsourcing.

    Like


  106. Gannon: sorry, population growth and age of first time marriage is absolulety correlated. All countries were a woman’s first time marriage moves from early twenties to late twenties show negative growth traits. And that is to be expected, since women in their early twenties are still in their prime fertility.

    That’s fascinating. Now please explain how any of this proves that Western societies are “headed for destruction,” as you put it.

    The age limit for a woman for marriage is at around 25, because of biological limitations. Here a change in culture is required.

    Ah, I see. A change in culture. Please specify the means through which this change will be effected.

    Also, the bonding betwen the man and the woman will be much weaker.

    What?

    The other big culprit is non default divorce, which heavily favors women. Here legal changes are required

    Big culprit of what? The way we’re “headed for destruction”? Or that men and women aren’t “bonded”? Or is it responsible for low birth rates? Or is it possible that you don’t you have any idea what you’re talking about?

    Like


  107. Reggie, PLEASE, I BEG YOU, DO NOT get Gannon started on why all guys should marry 19-year-olds. It’ll be the death of all of us. If you’d like to learn more about that theory, simply review every single one of Gannon’s posts, like, EVER.

    As for effecting the social changes necessary, all I can think of is rounding up all women over 25 and putting them in camps.

    Like


  108. Also, no-fault divorce doesn’t favor women at all. I had one, so I might have an molecule or so of information on the subject.

    Like


  109. 95 Anon: “…read her newest book “Women on Top” it demonstrates that culture does in fact change the desires of women in the bedroom.”

    Speaking of women on top, you might enjoy this excerpt:

    “The real thing is the attitude–not the position of the body, but the position of the mind. But if you change your mind you may want to change your positions, because they are related.

    For example, the man is always on the woman–on top of the woman. This is an egoist posture because the man always thinks he is better, superior, higher. How can he be below the woman! But all over the world, in primitive societies, the woman is above the man. So in Africa this posture is known as the missionary posture because for the first time when missionaries–Christian missionaries–went to Africa, the primitives could not understand what they were doing. The thought it would kill the woman.

    The man-on-top posture is known in Africa as the missionary position. African primitives say it is violent, that man should be on top of woman. She is weaker, delicate, so she must be on top of the man. But it is difficult for man to think of himself as lower than woman–under her.

    If your mind changes, many things will change. It is better that the woman should be on top, for many reasons. If the woman is on top she will be passive, so she is not going to do much violence; she will simply relax. That is good. If he is on top he is going to be violent. He will do much and nothing is needed to be done on her part. For Tantra you have to relax, so it is good that the woman will be on top. She can relax better than any man. The feminine psychology is more passive, so relaxation comes easy.”

    Like


  110. Gannon and I are right, and Reggie, Shannon and sara are wrong. It’s that simple.

    For further information, go rent “Idiocracy”, or better yet, compare Britney and Jamie Lynn vs. Chelsea Clinton. How many grandchildren do you think Bill and Hillary will ever have?

    Like


  111. Quantity vs. Quality, my dear. It’s not like Jamie-Lynn and Britney are going to raise Nobel prize winners or anything.

    Like


  112. on December 20, 2007 at 9:45 pm David Alexander

    For further information, go rent “Idiocracy”, or better yet, compare Britney and Jamie Lynn vs. Chelsea Clinton

    What part of smart people are not willing to sacrifice and live like paupers to have children and large families, do you not understand?

    Like


  113. Shannon:

    What is the “quality” of zero kids?

    David:

    What part of oblivion do you not understand?

    Like


  114. Alright, let me get this straight sestamibi (and Ganon). You mean the tell me that you’re right and everyone else is wrong because you saw it in a movie?!

    Now that’s just fucking brilliant, no, really.

    Do you guys normally like making fools out of yourselves or are you just crazy?!

    Like


  115. on December 20, 2007 at 10:21 pm David Alexander

    What part of oblivion do you not understand?

    What part of Louis Vuitton bags, Plasma TVs, McMansions, and Christian Louboutins shoes are more important and better than kids do you not understand?

    Poor people can’t afford luxury items, and if they didn’t have kids, in many cases, their lives wouldn’t be that much better. In contrast, for the smarter and richer classes, children represent an opportunity cost in terms of physical and mental health, wealth and estate aquisition, and enjoyment of one’s life. Smart people in effect are too smart to have children, and many have done the calculation that it’s not worth it to have children when you can have stuff.

    My question to you is how are you going to convince the childless classes to have children when they don’t believe in your arguements about Islamic conquest? I don’t believe in it because we have the military might to destroy the Islamic world and wipe out its people within 6 months if we desired to do so.

    I mean, two high IQ people could have 5 children, but how are they going to pay for housing, food, and schooling for those kids in a lifestyle that is commensurate with our current living standards with big houses, nice SUVs, luxury name brand clothing, and plastic surgery to make us look attractive into our 50s? Solve that problem, and maybe you may win some converts.

    Like


  116. Sestambi a decrease in the current population is favorable if not absolutely necessary in human survival. Take a country like India or China, for the most part they are still impoverished (as in any place 10% of the population controls 90% of the wealth, alternatively this is the 90/10 rule and is true in everything including pick up) lets call that population as belonging to the “third world”. People in the first world consume 30 times as many resources per person as do those of the third world. With that comes an economic trade off, hence people in the first world tend to have fewer children (people will always have children, some might not, but there will always be a sizable amount that do). It isn’t even about quantity versus quality, although that is an important argument. The real problem with this is that you have to bring politically incorrect notions of race into immigration policy if you want Western nations to remain ethnically pure (with however small a population) while at the same time having that population control weapons capable of destroying third world armies 1000 times larger than their own. So you are actually referring to racially egalitarian policies as being feminized. That is some very interesting thinking reminiscent of KKK (WASP) thinking from the early 20th century. The real problem with this thread is that it is a mask for racism and the desire of the white race to live on ethnically pure. This thread calls into question our assumptions about racism and whether it is good or not. What say you Roissy?

    Like


  117. No no no no no. No racism! No third world! I might cry.

    Sesta, I daresay Chelsea might have a kid or two. And that kid will have a better shot at making the world a better place than a Spears-spawn.

    And, how again does any of this have anything to with being a cad to bed chicks?

    Like


  118. Also, we aren’t seriously using direct-to-DVD “Idiocracy” as incontrovertible scientific fact, are we? Because that can only hurt your argument.

    Like


  119. Because, y’know, I just watched “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” and that must mean that I can get a flying car.

    Like


  120. No DF, I came to that conclusion before the movie came out. I just cite it as an example of what I speak about.

    Gawd, are you so fucking stupid that you can’t figure that out?

    Like


  121. Anon #116, you don’t know what my race is, so don’t make assumptions. All I am saying is that those who breed eventually replace those who don’t. Why is that so hard to understand?

    Shannon #117, Chelsea will be 28 in February, which means she’s already beyond her peak fertility. Of course, she can still have kids, but I’d put money otherwise.

    DA #115, again, those who choose toys (or 150 GB of digital porn?) over kids eventually disappear too.

    Like


  122. “Gawd, are you so fucking stupid that you can’t figure that out?”

    Gawd, are you so fucking rude that you can’t take a joke? C’mon, citing a futuristic satire as fact is at least a LITTLE bit funny.

    Like


  123. Sestambi, what is this about women over 25 not having kids nonsense? Plenty of women in their 30s and 40s have kids, in all honesty what the hell are you talking about?

    Also I wasn’t making any assumptions about your race, however given your posts it wouldn’t be a surprise if you weren’t 100% objective and actually had an agenda. Maybe you don’t, if you care to disclose feel free.

    Yes I get that you are saying that those who breed eventually become the dominant kind, however that assumes a society devoid of technology. We aren’t living in trees anymore and we these geopolitical spaces we call countries with these even more fascinating immigration laws, which would be tightened if the base population was ever viewed as threatened. Western countries create incentives for people to breed when the going gets rough, just look at Japan. Even if the traditional western world of the Americas and Europe were somehow destroyed that would leave westernized China and South America to continue our diabolical consumerist legacy. Mwuhahaha.

    The base population will always stay at some level of consistency, just because birthrates are falling now does not mean they will continue to fall, especially if people begin to see economic advantages (particularly the middle class) of having more kids to take care of them in their old age. The problem now is that social programs (liberal feminizing agenda btw) have dissipated the need to have many kids to take care of you. The new attitude is dump them in the nursing home and have the government take care of them.

    Your only argument so far is this reproduction will screw us all one, which is not legitimate in the mechanized heavily legalized world of ours.

    Oh and who gives a crap about Chelsea she sounds more like the exception not the rule.

    Those who choose toys do not disappear because guess what they have a higher chance of finding a mate. Women are on some level more likely to choose a wealthy man to mate with than a poor one. Wealthy men are more able to afford women attracting products. Aphrodisiacs ain’t cheap and last I heard pick up products are expensive.

    Like


  124. “No DF, I came to that conclusion before the movie came out. I just cite it as an example of what I speak about.

    Gawd, are you so fucking stupid that you can’t figure that out?”

    LMAO!

    So you went through all the data sets, looked at the relevant research, read some books, and as supporting evidence you cite a movie?

    How old are you, 10? Do your parents know you’re on this website because there are a lot of adult topics discussed here which may not be appropriate for your level of maturity.

    Like


  125. DF, that was kind of awesome.

    Like


  126. DF

    Data sets and research??? You really ARE that fucking stupid!! I don’t need the movie.

    Once again, those that breed replace those that disappear. If you want a more scientific explanation, Google Charles Galton Darwin.

    Like


  127. sestambi if that is the case then why have the cockroaches not replaced every species of animal?

    Like


  128. Gannon’s words of wisdom are required. Irina is completely right how weak and mangina like some American men have become. DA’s and DF’s reasoning resemble the thoughts of frustrated middleaged women instead of young vigorous men.
    Populations need to grow at replacement levels, and when women marry late they usually only have one child. A women fertility drops at around 27, and while some women still pop out babies like rabbits in their early thirties another significant portion already has problems childbearing. Women reach full sexual maturity and look to bond for a lifetime partner between the ages of 14-24. After that age, bonding will be much weaker and divorce because she is bored much more likely. He will just be another man who screws her, and she will want a new partner because that’s what she is used to.
    Women always form strong bonds with their first sex partner and compare the following man to him. I’m not telling anyone to have 5 children, but modern women are failing to produce the 2 to 3 children which are required.
    @DA: talking about nukes is stupid because you would have to bomb cities in Europe to get rid of the Islamic thread.

    sestambi if that is the case then why have the cockroaches not replaced every species of animal?

    They have very high rates of death too. But the logic is true.
    Western people will simple slowly disappear, just like the romans.

    Like


  129. I won’t lie. At first, I rather despised Roissy’s blog, but his writing is so good that you cannot help but love it.

    PLUS, there is the added benefit of watching all the femi-self-righteous indignant women get all spun up and getting dismissed every damn time.

    It’s Roissy’s world, we just read about it.

    Like


  130. Multiple choice quiz:

    75% of the posters here are:

    A) Snorting coke.
    B) In college.
    C) All of the above.

    Like


  131. Gannon if the logic is true then merely answering, they have high rates of death won’t cut it. Either way you reaffirm my point meaning you shoot down your own theory.

    Instead of expanding on the roaches analogy, which I will rebut based on a dissection which you must provide (the
    burden of proof is on because you have yet to provide logical roadmaps to your outlandish claims of islamic domination).

    Gannon, instead of answering DA and DF’s logical arguments you merely engage in ad hominem attacks. It isn’t doing much for your already much diminished credibility and lack of arguments. Nonetheless I will refrain from petty insults because they fail to bring any value to the table.

    “Populations need to grow at replacement levels, and when women marry late they usually only have one child. A women fertility drops at around 27, and while some women still pop out babies like rabbits in their early thirties another significant portion already has problems childbearing. Women reach full sexual maturity and look to bond for a lifetime partner between the ages of 14-24. After that age, bonding will be much weaker and divorce because she is bored much more likely. He will just be another man who screws her, and she will want a new partner because that’s what she is used to.”

    Good, I’m glad you seek to improve the world with fulfilling relationships, too bad it has nothing to do with Islamic domination. The first part of your argument, which is child replacement, has already been answered (and you agree with me) by the roaches analogy. Let’s lop a few more good arguments:

    a) The trend of non-replacement will probably eventually cull itself as western populations reach more sustainable levels. Let’s face it, the world is overpopulated, the west is trying to save space by having less kids. As soon as immigration policies (which are just racism enforced indisguise) catch up with this, the base population will be protected and will be allowed to stabilise to a lower level. People in the first world know they consume an insane amount or resources, they know it subconciously in the way they like to spend money. This trickles to the whole having kids issue, which in turn cuts population. The less consumers you have in a country (less demand) the more supply you have, the cheaper things are, the more kids you can afford to keep around.
    The days of large populations being needed are over as things are becoming automated. Islamic nations are still working in a more 18th century model of economics, as are former communist countries. You probably have no idea how bad it is there. Try living in these places for a year and you will see. They have things like love (because consumerism has not sucked their souls and their self esteem away). In the west we have love to, but it and self esteem are slowly fading (thanks to consumerism’s assault on the self in an effort to sell you more). I diverge, coincidentally, I love consumerism, but just like anything, moderation is key.

    b) The topic of our populations being replaced is racist because most of the west is white. As such you should come out with your true intentions, which is forced eugenics and totalitarian politics bent on internment of untermensch.

    c) You make some generalization about how the warlike nature of muslim nations will replace the west. Incorrect. As I already explained, Al Quada is part of a pseudo global Islamic state, which accounts for less than 1% of all Muslims around the world. You also assume that the west is losing the war on terror because it is somehow soft on Muslims. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The losing of the war will not be corrected by further aggression because terrorists are a fringe group. Au contraire you must alienate the terrorists from their “constituents” (Muslims living peacefully in the world) by removing the appeal of terrorism from those constituents. This comes from economic aid etc… a lack of economic opportunity is what creates the common insurgenent. Not some crackpot Muslim takeover of the world. No that level of thinking is for the higher ups in the global islamist Jihad. Read this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilcullen

    d) If you look at various examples over time such as the genocide of Muslims in Yugoslavia you will see that west can be brutal indirectly. This proves the West is capable of being cold and hard by protecting their own economic interests.

    e) The nuclear argument that you answer with doesn’t make sense because there are also non Muslims living in the Middle East, yet that does not stop you from accepting the nuclear option there (even though the second someone fires a nuke anymore, we are all pretty much dead anyway from the global exchange that will no doubt result). The point of the nuclear option was to state that if armies ever thought to directly invade (which is the only way they could ever replace the base population because this bullshit birthrate argument won’t come to fruition) the 1:10 army size will easily be overwritten by the West’s superior weaponry).

    f) The overpopulation will eventually bite them in the ass in the form of political instability and resource competition. If illegal immigration ever becomes a big enough problem you will be seeing some badass border patrol routines put in place.

    g) The West isn’t weak, but a small portion of men merely lack the confidence to properly assert themselves with women. The hate and anger most people carry does not translate into military weakness (if anything our poisoned and smite written society is the key to an unstoppable military force).

    The only argument you have going here is the, “they will gradually replace you” because the concept of them overtaking us by force is just laughable. The replacement argument you have answered yourself by agreeing with the cockroach analogy.

    Like


  132. Sara I don’t get the joke about being in college. Please explain?

    Like


  133. I’m afraid you’ve made the mistake of lumping me in with DA (the self proclaimed beta) simply because I have no qualms about making fun of you and your assertions. You have an agenda, that much you’ve made clear in the past but what makes me laugh is the audacity you show passing off your half-assed theories and poorly thought out conclusions as fact. If maybe you showed a little bit of wit or eloquence maybe you wouldn’t have a bulls-eye painted over that dunce cap of yours but that’s cool, you entertain me so dance bitch.

    Let me give you an example of why you don’t come off as the brightest bulb.

    Gannon: Societies where women benefit of an education until they are 30, and then they eventually marry and have one child are headed for destruction.

    Yet these countries that you lambaste have the most stable governments in the world, the wealthiest people, highest standard of living, the highest IQ’s.

    Gannon: Populations need to grow at replacement levels, and when women marry late they usually only have one child.

    Can you explain population momentum? What is net reproduction rate? How do you calculate birth rates (mathematically)?

    Gannon: A women fertility drops at around 27, and while some women still pop out babies like rabbits in their early thirties another significant portion already has problems childbearing.

    If a woman’s peak fertility is 20 to 24 then why do you say it drops at 27, why not 26, or 30? Does it stay fixed through the age of 27, does it drop linearly, exponentially, asymptotically? You tell me. Fortunately for you, I am posting the following chart so why don’t you roughly calculate the rate in which fertility drops. Funny, I don’t see 27 on this chart but you can make do.

    Gannon: Women reach full sexual maturity and look to bond for a lifetime partner between the ages of 14-24. After that age, bonding will be much weaker and divorce because she is bored much more likely.

    What the hell do you mean by “bond”, is that your attempt at a technical explanation? Post a study that shows how rates of divorce are correlated with the ages implied in your post.

    Gannon, your problem is that you’re a simpleton dealing with concepts too complex for you to grasp so you reduce everything to its lowest common denominator. I’ve seen a lot of that. You want people to think you’re smarter than you are but the only thing you end up doing is making yourself look stupid.

    Like


  134. on December 21, 2007 at 5:26 am Slighty Disorganized

    She’s just irritated. Do you think perhaps she is in college and is snorting coke? Making her thus part of the 75%?

    I am neither in college nor do I snort coke.

    Like


  135. In response to my little quiz: Allow me to attempt an explanation. Ahem. It could be that I find some of the more lengthy arguments and propositions reminiscent of coke raps. Endless circles of analysis. OR it’s possible that just because I don’t understand doesn’t mean that “you” are confused. I mean the one’s who go on and on here with such “importance”.

    As a woman (and I’ll get bashed for this) I’m much more interested in what’s for dinner or what I’m wearing tomorrow or whether my cat has diarrhea, or whether I can even spell diarrhea than:

    “The nuclear argument that you answer with doesn’t make sense because there are also non Muslims living in the Middle East, yet that does not stop you from accepting the nuclear option there (even though the second someone fires a nuke anymore, we are all pretty much dead anyway from the global exchange that will no doubt result).”

    I would like to offer some consolation in response to the fear and loathing I’m finding here and everywhere. Look around. Did you have a nice dinner tonight? Yes? Does most of the world have food and shelter? Yes. Not long after 911–lets face it–99% of Americans are more concerned with their kids soccer game and that’s how it SHOULD be. The worst thing we do is put our precious powerful mental focus on all the horrible things that have happened past, present, and future. We want freedom from all of that but freedom FOR WHAT? I defy anyone here to answer THAT question.

    So from my limited world view I’m thinking: college or coke. Then again these oh-so seemingly important arguments may be coming from the leaders of tomorrow who actually have new ideas that will make a difference. The best hope of the human race is that the old leaders are DYING and making way for the new fresh open minded rebellious ones being born.

    Like


  136. Hmm. I’m lost, sara. I thought this was a blog about sex, and the pickup.

    You’re too esoteric for my tastes.

    Like


  137. Sara that came off as a little nihilist. Why do anything? I mean we do this because we enjoy it.

    Like


  138. To DF: sorry man, any outsider who reads your post would conclude that they were written by a woman, or a feminist Hugo Schwyzer type of man. You, like a lot of other American man, have been softened up like Irina described so brilliantly in her blog. Right now I have to go shopping with my gf and her best friend, but later I will post a long comment over a woman’s fertility, bonding and so on. In the meantime enjoy the overused and diseased snatches you have access too.

    Like


  139. Gannon: “Women always form strong bonds with their first sex partner and compare the following man to him.”

    Sure. Always. Because you know every woman who has ever existed.

    As far as “comparing”, sure, that happens. “Hey, Guy #2 doesn’t treat my nipples like radio dials!”

    Oh, and can we knock it off with the dissertations? If your comment is longer than the original post, you are taking this WAY too seriously.

    Like


  140. Gannon, You’re highlighting precisely what I was criticizing you for. You assume all manner of things because you lack the ability to navigate around the nuance and complexity of an issue. From a personal and sociological point of view, I’m anti-feminist but as an economist I cannot deny its contribution to GDP. I also can’t deny it has gotten me laid. Would it shock you to know every LTR (1 year or more) I’ve been in has been with a foreign born woman or I’ve never slumpbusted below a 6/7. As a teenager, I dated plenty of women that were older than me, even by a few years but I haven’t dated a woman my age or older since I was 21. Trust me, the notch count is long and distinguished. I’ve got a Brazilian girl competing for an LTR that is 10 years younger than me. Guess what she does for a living? Does it help that I am in the top 1% income bracket in the US or that I attended the most prestigious universities in the country for both my undergraduate and graduate education? Only in terms of access, which cannot supplant game. See what I did there, I found your reading comprehension level to be that of douche. Now do you understand where I’m coming from?

    Even for a natural alpha, understanding the triggers of attraction is pivotal to being a complete and well balanced man. Game is life. Now if you cannot reconcile that with my criticism of your preposterous claims then maybe you’re brighter than I thought you were.

    Like


  141. DF, why are you hanging around with us Internet losers when you could be off banging Brazilian chicks or commissioning a private jet?

    Like


  142. Irina is completely right how weak and mangina like some American men have become. DA’s and DF’s reasoning resemble the thoughts of frustrated middleaged women instead of young vigorous men.

    Does anybody have a link to a specific post by Irina where she states this?

    I’m quite happy being a “mangina”, and that’s just simply the kind of person that I am. Some men are uber-masculine and tough, and others manginas. At this point I don’t really care that it doesn’t get me laid, I’d rather be content and happy with myself at this point in my life than to pretend to be something else that I’m not happy or comfortable with.

    @DA: talking about nukes is stupid because you would have to bomb cities in Europe to get rid of the Islamic thread

    I think if we were at that point, we would have rounded them up in a similar fashion to the Nazis during the late 30s and 40s, but as I’ve said, only if things became that bad. Otherwise, there’s a nasty cultural block that prevents us from doing that like that, it’s primarily due to the memories of what happened during the last great global war.

    but modern women are failing to produce the 2 to 3 children which are required

    Again, if two thirty year old average to high IQ couples are complaining about the costs of rasing one child, how is a 30 year old man going to support his unemployable 21 year old wife and two kids? As, I’ve pointed out, the opportunity costs for intelligent people are too high, and given the loss in income, living standards, and beauty that having children causes, it’s no wonder why everybody waits till they’re de facto tired, bored, old and ugly at 35 to have kids.

    Right now I have to go shopping with my gf and her best friend

    American men are feminized, but you’re going shopping with your g/f and her best friend? Yes, since that’s something that strong, rough Argentinian men do.

    DF, why are you hanging around with us Internet losers when you could be off banging Brazilian chicks or commissioning a private jet?

    He’s on the private jet, just finished from an exhausting sexual orgy with five hot women. Duh!

    In the meantime enjoy the overused and diseased snatches you have access too.

    Dude, you’re starting to sound like rather whiny and bitchy at this level, and I think you’re a bit more mature than that. It’s one thing to disagree in the way that we do so, but I think the diseased snatches comment is rather harsh on your part.

    And I still contend that the “bonding” that you speak of is really due to the fact that young girls at that age are rather young, naive, and don’t have comparisons to make of what qualifies as a good man. The reason those bonds last for so long in Argentina, is primarily out of inertia, the fact that divorces are not easily accessible when compared with the States or Europe, and that those women would be shunned due to a machismo culture which also in turn affects their employment opportunities as well. Hell, your culture freaks about girls who somehow enjoy sex, and shames them, thus forcing them into early marriages to get sex. Personally, I’d imagine that’s probably the worst situation for them, to be forced into such a relationship, and then to deal with the blockheads that form Argentina’s male corps as a sex partner… :-/

    Like


  143. Shannon, this is a fucked up time of year to catch the flu. It puts the kibosh on all kinds of activities too but this chick is making me enough canja de galinha to feed an army for months…and I live alone. What’s up with that?

    Like


  144. DF, good answer. I just always get a chuckle when posters talk about how they’re really hot/rich/get to have sex all the time with a stable of amazing suitors. Because if I lived that glamorously, I’d be off having sex with supermodels and buying cool stuff.

    Like


  145. Because if I lived that glamorously, I’d be off having sex with supermodels and buying cool stuff.

    jennifer love hewitt has her own blog which she personally updates.

    Like


  146. Hrm. You may have just inadvertently proved my point.

    Like


  147. compared to the average american jennifer love hewitt is

    rich
    famous
    glamorous
    has probably flown private jets

    yet she maintains a blog.
    so this absolute line of argument (“no REAL alpha would amuse himself on the internet with a bunch of nerds”) is disproven by counter example.

    brad pitt managed a personal blog for a while too.

    Like


  148. See, I thought JLH had porked out or whatever.

    My point was that I, me, myself, me in particular, not alphas or anyone else, would rather be tooling around on private jets and getting laid vs. blogging or commenting on other blogs.

    And, c’mon, it’s a little funny that DF has a hot Brazilian girlfriend and a huge-ass income and still finds time for us little people.

    Like


  149. Shannon, why shouldn’t I make time for this site, this place is awesome!? Although I can count on one hand the number of sites I visit so maybe I don’t have a good basis for comparison. Just know that I make as much time as I can to read and comment during my lunch break.

    If you knew what Wall Street pays base for quants like me you would have a heart attack.

    Like


  150. DA, DF – you give way too much importance to “GDP”. Who gives a shit about GDP? We have enough stuff in this country. How about living your life for a purpose? Everyone who has kids contributes to the future. Everyone without dies and is forgotten.

    Shannon – yeah, let’s bring in more Mexicans to pop out kids and pay for our retirement. Those 80 IQ illegal alien babies will surely be as productive as babies of Ivy League couples. As long as we coddle them with universal laptops, pre-K, health insurance, and everything else, it will all turn out ok.

    No-fault divorce helped the family breakdown in our society greatly. 40% of kids born out of wedlock now. No wonder we are losing ground to other countries. We’ve let go of what’s important. But we might as well enjoy the party. So lie and get laid.

    Like


  151. 137, Slightly Disorganized: Just because you don’t understand doesn’t mean I’m confused.

    Like


  152. 137: Esoteric: ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from Greek esōterikos, from esōterō, comparative of esō ‘within,’ from es, eis ‘into.’ Compare with exoteric .

    Like


  153. Oh i understand plenty, sara, thank you, I am just not sure who you’re trying to impress.

    certainly it’s not me.

    Like


  154. Gannon 93: “Also, because of non fault divorce more and more men are joining the marriage strike.”

    The problem isn’t nearly so much no fault divorce as it is no fault distribution of assets and ongoing child support=alimony (esp. for professional men) post divorce these feminist days. That’s prob. what you really mean, but you should make it clearer.

    Post the feminist revolution in divorce awards nearly all divorces are treated the same money wise as the classic male cad leaving the wonderful if aging wife and mother for the younger woman or cheating on her with that supposedly in mind used to be. That tale was never nearly as much true as people believe btw. The cheating alpha or alphaish husband yeah, but in the great majority of cases he wasn’t going to leave his wife, and he often didn’t really neglect her either. (But women can always make out a case for emotional abandonment and/or abuse when they want to – and do.)

    Incentives matter. Women may or may not know going into marriage how much divorce from a good provider husband favors women these days, but they sure as hell find out from their women friends once they are married and the flush of early enthusiasm has started to fade, or temptation presents itself. The message is especially loud in especially feminist circles – which no doubt has lot to do with high divorce rates amongst them. “Liberation” and all.

    Like


  155. John, there’s just one problem with the lying thing: nature.

    A guy who lies to get sex thinks that he’s smarter than nature. He causes alot of pain, and doesn’t think that any of that will come back to him, but it *always* does.

    All the males in my past who were weak like that with me, are miserable now. This is partly because I had no mercy for them. I told them what they were, and that they’d better hope they really are as cold as they play at being.

    None of them actually are. They ended up hurting themselves much more than they hurt me.

    I only started having that problem when I came to live in Israel, where people are so ethnically divided that there’s just little chance someone like me who’s “off the grid” will find someone who respects her. Thing is, even though the society supports these guys’ weakness, nature dang sure doesn’t.

    All women need to learn to be happy alone. Yes, it’s good to be aware of the players, but in the end, if you’re strong enough and love yourself enough, your confidence doesn’t depend on having a man. So if you encounter a liar, it’s much easier to cut them off and keep going, and just laugh at them for the pathetic underlings that they are.

    A real man doesn’t need to lie to get laid, and I’m sorry betas, but sex is not a democracy. Not everyone is entitled to sex or to romantic love. It’s nice if you can match up with someone at a similar level, but in the end, if you are incapable of really feeling full on love in a deep death grip kind of way, you really don’t deserve someone who is.

    It is about entitlement, and lying to get sex is basically trying to steal something you’re not entitled to.

    Well I got news…women who had good fathers and other good male role models, know what a man who loves looks like, smells like, and acts like. So we usually know what a guy’s M.O. is by the first kiss. We may hope or maybe kid ourselves otherwise, or may even just be bored and need a good sniff of the androgens, but we know. If you’re not giving off love vibes, we sense that something is missing, and begin exit proceedures.

    Some of us try to make you breakfast to be polite or whatever, cause we’re southern and we just do stuff like that…but in the end, if you didn’t hit it right in the emotional way, you should just be glad we didn’t laugh.

    Like


  156. […] lying for sex > lying for sex > lying for relationship > lying for no sex > not lying for no […]

    Like


  157. […] right there, so I shuffled us both out of there in a hurry. Later, after a rigorous interrogation, I lied to my date that had I erased the blonde’s phone number. If you’re gonna play a high stakes game, […]

    Like


  158. […] surprised Sodini hasn’t had sex in nearly 20 years. As I’ve written before, to men celibacy is walking death, and anything is justified in avoiding that miserable […]

    Like


  159. […] 20 years. As I’ve written before, to men on the losing side of the desireability bell curve celibacy is walking death and anything is justified in avoiding that miserable […]

    Like


  160. […] their marriages or to hide the fact from their targets. While I don’t advocate lying for practical reasons, I’m utterly agnostic on the ethicality of using lies as a tool of seduction, particularly […]

    Like


  161. I would NEVER lie to a woman in any way to get sex . NEVER. I respect women and know that lying to them impedes their ability to make good decisions for themselves. Nobody ever has the right to take that autonomy away from anyone under any circumstances … the very idea of lying to a woman to fraudulently get sex is appalingly misogynist . Lying to a woman to get sex is very emotionally/sexually abusive to women and has lasting effects … ask any women. Your desperation is hardly an excuse to proceed with what constitutes sexual misconduct . You have a lot of problems, dude, and this lack of awareness is probably why women don’t want to sleep with you in the first place .

    Like


  162. […] 4, 2009 by roissy On my post about lying for sex, “notaloser” recently left this comment: I would NEVER lie to a woman in any way to […]

    Like


  163. Notaloser’s above comment just got a Roissy post of its own. Now Roissy should do a post about the IMBRA law in response to this post – alpha males don’t date feminists in the first place if they can travel for higher quality.

    IMBRA “forces” US men to voluntarily present a full background check history to foreign women for their signature approval…to include every state the man ever lived in and what his children’s names are. Dating agencies claim that some men are actually stupid enough to fill out these unconstitutional forms truthfully…because they think the dating agency is going to spend the resources to double check! Telling the truth is omega behavior and treason under such circumstances. That law violates every sense of liberty in the face of feminist fury over being abandoned for the competition.

    US feminists are creating new laws that will force men to lie because they are unconstitutionally requiring men to give out too much private info.

    In the USA, new technology is threatening seduction in the Google search atmosphere.

    Meanwhile…Notaloser fails to understand that some men look 30 when they are really 50. One has to say how old one looks or you unnecessarily explode a bomb that ruins everyone’s evening. The guy has to seed Google with false representations of himself as a cousin of the 50 year old…much like what happened in the Picture of Dorian Gray.

    Like


  164. And it works because, once a woman has slept with a man, it is highly unlikely that she will reject him because he is 5 or 10 or even 15 years older than he initially said he was. And as Roissy said, you’ve already scored with someone that otherwise would have rejected you. No woman rejects because she was lied to. She will reject because the info would have caused her to reject a lot sooner.

    Like


  165. Say what you want, about lying it works. For a particularly spectacular example, see:

    http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/6479137/man-poses-as-father-and-son-in-sex-scam/

    Like


  166. I Will have to come back again when my class load lets up – nevertheless I am taking your RSS feed so I can read your site offline. Thanks.

    Like


  167. […] not because of his tender concern for upholding a moral order in the universe, but because as a practical matter it’s hard to keep up with lies. And the inveterate player never lets his eye too far off the practical matters, even for men such […]

    Like


  168. […] years. As I’ve written before, to some men on the losing side of the desireability bell curve celibacy is walking death and anything is justified in avoiding that miserable […]

    Like


  169. […] years. As I’ve written before, to some men on the losing side of the desireability bell curve celibacy is walking death and anything is justified in avoiding that miserable […]

    Like


  170. I lie all the time and don’t give a rat’s ass if it’s “good” or not. Me don’t care.

    Like


  171. Honesty is the best policy. If you lie to me I will leave you.

    Like


  172. Of course, to keep multiple girls in your harem there is just no way around lying unless you’re a super alpha. I’m running two LTR’s simultaneously in two cities (DC & NYC), it’s impossible not to lie to them – though the less they pry (and the more you shrug her off) the easier it is to evade.

    Like