More Thoughts On The Poon Commandments

Some of my commenters on the Sixteen Commandments post seemed confused. I thought it would be a good idea to answer their objections.

II, keep her jealous, has to be done with care. Too much flirting with other women might lead her to dump you.
– Glorious Natural Pelt Guy

Obviously you don’t want to blatantly flirt with every women who crosses your path when your girlfriend/wife is with you. There are diminishing returns past a certain excessively slavish adherence to the commandments. Even super alphas can overplay their alpha cards. But you’d be surprised just how much you can get away with (and by “get away with” I mean “make your GF horny while she watches you flirt shamelessly with other women”).

they secretly love it when a man aggressively pursues what he wants and makes his sexual intentions known.

This is, BY FAR, the biggest mistake that men without game make.
– Usually Lurking

A man making his sexual intentions known does NOT mean going up to a random girl and asking if she wants to fuck. I should hope even gameless betas understand this basic concept.

One question: Any influence of age of the woman applicability?
– Anton

Only in degree, not kind. Of course, the closer she gets to hitting the wall, the less game you’ll need. Eventually, just showing up will suffice.

If a man’s Alpha enough to have a couple of women in “reserve” he doesn’t need any of this advice in the first place.
– GNP Guy again

He doesn’t need it because he already uses it. QED.

You’d figure that those commandments would be like a default behavior in all men, not just a province of skilled casanovas. And yet that’s not so. In fact, many — most — men take the exactly opposite approach. Why is that?
– PA

It’s an interesting question why the commandments behavior doesn’t come naturally to most men. It’s as if dressing provocatively, batting eyelashes, acting coy, and showing a little leg didn’t come naturally to women on the prowl. We know that isn’t true for the vast majority of women. All I know is if every man followed these precepts there’d be a lot more fucking in the world resulting in a lot more happy smiles on the faces of the sexually satisfied.

Not only the average guy, but no guy, can hold to these commandments at all times. Some are better than others, but everyone falls eventually.

Trying to follow these commandments is like trying to fight being human and actually feeling things. […] In an effort to fight your feelings, you have done something very “male”: tried to fix the problem.
– Tina Fey (AKA Lemmonex)

There’s no need to follow the letter of the biomechanical law every minute of every day. Simply adjusting his behavior and mental state by as little as 10% so that he acts more in alignment with his yang polarity can mean the difference between a breakup and relationship bliss. Falling once in a while is not the same as staying down, which is how many diehard betas live their lives.

Since men are the chosen in the mating dance, they have to be more aware of reality than do women. If men ignore reality, they risk involuntary celibacy. If a woman looks attractive (which is most of them during their prime fertile years), she can ignore reality to her heart’s content as unicorns and rainbows shower her in cellophane raindrops and still have suitors lined up around the block to fuck her. That is why men work to “fix the problem” where there is a problem. It isn’t a fight against his feelings, it’s an ENDORSEMENT of his feelings that he will do what it takes to satisfy his desires.

Don’t be surprised if tactics and manipulation attract the like.

Lastly, too concerned about alphaness = beta.
– Kay Gee

All goal-directed communication is manipulative. (Ask yourself: Is advertising evil?) The natural womanizer manipulates just as much as the beta spitting a routine in emulation of the natural. The difference is the natural does it instinctually. Manipulation doesn’t magically become noble just because it is done at the subconscious level, just like our immune system isn’t more noble than man-made synthetic drugs for fighting off illness. To wit: We are all being manipulated by our genes right now.

Re: too much concern about appearing alpha = beta. Natural alphas are very concerned about maintaining their status. They’re just better at coolly concealing it.

In fact, an alpha doesn’t have to fall in love to make himself look ridiculous. Just being too arrogant, and too eager for sex, even the casual kind, can lead him to serious humiliation.
– Clio

In opposition to your point, Clio, you have described a beta. An alpha knows not to be arrogant or overeager. And falling in love is not beta, but expressing feelings of love before the woman has made that leap for her man is courting with beta disaster.

I think broadly speaking he is correct in the wooing phase, but a lot of the rules will end in disaster if applied to a steady relationship. I think it’s telling that nearly all the PUA cannot maintain a relationship AND GET DUMPED. Something tells me that PUA stuff simply fails when applied to long-term relationships.
– Whiskey

Of the PUAs I know, many of them jump in and out of relationships because they like the variety. Fresh pussy is a potent addiction, and if you’ve got the skills to score it, you’ll be less inclined to strap yourself into a monogamous arrangement. Personally, I like the best of both worlds — love with an incredible woman spiced up by the occasional fling.

Men are if anything *more* emotional than women. But they are less expressive. This can paradoxically result in stronger emotions.
– MQ

Men have greater emotional peaks and valleys that often find articulation in physicality, as with impassioned fucking, fighting, and forging. Women have a steadier whitenoise hum of emotions at a higher baseline than men but with muted peaks and valleys. Women handle their emotional static by incessantly talking it out with whomever will listen, much like you would vent the pressure of a steam buildup by slowly turning the release valve. See: [REDACTED]. Or most female bloggers for that matter.

His commandments may be good for “poon” as the title states, but suck for how to “keep real, true unconditional love and happiness in your life” as the last sentence suggests. But what do I know? I’m just a girl.
– Hope (AKA The Putatively Rare Exception)

A woman’s psychological essence doesn’t radically change after she’s been with a man longer than three months. Her brain doesn’t rewire itself into a wholly new entity unrecognizable from the woman she was on the first date once she’s in a committed relationship. The differences between the sexes are binding, immutable core characteristics. What turns a woman on during the first few hours will turn her on in the tenth year. The commandments are equally effective for long term relationships and short term hookups. The only thing that differs is the intensity of commandment administration. If you don’t believe me, observe those men who do the exact opposite of all my commandments with the women in their lives, and watch as they rend their striped shirt garments in anguish wondering why they get jettisoned for less “virtuous” interlopers.

and ever since [my husband] started being more caring and affectionate…
– The Audacity of Hope

Being caring and affectionate and following my commandments are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually reinforcing. Think about it.

Playing games inside a marriage rather than just finding a suitable partner to begin with seems to indicate the wrongness of the pairing rather than the rightness of these “commandments.”
– Hope begged for my very special lessons

The commandments aren’t about “playing games” anymore than being a good provider is about playing games. They are about acknowledging reality and giving the woman you love what she truly desires. Suitable partners don’t fall from trees on the side of the road. They must be found, wooed, and nourished in love, like a garden. Hope, I hope this helps.

Yours in universal orgasmic consciousness.





Comments


  1. 1. “Falling once in a while is not the same as staying down, which is how many diehard betas live their lives.”

    –I could not agree more…it is how mot people live thier lives frankly.

    2. ” Women handle their emotional static by incessantly talking it out with whomever will listen, much like you would vent the pressure of a steam buildup by slowly turning the release valve. See: KassyK. Or any female blogger for that matter.”

    –Dude, why ya gotta drag Kass in to this? She doesn’t comment here anymore; I just don’t see the point. And as a female blogger, I take umbradge to this. It has been a rare time where I have talked about my special, special feelings. Also, when I do talk about them, it is one post. You got one sweeping brush.

    3. Tina Fay! Booo…

    Like


  2. Most and their…whoops. GOT TOO EMOTIONAL.

    Like


  3. on July 10, 2008 at 3:59 pm Usually Lurking

    A man making his sexual intentions known does NOT mean going up to a random girl and asking if she wants to fuck. I should hope even gameless betas understand this basic concept.

    My point was: Most “betas” rarely, if ever, assert their sexual desires. They are either too scared to, feel undeserving or think that it is wrong in some way.

    Also, many don’t understand that being overly assertive can be a positive. Just because she puts the brakes on, doesn’t mean that you have ruined your chances. Unless you are being a complete idiot about it, she will simply see you as a man who asserts his sexual desires. And that is better for her than being with some wimp.

    Like


  4. take THAT bitches…

    Like


  5. and furthermore… Lemmonex, i think i need to make a trip up the DC area and give you the corn-holing of a lifetime.

    seriously, doesn’t that just sound like an awesome time?

    Like


  6. tina fey sassed back:
    Dude, why ya gotta drag Kass in to this?

    your language is deliberatively provocative. if it wasn’t obvious, i’m complimenting Kassy on her effusive femininity. there is probably more estrogen in her than in 20 typical DC lawyer chicks combined.

    however, since some will be itching for a fight on my turf no matter how lame the excuse, i’ve removed it.

    It has been a rare time where I have talked about my special, special feelings.

    there’s a reason you have more male commenters on your blog than most female bloggers.

    Like


  7. Testing.

    Like


  8. Alrighty, I see your point.

    I am in need of a good cornholing; it will definitely help me simmer down.

    Like


  9. Fresh pussy is a potent addiction, and if you’ve got the skills to score it, you’ll be less inclined to strap yourself into a monogamous arrangement. …

    A woman’s psychological essence doesn’t radically change after she’s been with a man longer than three months. Her brain doesn’t rewire itself into a wholly new entity unrecognizable from the woman she was on the first date once she’s in a committed relationship.

    A man’s essence does not radically change after he goes into a relationship either. A “player” is not inclined to be monogamous to begin with, but man who is made of more virtuous moral fiber will remain this way in every aspect of his life, including love and marriage.

    A man that other women desire but who has personal integrity and does not jeopardize his commitment for momentary pleasure is more loved by his woman than a man who is desired but who sleeps around. She will also be more faithful to him by his leading honorable example.

    Another reason why men shouldn’t flirt around or engage in distant behavior:

    The students were particularly turned off by prospects who exhibited what the researchers call “unselective romantic desire.” Another way to put it would be “desperate.” The speed daters were very good at guessing which of their partners were indiscriminately friendly — willing to go out with lots of the other people — and which dates had eyes only for them. They much preferred the ones with “selective desire.”

    Being able to make this distinction in a four-minute speed date, the researchers write in the April issue of Psychological Science, “suggests that humans possess an impressive, highly attuned ability to assess such subtleties of romantic attraction. In fact, the need to feel special or unique could be a broad motivation that stretches across people’s social lives.”

    The song from Frank Sinatra is more powerful because the man is desirable to lots of women, but he selectively zones in on one woman (“Maybe millions of people go by, but they all disappear from view, and I only have eyes for you”). She feels special and loved, rather than creeped out because the man is desperate and wants any woman who is willing to give him the time of the day. But a good and selective woman would not put up with a man that sleeps around and brings home diseases.

    The commandments aren’t about “playing games” anymore than being a good provider is about playing games. They are about acknowledging reality and giving the woman you love what she truly desires.

    Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you.
    Keep her guessing. Evade, tease, obfuscate.
    You are granted two freebie “I’m sorry”s for the life of your relationship.

    Each person’s sexual desires are different from emotional, psychological and intellectual wants. Your suggestions may work up her sexually, but they may damage other important aspects of a long-term relationship, like mutual trust, respect, communication and intimacy.

    A good man wants to provide and protect, and a good woman wants to nurture and heal. She wants to be needed emotionally and to give her comfort and empathy just as a man wants to be needed resourcefully, and wants to use his strength and power.

    If a man denies a woman his deepest vulnerabilities and fears, and never trusts her or opens himself up to her in totality, she can never completely love him. The same goes for a woman who walls herself up and never comes out. Only by exposing inner ourselves naked and bare and completely honestly to another can true love exist.

    This may be the real reason why first love is so potent. We love so completely because we had not been hurt before, that we give our whole selves away to the other. The reactions are surely different — the woman’s vulnerabilities and fears evoke the man’s protective instincts, and the man’s vulnerabilities and fears evoke the woman’s nurturing instincts. But the result is stronger feelings of love.

    Like


  10. on July 10, 2008 at 4:40 pm SeaFighter HSV

    How do I post images of myself?

    “The Sports Car of the Seas”

    Compared to larger, conventional warships, the Sea Fighter is faster and more agile. Some have compared its performance to that of sports car. The Sea Fighter can reach a top speed of 50 knots (57.5 mph, 92.6 kph) with a full payload and is designed to reach speeds of 40 knots (46 mph, 74 km/hr) in rough seas with waves up to 7 feet (2.13 meters).

    Like


  11. When we’re talking about cornholing, are we talking regular or booty luv??? Wait what?

    Like


  12. “Natural alphas are very concerned about maintaining their status. They’re just better at coolly concealing it.”

    There! There it is, that’s the thing that bothered me. You care too much about what other people think and who is better than who in any exchange. I even recall the first response you ever made to a comment of mine was about status. It was on Roosh’s blog, about a girl he’d had sex with even though he found her repulsive.

    There are some guys who get more sex than they might should, and they do it by putting off a harmless vibe. You get to know him and you think, what could it hurt? Harmless fun, the girl is thinking as she walks into the bedroom… and the man’s got another notch just the same as the guy who followed all the 16 rules. Glorious Natural Pelt gives off that kind of vibe on here. He’s married (I think) but I bet he got his share in the lead-up.

    Being able to underplay yourself so as to seem inviting is as much a useful and natural skill as being a hard-driving alpha. However, there are two rules you still have to follow: when the shit comes down you’ve still got to have the balls to go after what you want; and you have to fuck her good. All else is a matter of personal style, I am convinced.

    Like


  13. God, I hope it’s booty or I will be disappointed.

    Like


  14. “A woman’s psychological essence doesn’t radically change after she’s been with a man longer than three months.”

    This is wrong. Women’s brains relase certain chemicals after being in a committed relationship for a period of time (and after orgasm), such as Oxytocin, that facilitate bonding with her mate. This causes a biochemical change in the woman’s brain that manifests intself in, among other things, her behavior. These same chemicals are released during child birth and breast feeding to faciliate bonding with the woman’s child. Being in a relationship (like having a child) really does change a woman physiologically.

    Like


  15. I am sure you have been asked this before. you have a lot of female readers, and although the general theme of your blog is geared towards advice for males, could you write just ONE post about what a woman should do? and not the general be feminine, attractive etc. stuff but specific advice like in this post, for females in the begining of dating. with men its based a lot more on looks, but there has to be something a hot girl does besides being hot that makes you more interested in her.how to play guys is really my question i guess.

    Like


  16. Cornholing only makes sense when its up the butt how else will you poop corn?

    Like


  17. Since men are the chosen in the mating dance, they have to be more aware of reality than do women. Amen, all truth comes from this point. Since guys initiate the pursuit, and women choose from among a field of suitors, women hold the power to impose conditions on those they choose. It is a natural tendency to use these conditions to control the chosen man — we all would be little dictators if we could get away with it, it’s just an evil of human nature. Paradoxically, giving in to the conditions makes the guy less worthy of her respect, no longer a man at all, no longer capable of provoking a sexual response from her. Too many mature relationships I see around me have deteriorated to this point as the selfish desire to control her mate replaces the initial nobility of love. The commandments are a bulwark against this fate. They are amoral, purely an acknowledgment of human nature.

    Like


  18. Glorious Natural Pelt gives off that kind of vibe on here. He’s married (I think) but I bet he got his share in the lead-up.

    Correct about the married part. As for getting my share in the lead-up, well I suppose it was a decent enough share, but I would have preferred more. But then again, what man doesn’t?

    Like


  19. You do realize that it’s incredibly condescending to pretend you know what your partner, or, like, half the human race “truly desires,” right? Relationships happen when each partner can ask for what they want, and count on being listened to and treated respectfully.

    If you knew the basics, I suspect you wouldn’t have so many problems that controlling other people seems like your only option.

    Like


  20. on July 10, 2008 at 6:32 pm Usually Lurking

    …could you write just ONE post about what a woman should do?

    We have covered that subject many times here, and, the advice is almos always the same:

    1. Don’t get Fat
    2. Get married during your prime years, when your value is highest (say, between 23-27)

    Like


  21. Only a terribly insecure person confuses submission with being patronized.

    Like


  22. on July 10, 2008 at 6:39 pm Usually Lurking

    …and not the general be feminine, attractive etc. …how to play guys is really my question i guess.

    My bad.

    1. Don’t play games.

    Guys don’t play games. (We learn to play them to keep up with the girls. In other words, since we are the chosen, we do what we need to do to get chosen) Just watch how women deal with one another and how men deal with one another. When two guys, two friends, are hanging out and one is causing a problem, the other will invariably say, “Shut the fuck up”, right to his face. No games.

    Hell, even in the world of politics, the maneuvering was quite blatant. Historically, at least.

    2. Don’t get fat.
    3. Marry during your prime years.

    Like


  23. L&K Roissy says (wisely):

    “Personally, I like the best of both worlds — love with an incredible woman spiced up by the occasional fling.”

    This is, in truth, what most men (and women,with an incredible man) would choose if given free rein to do so. Agnostic, could you back this up with some data?

    Like


  24. on July 10, 2008 at 7:17 pm The Riddler

    Because women aren’t solely focused on looks, “game” helps the beta guys get the alpha girls. On the other hand, because men are almost always focused on looks (i.e., they’ll hardly ever date down), any notion of “game” for women necessarily revolves around how to look better.

    If you’re just an average looking girl, I’d recommend:

    1. Look your best — stay as thin as individually appropriate, workout, dress sharp, and if necessary, consider physical enhancements (what’s the difference between piercing your ears and having a nose job?)

    2. Stop listening to other women for advice — while women’s advice assuages your ego and embraces political correctness, it rarely addresses the problem honestly.

    3. Be aggressive — ask the guy out for once.

    4. Don’t play games — if the guy isn’t interested, you can’t cajole him into being so. Just move on.

    Like


  25. on July 10, 2008 at 7:22 pm SeaFighter HSV

    I bet you’d get lots of poon cruising around the potomac river in me. Just call me the “Love Boat” baby.

    Like


  26. Roissy, I think you’re being disingenuous. Both “Mystery” and Strauss have described being unable to maintain lasting relationships, which is what human beings are built for.

    PUA moving from woman to woman, eventually become pathetic cases as they age. There’s nothing more pathetic than some guy in his mid forties trying to pick up a twenty two year old. This includes Hugh Grant.

    Human beings are extremely complex emotionally and intellectually, they tend to NEED a mature and companionate love, long after physical passion cools. If a man is going to live to say, age 86, more than half his life will be spent in maturity, when HE is not sexually attractive. Your advice is only applicable for short term wooing.

    Moreover, the entire PUA advice has two flaws as I see it. One is that like Highlander, in the end there can be only one. All this does is shift “beta” or non-socially dominant men upwards, with the “naturals” who have both game and high status garnering most of the women. Second, most beta guys cannot change their fundamental orientations.

    Of course, if a lot of betas get deprived of sex-love, they’re likely eventually to take it out on both Alphas AND women. There is nothing to prevent betas from oh, banding together and doing things to punish both Alphas and women. Or simply substituting violence dealt out by machines (guns) to become “Alpha” as in rappers. I’m speaking society-wide of course. I don’t see the emphasis by women on Alphas being a happy ending for society.

    Like


  27. Seafighter HSV, your comment on this blog is the first result from Google.

    Like


  28. Hope — Women delude themselves constantly that a player will change his spots for “them” — it’s a fairy tale that nearly all women tell themselves. It’s why Women in general are terrible judges of men, and leads often to contempt for them by men who can see the obvious.

    A man can change many things, his haircut, weight, physical fitness, clothes. But not his character. A player will remain a player. It’s why women like Christie Brinkley and Elizabeth Hurley make the same mistake over and over again — choosing the most player-like guy and then getting shocked when they’re banging a cheap ho or the under-age babysitter.

    You are right about “first love” however. It’s why so many societies try to create monogamy before marriage — too many sex partners and loves make the biochemical reactions to sex and intimacy, both physical and emotional, a drug who’s potency has worn off. Thus increasing greatly the likelihood of infidelity which can be catastrophic in raising a family.

    As for natural alphas always being concerned about “status” there is a trade-off. If society is dominated by guys concerned about status, then you get West Africa (Charles Taylor) or gangsta rappers. Everyone trying to be the “Big Man” and the quickest way is through violence. Europe’s control and subjugation of the Alpha around 1000 AD or so, and encouraging of the beta was the West’s “Secret Sauce” that allowed greater resource mobilization. After all, Ghengis Khan left millions of descendants, but today Mongolians are impoverished herders ruled by others.

    Like


  29. Peter, does your wife possess a Glorious Natural Pelt as well?

    (long time reader of Roissy but I hardly ever comment… I’m a big fan of the au natural look on women myself)

    Like


  30. 1. Don’t play games.

    Wrong. Any guy who says female game doesn’t work is about as believable as women who say male game doesn’t work. Concepts like “playing hard to get”, that cliche “send yourself flowers” which is really a version of the highly effective ploy of conveying that one is an object of desire for other men (which and are in high demand, feigned coyness/innocence, being mysterious, (figuratively) topping from the bottom, strategic withholding, and so on are centuries-old tactics practiced by women everywhere because they work like a charm. 9 times out of 10, when a man with many desirable dating options chooses a particular woman, it’s because she’s better at game than her competitors.

    Like


  31. Peter why you be all unsupportive of my point. Jeez!

    Like


  32. on July 10, 2008 at 8:11 pm Usually Lurking

    …are centuries-old tactics practiced by women everywhere…

    What you are describing is, basically, femininity. Which is fine advice.

    But, she specifically asked for advice that did not say, “be feminine”.

    …and not the general be feminine, attractive etc. …

    Like


  33. on July 10, 2008 at 8:11 pm The Riddler

    “Any guy who says female game doesn’t work is about as believable as women who say male game doesn’t work.”

    I disagree. Game-playing for women doesn’t work.

    The most attractive quality in a guy is confidence and “game” for men accentuates that sense of confidence.

    The most attractive quality in women, other than physical attractiveness itself, is being normal and sane. Female game is the antithesis of being normal and sane.

    9 times out of 10, when a man with many desirable dating options chooses a particular woman, it’s NOT because she’s better at game than her competitors, it’s because she’s hotter and less crazy.

    Like


  34. on July 10, 2008 at 8:16 pm SeaFighter HSV

    Anyone here ever have sex with a boat before?

    Like


  35. To the woman who asked for advice from these guys:

    If you can’t manage to stay 23 and skinny while popping out babies, remaining unsuccessful enough to be non-competitive or “ball busting,” and never complaining or asking for anything from your man, then you just don’t deserve one of the winners posting here.

    Sheesh. You’d think that’d be obvious by now.

    Like


  36. Dizzy8

    What’s obvious by now is that you need to be anger fucked badly in cornhole

    Like


  37. dizzy savored her moment in my presence:
    To the woman who asked for advice from these guys:

    If you can’t manage to stay 23 and skinny while popping out babies, remaining unsuccessful enough to be non-competitive or “ball busting,” and never complaining or asking for anything from your man,

    minus the babies part, this is about the only good advice you’ve ever given here!

    another comment like this and i’ll slap a gold star on your slope-like head.

    Like


  38. on July 10, 2008 at 8:32 pm The Riddler

    “If you can’t manage to stay 23 and skinny while popping out babies, remaining unsuccessful enough to be non-competitive or “ball busting,” and never complaining or asking for anything from your man, then you just don’t deserve one of the winners posting here.”

    Bitter sarcasm is the least attractive trait among women.

    Like


  39. In fact, you can go bust as many balls in your job as you care to, but leave it at work. And no, I do NOT care WTF you do at work (or about as much as I talk about my own work which is basically close to not at all because a) I think it’s work and b) I’m under a far encompassing NDA anyway).

    Like


  40. I disagree. Game-playing for women doesn’t work.

    This is how I defined female game – concepts like “playing hard to get”, that cliche “send yourself flowers” which is really a version of the highly effective ploy of conveying that one is an object of desire for other men and are in high demand, feigned coyness/innocence, being mysterious, (figuratively) topping from the bottom – none of this is the antithesis of “normal” & sane”. I’m not talking about a woman who screams & throws stuff at you – no skilled seductress would pull that (unless of course she senses that the man is excited by melodrama & feeds into that – another aspect of female game being a sense of a particular man’s psychology)

    These are age-old truths your grandmother probably heard from her own mother. The idea that men are immune to the allure of that which is highly valued by others, that which is mysterious, that which does not easily fall within his power, certain types of feminine charm, like coyness, which is fact game, is nonsense.

    Men who have plenty of options have their pick of attractive women with personalities they like. The woman from this pool who “wins” does so because she plays her cards right & skillfully.

    Like


  41. A player will remain a player. It’s why women like Christie Brinkley and Elizabeth Hurley make the same mistake over and over again — choosing the most player-like guy and then getting shocked when they’re banging a cheap ho or the under-age babysitter.

    Very true. A sizable number of men would never consider marrying or being in a long-term relationship, and so what they want from a woman are simple: beauty and fertility. They don’t stop to think about her potential as a wife or a mother. They want variety in sex and will dump a woman as soon as a new one comes along.

    Human beings are extremely complex emotionally and intellectually, they tend to NEED a mature and companionate love, long after physical passion cools.

    Men need companionate love more than they let on. They loathe to show weakness to other men, but privately they want a woman’s enduring support. As many women have tried to reforge themselves into more manly versions of women, men can no longer show weakness to women for fear of being scorned or psychologically brutalized. Relations between sexes are as hostile as they are currently because of this changed dynamic.

    The most attractive quality in women, other than physical attractiveness itself, is being normal and sane.

    Being passionately, head-over-heels in love is anything but “normal” and “sane.” Most women in love are really quite crazy about the men that they love. Men only dislike this when they are not in love with the woman, but if both people love each other the crazinesss of romantic love is incredible.

    Like


  42. #31 S

    …that cliche “send yourself flowers” which is really a version of the highly effective ploy of conveying that one is an object of desire for other men

    This is wrong. Men don’t particularly care whether a woman is desired by other men. If she’s attractive to him, he’ll simply assume other men are attracted to her as well, but this won’t change his attraction; if she’s not attractive to him, then all the flowers in the world won’t make him think she’s desirable — the most it will provoke is detached curiosity about the sucker who’s sending flowers to an unattractive woman.

    You also mentioned playing hard to get as a successful strategy for getting a man. This is true to an extent — no man is going to seriously consider a woman as a long-term prospect if she seems like she’ll give it up too easily to anyone who expresses interest — but at a certain point, a point much closer than in the analogous male strategy of acting aloof in order to signal that we have other options, the man is going to decide the chase isn’t worth it and pursue a less demanding woman.

    It’s a fine line to walk, true, but no finer than the one men have to walk between unmemorable nice guy and contemptible dickbag.

    Like


  43. Agnostic, could you back this up with some data?

    I just collected and analyzed a lot of boring data most of yesterday. Today I’m getting in the right state of mind for the teen-fest at ’80s night.

    Like


  44. reggie, that was well said. and to think you managed that without taking a snipe at me. please collect your gold star off dizzy’s forehead.

    Like


  45. on July 10, 2008 at 9:03 pm The Riddler

    #41 S

    “that cliche “send yourself flowers”

    Sending yourself flowers is not close to normal or sane. It’s vain and desperate. I agree with Reggie’s comment that if a man is attracted to a woman, he’ll assume that other men are as well and will not be affected by seeing flowers from other suitors.

    On a certain level, we’re just splitting hairs here because it’s hard to define what is “game-playing” and what is feminine coyness. Playing hard to get or being mysterious is similar to just being independent.

    If a girl doesn’t answer a guy’s call, having left her phone at home since she’s not wedded to it, because she’s out rockclimbing, that’s fine.

    If a girl doesn’t answer a guy’s call, although she saw the incoming call at home, because she is artificially changing her behavior to appear less desperate, that’s game-playing at its worst.

    Like


  46. on July 10, 2008 at 9:04 pm Usually Lurking

    [Hope, I am just doing a little bit of editing]

    …men can no longer show weakness to women for fear of being scorned or psychologically brutalized or raped in divorce court and forced to prove that they should be allowed to see their children (only on the weekends, if she did not move out of state).

    Like


  47. or raped in divorce court and forced to prove that they should be allowed to see their children (only on the weekends, if she did not move out of state).

    UL, my mother was the one who got raped by the divorce court. He cheated on her many, many times, physically abused her, and was the one who left her. When he left, he emptied all her savings and took all the valuables they had when they were married (she never had an engagement ring, and if she did he would have taken it).

    She raised me on minimum wage without help from my father for many years. My father is the greedy type who gave his (then) only daughter gifts only after he has used them. That was about once every two years.

    I saw him less frequently than that, not because she refused to let me see him, but because he simply didn’t care about me. He was the one who moved out of state. I lived with her in the same place that they had lived for a while.

    I was raised by my mother to be wary of all men, to never trust them, and to always to have my own separate bank account. Nonetheless I am with a great man who is honorable, loyal, loving and true.

    because she is artificially changing her behavior to appear less desperate, that’s game-playing at its worst.

    That is what the PUAs advocate for men to do, to appear less desperate, to appear more confident, etc. The truth of the matter is that game is manipulative no matter who’s doing it.

    Game does not facilitate love, but rather protects the gamer from revealing all of him or herself. It seems to me a great tragedy to not be able to completely let go of these masks and just be oneself. Love is, undoubtedly, one of the most amazing things in our all too brief life.

    Like


  48. Whiskey says There is nothing to prevent betas from oh, banding together and doing things to punish both Alphas and women.

    I think the rise in gay culture over the past thirty years is due in part to this.

    Like


  49. on July 10, 2008 at 9:52 pm mr. pilkington

    Hope, sometimes I truly wish you would take that Agape love, rainbow connection bullshit somewhere else. You do not bring anything to the table but the typical Hallmark stuff that has been regurgitated throughout popular culture for the last 60 years. I swear to God, the Neverending Story is more realistic than your views on love and marriage.

    Lemmonex, your lisp makes my pants feel tight. I could hear you say the word “pens” all day.

    Your friend in Christ,

    Mr. Pilkington

    Like


  50. I like Hope’s long comments on love. They’re not Hallmark cliche at all. The stuff she writes is raw and interesting. She’s a worthy counterpoint to Roissy.

    Like


  51. Dizzy, on the other hand…. holy shit. I used to just skip over her comments. I read a couple today. So angry! I once saw Andrea Dworkin on TV. An antichirst of womanhood. That’s the image I have in mind when I read her stuff.

    Like


  52. on July 10, 2008 at 10:02 pm Glengarry Glenpoon

    The differences between the sexes are binding, immutable core characteristics. What turns a woman on during the first few hours will turn her on in the tenth year. The commandments are equally effective for long term relationships and short term hookups.

    As the sage put it: always be closing.

    Like


  53. Roissy,

    I’m a fairly new reader, so I don’t know if you’ve commented on this.

    I’m an old fart, so I’m naturally cynical.

    So many of the young women in the hip cities are fag hags in their 20s and 30s. After years of playing the fag hag game they expect a straight man to show up and marry them.

    I won’t tell you what I think of this. I’ll leave it entirely up to you.

    Like


  54. I think the rise in gay culture over the past thirty years is due in part to this.

    Can you elaborate? I don’t see gay guys being so because they’re actually straight and gave up on women because they can’t get laid, if that’s what you’re saying.

    I do however see a mass forlorn of love refugees with deadened hearts among 20-30-something gamers, nerds, and WoW enthusiasts.

    Like


  55. PA I completely agree, you gotta have the ideal in mind no matter how bitter the reality tastes. A little Hope takes the edge off.

    Like


  56. on July 10, 2008 at 10:17 pm mr. pilkington

    I’m sorry PA, Hope’s treatises on love are wrapped in a candy shell of optimistic bias with a chewy carmel center of self-exception. If a guy took Hope’s advice at face value he would never be “loved”, “liked” or “laid” and doom to a life of de-facto celibacy(Sorry, Mr. Alexander). I’m glad that Hope is happy in her “games free” relationship but that does not take away from the fact that the vast majority of humans play head games and it is ingrained in the human condition.

    Like


  57. Can you elaborate? I don’t see gay guys being so because they’re actually straight and gave up on women because they can’t get laid, if that’s what you’re saying.

    I have a lot of gay friends, like more than ten, and most experimented with women first. I don’t think it’s giving up so much as opting out of the game if you don’t think you can win. Sex has a lot to do with making you feel successful (feeling like a man, in heterosexual terms), and gayness provides an alternative path to success. It’s less innate than you might think, more like choosing a career based on the coincidence of natural predilections and abilities. The idea isn’t mine, one gay friend who just graduated with a sociology degree and focused on gay studies says that current literature on gayness is coming around to this view.

    Not especially relevant, I know, but I thought some might find it interesting.

    Like


  58. If men ignore reality, they risk involuntary celibacy.

    I saw reality, and I didn’t like it, and thus chose celibacy.

    Like


  59. minus the babies part, this is about the only good advice you’ve ever given here!

    I don’t know. Those non-competitive women seem like closeted gold-diggers who are just too lazy to work and do something with their lives.

    doom to a life of de-facto celibacy(Sorry, Mr. Alexander)

    It’s not that bad. I suspect I orgasm more often than Roosh and Roissy put together. 🙂

    I don’t think it’s giving up so much as opting out of the game if you don’t think you can win.

    I didn’t even bother trying to compete against the likes of Roissy, and I didn’t turn gay. I fell into the arms of porn, not some bulky gay dude named Bruce. I suspect your friends were trying to cover up their homosexuality, and failed miserably in the process.

    Like


  60. I used the old cliche of sending yourself flowers as really being a version of the ploy of making it look like you have other options & strategically arousing jealousy, like the old cliche of fainting or “accidentally” dropping your books on the floor is a version of appealing to a man’s protectiveness. There are obviously more subtle & modern ways of accomplishing both. Which work. Because men are not in fact immune to jealousy, or appeals to their sense of chivalry or big, strong manhood.

    Men don’t particularly care whether a woman is desired by other men.

    Men are very happy to be envied by other men when they stroll around with a beautiful woman who turns heads. It raises their status & it feels good to show off this woman he’s enjoying. It also stings if he hears a bunch of guys talking about how nobody wanted to take his gf to the prom because she has a horseface.

    And as I have seen many times, the threat of other men hovering around someone he’s into can be an effective spur – when a woman has a full social calendar and easily attracts & dates men one would consider serious competition, the guy has more incentive to “lock her down” & commit to a relationship before someone else does so. In addition, he would prefer to be spared the thought of her sleeping with anyone who isn’t him.

    Men who have plenty of options have their pick of attractive women with personalities they like. The woman from this pool who “wins” does so because she plays her cards right & skillfully.

    This is what I was describing. To pick an example that is from real-life that people will recognize, I am not talking about female game making JFK Jr willing to date a 3. I’m curious about why JFK Jr picked who he did of the pool of women he dated. Physical attractiveness was the price of entry (although I’d argue that while she was attractive & elegant, she was not a stunner), but after that, which of those women won the game? The simple fact of it is that she was a superb gamer.

    If a girl doesn’t answer a guy’s call, having left her phone at home since she’s not wedded to it, because she’s out rockclimbing, that’s fine.

    If a girl doesn’t answer a guy’s call, although she saw the incoming call at home, because she is artificially changing her behavior to appear less desperate, that’s game-playing at its worst.

    If a man doesn’t answer because he’s rockclimbing, that’s great. He has an interesting hobby. If a man doesn’t answer because a PUA website told him not to, that’s “artificial” and “game-playing at its worst”. So what?

    Like in your scenario, everyone is happy. He’s happy because he’s dating a girl who seems to have a full life & is involved in an interesting things. She’s happy because she’s silently shown that her availability is not to be taken for granted (which matters – sorry, some people are rude about this sort of thing). What’s the harm?

    Like


  61. on July 10, 2008 at 11:24 pm Discuss This

    agreed with pilkington, i always skip hope’s posts. although its more due to writing style than anything else. honestly, how many good women writers are there? The Harry Potter lady?? (I havent read her, am asking opinions).

    i’d probably, if i actually cared to read hope’s posts, agree with her more than roissy, he has a better writing style, even if he exaggerates to a great length the importance of getting laid. Whatever though, thats the path he chose.

    Like


  62. on July 10, 2008 at 11:25 pm Discuss This

    *but he has a better writing style*

    Like


  63. 35 SeaFighter HSV:
    “Anyone here ever have sex with a boat before?”

    No, but for *you*, honey? I’d consider it.

    Like


  64. This is a serious response to Dizzy.

    EVERY! one of my successful female friends lament why they only have douche-bags and players to choose from. Well, duh. They’re successful. They’re hot corporate lawyers, upper management, i-bankers, etc.

    WOMEN choose based on their preference for status/success, which would be optimally higher than themselves and no lower than equal to themselves. As actress Hillary Duff told Leno, “what would I have in common with a boy of 17 on a skateboard?” when she herself was 17, explaining why she was dating/living with a much older guy (one of the Maroon 5 guys). Any guy assessing his chances with a woman will REJECT asking out a woman of higher status more often than not because of the percentages: 90% of the time, he’ll be rejected purely on status, unless he is extraordinarily good looking or has something that’s a “bet” on future status: athlete, rock musician, actor, etc.

    This is why successful female lawyers, CEOS, and ESPECIALLY well-known actresses find it VERY HARD to find a long term love interest/potential husband. The pool of successful, non-douchebag, non-player men is VERY small at that status level. Even Julia Roberts had to marry down, or face being alone. Maureen Dowd found that her player boyfriends Aaron Sorkin and Warren Beatty don’t marry women their own age, they choose YOUNGER hotter women when they finally age out of player status.

    This is reality.

    Kevin: I was thinking of Pitcairn Island, where the Bounty mutineers all but one killed each other off (well, some of the widows got their revenge too) in fights over the women. Weapons and numbers can neutralize even the biggest of big men.

    I agree with PA here. But that eventually, those love-lorn guys WILL get their revenge. A voting bloc wanting to eliminate abortion, the pill, and no-fault divorce, require child support for the DNA-established father? Sure. It’s not as if an unconnected group of men to women, with no wives, girlfriends, sisters, daughters, etc. would care if women continued not to sleep with them. [Shouting Thomas is right — the “fag hag” behavior leaves women after playing with Mr. Big and hanging out with gays alone and old and unwanted. They’ll get little sympathy I think from their peers.]

    Guys are not going to “Go gay” when there is pr0n, prostitution, and so on. Gay culture is more about “stuff white people like” status mongering and the innate narcissism of gays rearing it’s head.

    I don’t think Hope is wrong: she’s describing the end-state of what most men and women want — companionate love for a lifetime, after you get old and ugly, people don’t care about your physical attributes (because you have none worth mentioning). How to get there now when the emphasis is on short-term selection and the fantasy of always being young and beautiful (worse among women, but present among player men) is a big problem. Result: lots of love-lorn guys who turn “sour” with fairly negative views about women (it would be shocking if they did not have them) and women shocked when they turn 35 and no one wants them anymore (see KNOCKED UP for the disco scene, where the pregnant gal and her older sister are denied entry).

    Like


  65. Hope, sometimes I truly wish you would take that Agape love, rainbow connection bullshit somewhere else.

    I suppose it would annoy me, too, if I was still single, and a stranger kept bragging about how great and awesome their marriage is, and how love is eternal and beautiful and can make the world go around and all that cheesy stuff.

    I don’t post here often anymore, but when I do it’s to remind myself the depth and scope of others’ negativity. You do a fine job at it, as does Roissy.

    If a guy took Hope’s advice at face value he would never be “loved”, “liked” or “laid” and doom to a life of de-facto celibacy

    Mostly I state what I know from experience and observation. Obviously there is some truth in what Roissy says, but to take his words as “commandments” in itself strikes me as silly.

    I was never into the bar/club/dating scenes, and so I refrain from commenting on such. Only when people try to apply gaming theories to LTRs do I have enough experience to really raise objections. Roissy’s longest relationship was not likely longer than 5 years.

    I do however see a mass forlorn of love refugees with deadened hearts among 20-30-something gamers, nerds, and WoW enthusiasts.

    I’m fairly active in the gaming community, and actually a lot of 20-30-something gamers and nerds are doing pretty well. Gaming is a very social activity, and WoW is mainstream nowadays (got its own South Park episode). A lot of those guys are in stable relationships, married, etc., my husband included.

    Of course, a much higher proportion of female gamers are already “taken,” and maybe that’s the takeaway lesson to women. Become a nerd girl into video games, and you can likely have your pick of men. Nerds are great, and really, you can’t be of above average intelligence without being a nerd.

    Roissy is a nerd, whether he admits it or not.

    Like


  66. on July 11, 2008 at 12:39 am Gunslingergregi

    S
    “Men are very happy to be envied by other men when they stroll around with a beautiful woman who turns heads. It raises their status & it feels good to show off this woman he’s enjoying. It also stings if he hears a bunch of guys talking about how nobody wanted to take his gf to the prom because she has a horseface. ”

    I think you may have a point on this one. I thought I have the most beautiful girl in the tri state are back in high school. We used to go to football games. When I went to public school a couple years later the guys from that school remembered me from the stands. So yea an attractive woman does bring a man status. Went kind of along with another flow here about bad boys. Her family was rich she was a barbie doll. She even had the convertable. I had no car and lived in the ghetto lol Still got her to fall in love with me and even cheated on her for 2 other chicks who weren’t even close in looks. I wasn’t experienced enough to just tell her the truth. Now I do with my current wife.
    I go out now to a resteraunt with my wife and a year and a half later go back they remember us and bring us some special shit not on the menu. The Ritz Calton invited us for free dinner and they displayed pictures of us in the table. The hospital staff fell in love with us. Almost every relationship I have been in we have been looked at as the perfect couple. The secret is just to fuck the shit out of them so both holes bleed when you get back from a hiatus and she can tell the doctor why is because my husband came back like what did you expect lol When the female doctor asks if she likes sex she can respond yes. Then the doctor says do you get a man while your husband is gone. She says no. She understands that men want to have sex with her but she only wants to have sex with her husbands dick she only loves her husbands dick. Brings a tear to the eye. Yea there’s a couple good points to existance.

    Like


  67. Or you look at reality and whomp nerd girls over the head with Game. And then just burn out on the tremendous effort you’re making for the attentions of some really awkward women.

    Oh, and @35, I want a CIWS or a quad 20, 30, or double 40mm. Or two. Gotta learn to play close-up with the speedboat martyrs, and Mr. Browning’s finest (M2HB) sometimes just ain’t enough, even as a double or a quad, even given the finest riverine tradition.

    MCM=”Where the fleet goes, we’ve already been!”

    Like


  68. Maybe I’m weird, but all the PUA advice is worthless to me because my utility function assigns very high value to a lasting relationship with a woman like Hope, and zero or negative value to just about everything else. I find it implausible that there aren’t a fair number of other guys with similar utility functions.

    I guess I should be reading some other blog, and not bother with this one. Any recommendations?

    Like


  69. So many of the young women in the hip cities are fag hags in their 20s and 30s. After years of playing the fag hag game they expect a straight man to show up and marry them.

    And the chances of that happening are approximately equal to my chances of being selected Miss Nude America 2008.

    Like


  70. on July 11, 2008 at 1:59 am SeaFighter HSV

    Peter’s normal posts are somehow more annoying than his gnp posts.

    PS. Install some Vertical Launch Cells in me. Continue research on the “Affordable Weapon”.

    Like


  71. whiskey: Any guy assessing his chances with a woman will REJECT asking out a woman … those love-lorn guys WILL get their revenge.

    It sounds like you’re disqualifying yourself out of even trying. If you’re fantasizing about getting revenge for rejections that haven’t actually happened, maybe it’s time to, uh, talk to someone?

    Where does all this hate come from? I’ve been a social retard, but I’ve never been bitter and angry or eager to blame others for not handing me what I want just because I feel like I deserve it. If you’re not desireable for the relationships you’d like to have, it’s really not the fault of women. It may or may not be your own fault, but it’s still hardly the fault of women who you’re not even approaching.

    Hope: Gaming is a very social activity, and WoW is mainstream nowadays (got its own South Park episode).

    You know, aliens, scientology and NAMBLA got their own South Park episodes… hell, even BARBRA STREISAND got her very own South Park episode…

    Like


  72. @71: Minimum Range requirement?
    Let me guess–it’s going to be some bluejacket in a helmet and flak vest w/a Stinger or (heaven forfend!) a Mk-19 sending the shahidin to their 72 virgins. Or God Forbid an M-249 SAW. If you are using air defense weapons for direct fire against surface targets, your foes are too close. Probably because they get to look like civilians right up ’til the last 300m.

    Brown Water Navy = floating infantry?

    76mm/50 =big slow dinosaur. And dead bluejackets don’t get houris.

    “Our enemies are cheap, alas, as we are dear!”–Kipling.

    Like


  73. But like I said, MCM, so my targets hold still to be shot.

    Like


  74. I’m fairly active in the gaming community

    Hope, please realize just how utterly atypical of the average North American woman that makes you. You are a nerd girl. You are also Asian. That makes you quite different. I have no doubt that your advice will work for building a relationship with someone like you. But please refrain from dispensing advice about what does and does not work with the average white North American woman.

    BTW I think Roissy is perfectly aware of how much you need to dial down your game for a long term relationship.

    Like


  75. on July 11, 2008 at 4:34 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @15 Anon

    “could you write just ONE post about what a woman should do? ….how to play guys is really my question i guess.”

    That would be treason in the least. If anything, you ladies have way more then enough training in lady-game.

    While we were out playing G.I. Joe, cowboys and Indians, and cops and robbers. You gals, (90%+) were in the house with playing with baby dolls, Barbie and Ken. Learning from child hood, how to get Barbie her pink corvette, and a doll house. Part of your game is natural beauty and mystique, but I would hazard to say, 80% is learned from other women.

    The current male game is an social evolutionary response to lady-game, which have been re-engineered to be hostile towards us (the male). There was a time when females were more benevolent, and far less selfish.

    Actually Roissy, tell them “how to learn go about learning how to cook”. I would love to see a woman volunteer for cooking a dinner date, and not ruin the meal.

    While carrying and keeping up their end of a pleasant, meaningful conversation over dinner. I would love doing the dishes for a change, sometime ago, I had become burnt out on cooking, for my dates.

    Like


  76. …a man who was “given minimum care and attention by his mother developed a heavy ambivalent pain that consisted of unfilled inntense longing for his mother’s love and attention and at the same time intense hatred for her withholding what he so desperately needed. When he became an adult, almost every woman would trigger his neediness – a form of emotional pain – and this would manifest as an addictive compulsion to “conquer and seduce” almost every woman he met and in this way get the female loved and attention he craved. He became quite and expert on seduction, but as soon as a relationship turned intimate or his advances were rejected, his anger toward his mother would come up and sabotage the relationship.” ~A New Earth

    Like


  77. on July 11, 2008 at 8:22 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @77 Tracy

    “…a man who was “given minimum care and attention by his mother developed a heavy ambivalent pain that consisted of unfilled inntense longing for his mother’s love and attention and at the same time intense hatred for her withholding what he so desperately needed. When he became an adult, almost every woman would trigger his neediness – a form of emotional pain – and this would manifest as an addictive compulsion to “conquer and seduce” almost every woman he met and in this way get the female loved and attention he craved. He became quite and expert on seduction, but as soon as a relationship turned intimate or his advances were rejected, his anger toward his mother would come up and sabotage the relationship.” ~A New Earth”

    What kills me, is the balls that the Global Elite have…
    They write books like 1984, Brave New World and other books both as propaganda, and as a hubristic boast.

    And the schmucks who are blind, deaf, and dumb deny the social re-engineering going on right before their eyes.
    Dear God, Let me off this rock with just my Fiance.

    Like


  78. 28 “Seafigter PUTZ, your comment on this blog is the first result from Google”

    Talk about having a quick ‘n easy way to falsify a big fat lie…
    Methinks 10 and 28 (and 64) are likely the same person.
    If one is getting one’s kicks to see to what extent one can maximize his Googlosity, a mention of the ever-popular Yuko Ogura might work better…plus she’s only mildly off-topic, not absurdly so.

    65 Whiskey “This is why successful female lawyers, CEOS, and ESPECIALLY well-known actresses find it VERY HARD to find a long term love interest/potential husband. The pool of successful, non-douchebag, non-player men is VERY small at that status level.”
    Yeperoonie, and more salt in the high-powered lady wound is that the men in that small pool have little reason to get into serious relationships with high-maintenance women.

    72 “You know, aliens, scientology and NAMBLA got their own South Park episodes… hell, even BARBRA STREISAND got her very own South Park episode…”

    Anyone else notice that 38 and 45 are not Roissy? Not his style of writing, plus where there are no chips-and-salsa, there is no login. A tad annoying that WordPress doesn’t automatically prevent posts that use the same name as the blogger.

    Like


  79. hope:

    you can’t be of above average intelligence without being a nerd.

    hope, do you define “nerd” simply as “someone of above-average intelligence”? if not, please tell the peanut gallery: what exactly are these secret qualities hidden carefully beneath the personae of fully 50% of the population?

    Like


  80. “While we were out playing G.I. Joe, cowboys and Indians, and cops and robbers. You gals, (90%+) were in the house with playing with baby dolls, Barbie and Ken. Learning from child hood, how to get Barbie her pink corvette, and a doll house.”

    SAM, this comment could only have been written by someone who has spent little time with children, especially girl-children. Yes, many, perhaps most (not sure about that) little girls like to play with dolls – but most of them like to play outdoor games of the kind you describe, too, esp. between the ages of 5-10, when sex-roles are at their least powerful in girls. No, I have no statistics – but I do have experience, both as a former little girl and as an observer.

    Girls are simply better generalists than boys, in play and in life. There are statistics to support that assertion.

    clio

    Like


  81. on July 11, 2008 at 11:50 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @80 Anonymous-Clio

    “SAM, this comment could only have been written by someone who has spent little time with children, especially girl-children. Yes, many, perhaps most (not sure about that) little girls like to play with dolls – but most of them like to play outdoor games of the kind you describe, too, esp. between the ages of 5-10, when sex-roles are at their least powerful in girls.”

    1. I have spent years co-raising my two sisters four daughters (2×2). I have seen that yes, they play outside, but that doesn’t change anything. Boys don’t practice roles by playing with female and male dolls.
    So there is still an in-equality in role programing.

    And I am not talking about their current non-sexual mode of behavior. I am talking about game programing.

    Before a pc becomes usable, the hard drive has data and an operating system installed upon it. In the same way, a child learns roles before becoming sexually active and dating. Roles and skills.

    Before she boots up at/after puberty.

    And in the context from which my post came. Girls have had a jump of about a lightyear in relation to a boy’s sexual role/Game development.

    A. The girl has long since finished her puberty by the time the boy completes his.
    B. the girl has been watching male/female interactions for a long time now, and has been discussing this with other girls inside her peer circle. And they understand this interplay far better then the same aged boys.

    By age 19 the average teen girl has had 15 sexual encounters, and 6-7 boyfriends (way ahead on relationship game)

    The boy is on average 12 sexual encounters, but on his 3rd relationship, and is still uncertain about roles.

    And if you find competing data on that, I am glad to look it over.

    Like


  82. on July 11, 2008 at 11:51 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @80 Anonymous-Clio

    correction

    @81 Anonymous-Clio

    Like


  83. I suppose it would annoy me, too, if I was still single, and a stranger kept bragging about how great and awesome their marriage is, and how love is eternal and beautiful and can make the world go around and all that cheesy stuff.

    Right on.

    With a caveat. The kind of love you write so much about is an ideal to aspire to and hopefully be rewarded with. However, that ideal, in real life, is not a castle in the sky. It rests on a sound foundation. That foundation includes the compatibility and complementarity that you describe in your marriage. It also includes applied principles of game.

    Don’t forget that said ‘game’ comes naturally to some men. It’s called confidence, compatibility with a specific woman, personal strength, ability to show affection and some men just have it. Others, the miseducated, the nerds, the wimps and the low betas, have to learn it. Roissy’s 16C provides them with that necessary guidance.

    Keep in mind that – even as Roissy said – those commandments are just textbook guidelines. Their application and relative importance varies from case to case. I imagine that your husband applies them inately, too. One example: you’re irrationally emotional about something. He, on the other hand, doesn’t get sucked into your drama. Instead, he keeps his cool. That’s ‘game.’ He probably hadn’t read Roissy or Mystery, but he knew innately Commendment IV, “Don’t play by her rules.” And so on. You get my point.

    In other words, you see the awesome beauty of marriage (which is why I like reading your comments) but you take for granted the structural system that keeps it standing.

    That’s why I reconcile game with your ideals of true eternal love. Game without eternal love is high-end mastubration. Eternal love without game is a dream.

    Like


  84. on July 11, 2008 at 12:35 pm Usually Lurking

    …men can no longer show weakness to women for fear of being scorned or psychologically brutalized…

    Here, you were making a statement about men in general. A statement that was pretty good. And I helped.

    Then,

    …my mother was the one …

    And,

    She raised me on …

    And, some more,

    I saw him less frequently than …

    And, still, some more,

    I was raised by my mother …

    Hope, if you want to make a statement about the current male generation: great!
    And, if you want to go on and on about your personal life: great!

    But, one does not lead to the other. Nor does the latter provide support for the former.

    Like


  85. on July 11, 2008 at 12:42 pm Usually Lurking

    …but most of them like to play outdoor games of the kind you describe, too, esp. between the ages of 5-10…

    Clio, he was making a statement about GI Joes (military might), cowboys and indians (us versus them) and cops and robbers (good versus bad).

    It is true that little girls love to play outside, chase people around, be chased around, climb trees, throw stones in the lake, etc.

    And they also like role-playing. However, I have never seen a girl take up the GI Joes in a manner that was anything like the typical boy.

    Little boys construct games with winners and losers; competition. Where the strong will survive or prevail.

    I can never remember a girl in my life saying, “OK, this time, we are the Indians, and you are the Cowboys. Yesterday, Jenny and I spent most of the time constructing Bows from sticks and left over tennis string, so, we can have real weapons this time. You guys use your new cap guns.”

    Both boys and girls love to play outside. But they are significantly different in how they play those games, even if those games are sometimes the same.

    Like


  86. My memory of my childhood is of many cops-and-robbers style games, fort-building, tree-climbing, tadpole-collecting (not considered eco-wise now), and other activities you might consider “boyish”, though I loved dolls and I wasn’t a tomboy at all. Most of the other little girls in my various neighbourhoods – I grew up all over the world – were much more sports-minded than I was. Before age eight or so, they played hopscotch and jump-rope; when slightly older, they spent far more time skating, skiing, swimming, riding, and in team-sports (pick-up or organized), and just playing, than in playing with dolls. I didn’t live in a rich area, either (at least, not when in Canada), so I don’t think that had much to do with it. I really don’t recognise the girly-girls you describe.

    But children today don’t have as much freedom and perhaps girls don’t play that way any more.

    Clio

    Like


  87. on July 11, 2008 at 1:28 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @87 Anonymous-Clio

    I don’t doubt for a moment that you speak the truth about your personal childhood. But your personal childhood doesn’t
    cancel out my whole premise.

    Your personal experience is exceptional, and atypical.

    Please carefully re-read Post “82 SovereignAmericanMale”

    I am not blowing smoke up your ass here. I am dead serious. This is not my opinion of reality. This is reality.

    Girls are clued into the scene/game long before Boys ever are.

    Exceptions not withstanding.

    Like


  88. on July 11, 2008 at 1:49 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @84 PA

    “In other words, you see the awesome beauty of marriage (which is why I like reading your comments) but you take for granted the structural system that keeps it standing.

    That’s why I reconcile game with your ideals of true eternal love. Game without eternal love is high-end mastubration. Eternal love without game is a dream.”

    Very well spoken, and I heartily agree.
    But I would add “pipe-” before the word dream.

    Some may mistake you, to mean that sentence is a positive statement. And failing to grasp it in the sense of the word “figment”, which I am understanding it to mean.

    Like


  89. True, SAM. “pipedream” was my intended meaning.

    Like


  90. on July 11, 2008 at 2:08 pm Usually Lurking

    …fort-building, tree-climbing, tadpole-collecting (not considered eco-wise now), and other activities you might consider “boyish”, though I loved dolls and I wasn’t a tomboy at all. Most of the other little girls in my various neighbourhoods … were much more sports-minded than I was. Before age eight or so, they played hopscotch and jump-rope; when slightly older, they spent far more time skating, skiing, swimming, riding, and in team-sports (pick-up or organized), and just playing…

    That’s right. They loved to do things outdoors. And they never went about them in the “crush your enemy” fashion that boys do. The games sometimes have the same titles but rarely the same intent.

    Like


  91. on July 11, 2008 at 2:11 pm Usually Lurking

    Exceptions not withstanding.

    There was nothing exceptional about her described childhood, other than moving around a bit.

    The games that were played sound very similar to what went on in my neighborhood. And, yet, somehow, the way the boys played the games was vastly different than how the girls did.

    Like


  92. SAM, you’re the one not paying attention. The whole point of my most recent post was that by the standards of the time and place I grew up, I was exceptionally feminine – and even I played rather boyish games, by your standards.

    And the whole point of my initial comment on your little girls post was NOT to try to argue with your contention that girls learn “game” earlier than boys do. I’m sure that’s true and I don’t dispute it, if that’s what you’re trying to suggest.

    What I was trying to say was that girls don’t learn game in the ways you think, or quite as early as you seem to believe. The picture you painted of little girls playing dolls quietly in the house, working out human relationship skills, bears no resemblance to the reality of the girls of my childhood, and I was not exceptional. Nor were they. It was an ordinary middle-class suburban neighbourhood I grew up in.

    The critical years for girls to learn the skills you mention are those between 12-14, an age when most boys are still children (albeit children with sexual feelings). Little girls are quite different from pubescent ones, little boys not so much.

    clio

    Like


  93. please tell the peanut gallery: what exactly are these secret qualities hidden carefully beneath the personae of fully 50% of the population?

    You don’t know anyone with above 100 IQ who does not fall under at least one of these categories? I’d put “pick-up” geek in there, too.

    56 geeks poster complete

    But, one does not lead to the other. Nor does the latter provide support for the former.

    Undoubtedly there are lots of females who screw people over. I’ve been screwed over far more by women than by men in my lifetime. I sympathize with the plight of anyone who has been screwed over without deserving it. Children never deserve parents who abandon them or use them as leverage for money or power.

    I was cautioned far more against men’s treachery than against women’s. That is part of what I wanted to illustrate with my personal story — there is a lot of cynicism against everyone in the world right now, but most particularly against men’s actions (men’s physical violence, sexuality, etc.). Women can be just as devastatingly terrible, if not worse. My mother caused me more psychological damage than my father ever did, but I still respect the hell out of her.

    I wanted to give the other side of divorce as well. Marriage and divorce are hard on both parties, in different ways. No doubt if I cared to talked to my father, he would say my mother was not very sexual, too naggy, not passionate, etc. and that it was just tough luck I was born to them. This is the same man who only wanted a son, and has three daughters by different women. Karma.

    In other words, you see the awesome beauty of marriage (which is why I like reading your comments) but you take for granted the structural system that keeps it standing.

    Actually, no. I do try to keep my eyes on the ground, level with reality. My words might seem off in the clouds, but my actions and thoughts are pragmatic. That’s why I refused any elaborate wedding ceremony. If I was so idealistic, I would have demanded a princess-style wedding and a hugely expensive ring.

    I grew up seeing what real — even sexless! — marriages are like. Then I came to America, to a single mother raising me sternly and harshly, bashing me in the face day in and day out on what the real world is like, and why I must work hard to stay afloat just like she did. It’s ironic that I am being called upon as “idealistic” and what I describe are being called a “pipe-dream,” but people really believe that game is what’s real.

    That foundation of “game” is a bunch of middle class bullshit, because it’s built on luxuries like going out to clubs, dancing the night away and drinking martinis. When I was younger I lived with my man in rat-infested apartments, and we ate a diet ramen noodles. I worked 30 hours a week all through university (getting screwed over by more women in the process) to barely be able to make rent.

    There was no “game” that pulled us through those times, only toughness, resilience, hard work, mutual respect and a lot of real love. He might have been naturally good with women, but that would not have made him good with things like killing rats or standing up to muggers or being able to cope with harsh city life despite coming from a far more sparsely populated southern town.

    He wasn’t really able to keep his cool all the time, nor was I. We had a ton of really horrible fights. He never followed the “commandments” even instinctively. We both broke all the “rules” of game; instead of being aloof we clung to each other desperately. We were just trying to make it in this world, together. And the rough times are mostly over for us, though no one knows what the future brings.

    Like


  94. on July 11, 2008 at 3:24 pm Usually Lurking

    I wanted to give the other side of divorce as well.

    I think that anyone with a brain in their heads can understand that no one group ever benefits completely and solely from a particular action.

    But, when making a generic statement about why men do X, and then getting some clarification on why men do X, it does not serve to then give your life’s story as evidence to the contrary. That was my point.

    Like


  95. on July 11, 2008 at 3:45 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    93 Anonymous-Clio

    “And the whole point of my initial comment on your little girls post was NOT to try to argue with your contention that girls learn “game” earlier than boys do. I’m sure that’s true and I don’t dispute it, if that’s what you’re trying to suggest.”

    “What I was trying to say was that girls don’t learn game in the ways you think, or quite as early as you seem to believe.”

    My goodness, I have just been told my answer was correct (true), but my many of my steps to the answer, my math proofs to the correct conclusion, are faulty.

    In a word, I am illogical, but intuitively correct.

    I will go contemplate this, while faceplanting on my keyboard.

    Like


  96. #45 roissy

    reggie, that was well said. and to think you managed that without taking a snipe at me. please collect your gold star off dizzy’s forehead.

    Aww, roissy, I didn’t know you cared! I’m not part of your echo chamber, true, but neither am I one of the petulant contrarians on here. When I agree with you, I tend not to contribute as much — others tend to say what I would anyway — and when I disagree, I bust on you a bit because I figure you can take a little ribbing to go with the fawning praise from your fans.

    It’s all just text on the Internet, after all. Keep up the black-belt-level provocation, you crazy diamond.

    Like


  97. I like this acknowledgment: “Since men are the chosen in the mating dance.”

    It’s so obvious, but I didn’t get it for years, even after I had been explicitly told this by my grandmother.

    Like


  98. You don’t know anyone with above 100 IQ who does not fall under at least one of these categories? I’d put “pick-up” geek in there, too.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottjohnson/2086153791/sizes/o/in/set-72157601200807582/

    I’ve known many people with waaaaay below 100 IQs who’d fall straight into those categories and people way above 100 who could never be called geeks. You’re confusing obsessiveness, over-intellectualizing and simple immaturity with intelligence (smarter people are usually more sheltered, since they’re more likely to come from wealthier parents, but it’s not always so). Your “list” has very few women: women aren’t less intelligent, but they’re certainly less likely to be geeky.

    Not all geeky people are smart and not all smart people are geeky. I’ve known smart jocks, smart bikers and smart druggies; IQ-wise, the smartest person I know closely is a welfare mom (but then, she is pretty geeky).

    Like


  99. Sarcasm is aggressive humor. It’s why you guys employ it, and it’s why you freak out when I use it. It’s not bitter, though. Bitter is creating a site where you can pretend you know how to control women, in order to get back at the ones who won’t date you.

    Like


  100. The commenter’s obsession with little girls who are supposedly trying to control men when they do things that men find appealing presumes 1) Little girls know what men find appealing (in more than a dim, “Sometimes this gets me candy” reinforcement psychology behavior) And 2) They don’t have the right to do this to men without facing the “consequences.”

    It’s quite creepy. Women aren’t controlling you, you are liking women. Because YOU ARE IN CHARGE OF YOUR REACTIONS. And little girls, like little boys, have NO clue what’s going on with anything until the higher reasoning faculties kick in, which is why we don’t allow pedophiles to do things to kids who are too young to understand consent or consequences.

    You guys think you’re funny, but you’re whiny and creepy.

    Like


  101. dizzy,

    It’s not control, although fantasies of power and control may play a role. No, women’s control of the dating market is so sovereign and undisputed (at least in the industrialized Occident, which also includes Eastern societies that function on the Western dating model, like Japan, but not industrialized societies that don’t, like China and India) that this site can only be about strategies of INFLUENCE. It’s a strategy for winnowing what must be (because women choose) a large number of encounters down into the discernment of those who will respond naturally (for whatever reason) anyway. And a certain amount of masculine solidity is called for as a sine qua non.

    I can go out to my local club and get my @$$ rejected any day of the week by any number of women, all of whom will have a wider range of romantic choices open to them because of their gender. One of the things this site taught me to look for was INSTITUTIONALIZED cock-blocking, like clubs with proscenium stages (to focus attention on the performers) or the praxis of SpeedDating, whereby the men move and the women (the valued resource) stay still. There are a LOT of people supposedly trying to “help” who are mainly exploiting the weakest and the most vulnerable–men and women unwilling or unable to reach out to strangers and risk rejection in their daily lives or their normal social spheres.

    You can learn to read all the negative, rejectionist body language in the world, and all your social intuition will do in that case is pick up on all the people who want you to pass on by. Learning what appeals to the opposite sex (in the aggregate) is a far wiser endeavor. Or meatier, in any case.

    Like


  102. on July 11, 2008 at 6:53 pm Gunslingergregi

    To go along with the statements of the ladies here. I think I saw one girl on the basketball court my whole life. Yea ok organized high school sports they where there but not pick up games of anything on the outside of the institution.

    Like


  103. I appreciate your tone Eurosabra, I don’t however, understand your assumption that women “control” the dating market. Yes, they can reject. Both sexes can. That’s not the same as “control.” Something about the way it’s described sounds as if you think it’s unfair women can “control” which guys to take home. But isn’t that decision a basic human right?

    And if you’re trying to read body language to see who will reject you before you approach, that’s probably a good idea. I’m not sure that’s what this site is about, though.

    Like


  104. It’s not complicated to understand how women control the dating market. Yes, both sexes can reject, but the vast majority of rejection is done by women. Sexual rejection is *not* equal. Many men will sleep with almost anyone. A few women will do the same. Women are pickier. This is evolutionary: women must devote 9 months of intense resources to bear a child to birth. Men can theoretically be an ass and step out of the picture as soon as sex is over. In other words, a man’s offspring is limited only by the number of women he can sleep with. Women are limited by their time and their body. So women *must* be choosier about mates.

    So here’s the simple math! Women have a much larger pool of suitors than men do. Because women have more choice, they have the power. They reject *more*. Far more men go without sex despite desiring it than women. In fact, some men face continual rejection for years. Some for their whole life. So what would YOUR advice to them be? Accept their lot in life?

    Sure, some men *are* resentful that women have ‘control’ over who to take home. But what should they feel? They have no hope! They are depressed and unable to obtain a fundamental human pleasure. What would you have them do? Accept their lot in life? Tell them “Suck it up and jerk off”?

    Like


  105. @105 Animus,

    That is *precisely* the message of the modern branch of feminism which addresses the issue as “male entitlement”.

    @104 dizzy,

    What Roissy calls “The Wall” is in fact the daily experience of a certain vocal minority of men–no sexual interest from the women they deem attractive, and not a clue about how to awaken that interest. Thing is, in my personal life I haven’t been able to separate my feelings about the issue–personal bodily sovereignty–from my depression about the continual rejection. And that has repercussions for my partners. I have certain disability issues and so do they, but the upshot is that (while I am sensitive to the allure of female beauty) I tend not to fetishize it. Or perhaps I’m doing it too subtly to notice. But one of the things pick-up does is change the emphasis from “identity” to “process”. Continual rejection creates the impression that WHAT YOU ARE is inadequate to awaken interest, while pick-up thinking enjoins you to observe the (rules of the) process in which you wish to take part.

    Like


  106. “What would you have them do? Accept their lot in life? Tell them ‘Suck it up and jerk off’?”

    Isn’t that essentially the advice from this site for less-attractive women, though?

    There are a lot of generalities made about women here, but they are misleading. Those generalities are really about one specific subset of women: the attractive-to-exceptionally-attractive ones. And please don’t launch a volley of statistics about why men desire them – that’s not necessary, nobody’s disputing that.

    Just understand that when you’re talking about who controls the dating market, it’s not Women, it’s one particular contingent of women. The control you describe is not nearly as universal as the posts here seem to be assuming, which is why the generalizations here about “how women behave” or “how the dating experience is for women” sometimes get intensely irritating: because for probably half the female population, they range anywhere from wildly to wholly inaccurate.

    Like


  107. My drive-by shot:

    Well, an unnamed, but embedded assumption in all this is the simple fact that women are capricious. Women are supreme rationalizers. They invent reasons to like you if they like you to begin with. The inverse is also true — they invent reasons to dislike you if they dislike to begin with. Of course, the initial evaluation is bogus and irrational to begin with. Just as most alpha male behavior is nothing but bluff and peacock posturing.

    Point out their capricious nature to any woman and you can watch the defense mechanisms go into hyperdrive. You’ll get the whole spectrum from being called “judgemental a-hole” to the “I’m not shallow” offended/hurt look. But compare what they say they want to what they actually stay with and the disconnect is terribly clear for anyone to see.

    More to the point of recent posts above:

    OF COURSE MEN RESENT THE SITUATION. Western Civ demand a particular behavior pattern (beta-cooperation) but the most important aspects e.g. resource control and reproduction, keep being locked up in irrational alpha-status hierarchy nonsense.

    Since you can’t change the rules, you have to learn to play the game. I prefer relationships, so after I test drive a fair number I move in for the kill and try to make a deep connection.

    Incidentally, I understand rejection feelings of some of the posters well. Puberty was an unhappy period even though I was quite a flirt — I never seemed to be able to close. It was in college that I saw the light, tried to do things differently and voila, sex galore.

    Like


  108. @107 anonymous

    Um, yeah, sure, uh-huh, right. I deal with a *tremendous* number of people who are appearance-outliers (nothing like a terror attack for involuntary permanent body-modification) and I would wager that the number of permanently *un*partnered men (even correcting for age, etc.) greatly exceeds that of permanently unattached women. This is because the masculine sex role is wholly performative and men whose masculinity is in-credible (in the strictest sense, those who make an in-credible, or NOT credible claim to performance) remain unattached to anyone.

    Like


  109. “But compare what they say they want to what they actually stay with and the disconnect is terribly clear for anyone to see.”

    This holds true for the vast majority of men, too, though. If I had a nickel for every guy who said he wanted a nice, reasonably-attractive girl who’d be good to him, but who ended up with an incredibly difficult, high-maintenance bitch who treated him like complete shit but happened to be hot….

    Like


  110. @107 Anonymous

    Any woman who is not morbidly obese has more suitors and sexual possibilities than the majority of men. The only women who do not have greater control in the dating market are those who have severe disabilities or severe weight issues. Moderately overweight girls whom are average looking will be persued. Put an ad up on any dating portal with no picture and very generic terms as a woman. You will get alot of replies. Take the same post tweak it for gender and post as a man. You’ll get spam replies. If you want to talk MORE about statistics, we can go dig up some statistics on marriage/child birth to prove the female bias. But think of it this way: The 40 Year Old Virgin was about a man, not a woman.

    Like


  111. I see a Yin and Yang pattern here:

    When it comes to relationships a “gaming” man will probably happiest with a non-gaming woman as he would see through her games if she played them and be refreshed that she was just herself. She would likely be much younger and less experienced than him.

    And a “gaming” woman with a non-gaming man could date out of her league provided she was at least somewhat pretty enough to get his attention and keep him interested (perhaps if he is naive about her ‘gaming’ him.) Probably she would have had to have been around the block a few times to recognize a guy who wouldn’t see through her game (which would ultimately make her less attractive so I haven’t worked this one out yet.) Or if she learned the tricks by watching an older sister or friend.

    Also, there is no such thing as human beings exhibiting unconditional love. There is always a condition. It may be that the partner is unlikely to breach that condition, but there will always be a set of acceptable behavior vs crossing the line (i.e committing murder, giving your partner VD…) We humans may be capable of having long, happy relationships but only within boundaries.

    I’m happily married and I still feel the need to not let it all hang out. We have to keep certain things in check to stay happy and that may be considered gaming but I think you need it. There is a balance between letting him know how much I appreciate him and driving him crazy with excessive praise by giving voice to emotions that ought to stay private.

    Like


  112. on July 11, 2008 at 9:28 pm Comment_Common_Poison

    ***
    It’s not complicated to understand how women control the dating market. Yes, both sexes can reject, but the vast majority of rejection is done by women. Sexual rejection is *not* equal. Many men will sleep with almost anyone. A few women will do the same. Women are pickier. This is evolutionary: women must devote 9 months of intense resources to bear a child to birth. Men can theoretically be an ass and step out of the picture as soon as sex is over. In other words, a man’s offspring is limited only by the number of women he can sleep with. Women are limited by their time and their body. So women *must* be choosier about mates.
    ***
    This is the party line.

    What men resent is that while Mommy and Daddy are training their sweet little girl to manipulate men, Mommy and Daddy are being quite clear to sonny that he is to be a stupid animal led around by his balls. They, in fact, tell him this outright. That he is a stupid animal that will be led around by his balls. Like you just said. I find it very easy to believe that this “fact”, hurled with as much force as possible, effects poor sonny’s behaviour.

    And what game, even the simplest, does Daddy manage to say to sonny? My father didn’t even manage to say dumb-ass plain things like women will try to change movies/restraunts/whatever on you just to test you. Why doesn’t sonny get these simple rules from Daddy? Because saying them, while helping his son, is BAD.

    And yeah, people can resent it when their father/mother/sister give them no advice, or really lousy advice. Women conspire. Men aren’t even aloud to say the obvious, once.

    Like


  113. Wow, it really freaks you guys out that, outliers aside, most of us, regardless of gender, are in boats more similar than dissimilar. And I don’t mean SeaFighter HSV, either. You really seem to *want* to be able to complain about how loathesome women are even in the midst of desiring them (not to mention rewarding the very behavior you claim to disdain) so you can then claim to employ tactics like game out of sheer necessity…in the process of doing this you come across as the most hostile, undesirable bunch of whiners on teh internets. Go, Team Alpha!

    Like


  114. @114 Anon

    No, men are supposed to bear their burdens in silent stoicism, of course. That, and the slut-shaming. How very post-patriarchal of you. There is a bit of a Prisoner’s Dilemma, too, since ALL men have to refuse to “reward” gaming women for their behavior in order for ANY man’s refusal to have effect. And we all know that that type of solidarity doesn’t/can’t exist.

    And since I AM an outlier, I really can’t see average-looking able-bodied women, or fat women (for that matter) as anything other than privileged beings with infinitely more options than I will ever have. And I have to invest in the few options I do have with considerable finesse, awareness, and skill. Nothing like the lifestyle of a depressed extrovert.

    Like


  115. on July 12, 2008 at 5:56 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @101 dizzy

    “The commenter’s obsession with little girls who are”

    Nice ad hominy attack, and a complete willful misrepresentation of my thesis, and my feelings. Liar-Bitch.

    “supposedly trying to control men when they do things that men find appealing presumes 1) Little girls know what men find appealing (in more than a dim, “Sometimes this gets me candy” reinforcement psychology behavior) And 2) They don’t have the right to do this to men without facing the “consequences.”

    You totally misunderstood my position, but I think its
    pretense for your latest schreeching screed. I am very certain, you hate men, and I have no use for persons who have a lying tounge, other then perhaps… massaging my prostate gland.

    “It’s quite creepy. Women aren’t controlling you, you are liking women. Because YOU ARE IN CHARGE OF YOUR REACTIONS. And little girls, like little boys, have NO clue what’s going on with anything until the higher reasoning faculties kick in, which is why we don’t allow pedophiles to do things to kids who are too young to understand consent or consequences.”

    1. right… thats why American women have passed laws to prevent American men from finding relationships with foreign women (who play fair). Bullshit, women are controlling the whole shooting match, for themselves on a personal basis, and for other members of the gender in masse.

    2. Thats right… I agree we shouldn’t let sex criminals near our children, and for that reason among others.

    But on the subject of “Consent”… You never answered me on my question about Catherine *”Kitty”* MacKinnon’s doctrine of male rape: Do you agree with her?

    “”In a patriarchal society all

    heterosexual intercourse is rape

    because women, as a group, are

    not strong enough to give

    meaningful consent”

    -Professing Feminism: Cautionary

    Tales from the Strange World of

    Women’s Studies, p. 129.

    Like


  116. Shockingly, Roissy recycled another “funny” line from the six jokes he counts as his schtick:

    “dizzy savored her moment in my presence:
    To the woman who asked for advice from these guys:

    If you can’t manage to stay 23 and skinny while popping out babies, remaining unsuccessful enough to be non-competitive or “ball busting,” and never complaining or asking for anything from your man,

    minus the babies part, this is about the only good advice you’ve ever given here!

    another comment like this and i’ll slap a gold star on your slope-like head.”

    How is your ideal woman different from a blowup doll, again? Couldn’t you just buy something to release all the frustration you display here?

    And to the guy who said I must look like Andrea Dworkin because I’m smarter than he is… Sure. I look just like Andrea Dworkin. Because everyone who disagrees with you MUST be ugly and saying, “you’re ugly” is totally a KILLER of an argument technique.

    Oh, btw, what kind of attractiveness level could we expect from a guy who spends all his time on the internet complaining that women expect too much from men?

    Finally, to the guy who “proved” that accomplished beautiful women HAVE TO marry down, because they have so few potential mates at the same level. Oh honey. They only have to marry down if they want to get married. It’s like, right in front of you, yet you refuse to see remaining single as an option for a woman who prefers not to spend all her time catering to an ugly jerk who wants to chase 23 year olds/perpetual responsibility-free adolescence.

    Like


  117. “Yes, both sexes can reject, but the vast majority of rejection is done by women. “

    That’s only because people like you insist that some unspecified part of the “male psyche” requires the joy of pursuit. You guys are the ones who set it up so you have to pursue and chase and be in control of the “hunt” and any woman who shows initiative is a buzz kill.

    Don’t expect me to feel sorry for you.

    Like


  118. One last thought, you guys expect women to believe that rape- and domestic-violence promoting rants by Roissy and his ilk are “tongue in cheek” and not at ALL meant to be taken seriously (unless you are a woman who is ugly or “shrill” enough to “deserve it”) but Cathering MacKinnon is a serious threat to males everywhere because she says stupid things and people (usually men complaining about feminists) quote her?

    Like


  119. WTF does he promote rape or domestic violence? Asserting what you want is a long way from taking it with violence.

    I feel I just may have been trolled.

    Like


  120. I don’t understand what is making Dizzy as upset as she seems to be–although it’s unfortunate that her namesake is a Jazz icon–and notorious womanizer. (Of course, I’m totally new to this site.)

    A lot of women–and a smaller percentage of men–seem to have trouble discerning between things as they are and things as they wish they were. Dizzy seems to fall into this category with a vengeance.

    As relations between the sexes are, in my estimation, at a point of historic animosity, I am not surprised by her attitude, however disappointed I might be. Once sex-roles and formalized social expectations between the sexes were abolished, men and women were free to see and experience the grizzly truth about each other. Our innate libidos simply want to use each other for our purposes and to our advantage, and dispense with you when you are of no more use to us. Whether you are on the short end of the stick–a submissive male whom no woman wishes to use, an ugly girl–or the tall end–a powerful man or gorgeous woman–mutual commodification breeds mutual contempt (although the winners can be counted on to be happier than the losers.)

    Although “game” has always been a necessary part of relating to the opposite sex, game is also shorthand for appealing to the opposite sex exclusively on the primal libido level. The more sexual relations become exclusively about game, the less meaningfully human they become. If humanity–things like decency, spirituality, virtue, friendship, et. al. becomes irrelevant in something as essential as sex, it will eventually become irrelevant in all other spheres of social interaction. This is a disaster in the making and it is well underway.

    Like


  121. I know I’m coming in late on a 120-post discussion, but I just wanted to say, Roissy, that I appreciate this blog. The “sixteen commandments” are funny and, for the most part, spot-on.

    A friend first showed me this site as an example of rabid misogyny — I didn’t have the heart to admit that I disagreed. I am a feminist, and I’m pretty alert to the elements of coercion that are still with us. But you’re not exhorting men to go out and treat women as though they’re subhuman. It’s good, interesting, frank commentary, and I wish I could write on that topic as well as you do.

    I’d like to second the request someone made for a special post of advice for women. I know you say it’s unnecessary because women absorb feminine wiles by osmosis, and maybe some do, but I’m still interested in what you’d have to say. Take a hypothetical, or not so hypothetical, young woman: in good shape, friendly, smart, but cursed with a straightforward nature and not much good at “playing” people. What advice would you have for her?

    Like


  122. > Take a hypothetical, or not so hypothetical, young woman: in good shape, friendly, smart, but cursed with a straightforward nature and not much good at “playing” people. What advice would you have for her?

    As described, she’s perfect (but I don’t buy the straight forward part). I would recommend she find a cute geek (there are those and more than you think) who will appreciate her for what she is (her being straight forward would imply to me that she would not like the games players play) and be very happy with her. She might have to make the first step but at the same time, its unlikely that she will be rejected.

    Like


  123. Sigh. Examples of misogyny would be: Saying women have no value outside of their sexual attractiveness to men, belittling women by assuming they don’t know what they really want and need a man to tell them, and saying that some women “deserve” to be mistreated, for the “crime” of not pleasing a man – usually because they disagree with him. Roissy has many, many examples on here of women who he put down or “showed who was boss.” That’s not normal behavior, yet when he puts it in terms of women, people accept it.

    Overall, I actually like the way the site exposes all the assumptions people make about women. I hope he and others like him keep it up. Thanks to these brave pioneers, I swear I hear women joke about “PUAs” all the time in public now. “Oh, he was an ASS. He must be practicing his approach…” “Omg that jackass has a SKATEBOARD as a prop. Whatever.”

    Like


  124. on July 13, 2008 at 4:18 am SovereignAmericanMale

    “In the late 20th century, feminist theorists proposed misogyny as both a cause and result of patriarchal social structures.”

    -^ Kate Millet’s Sexual Politics, adapted from her doctoral dissertation is normally cited as the originator; though Katharine M Rogers had also published substantially, regarding her reading of misogyny in literature prior to this.

    >Marcus Tullius Cicero reports that Greek philosophers considered misogyny to be caused by gynophobia, a fear of women.

    While Dizzy unfairly throws the charge of Misogyny at all the males who post here, she herself is engaged in Misogamy and Misandry.

    I love how words, after acceptance, become redefined and gain new meanings. Hate while profoundly separate from dislike gets to be interchangeable. I dislike someone, so I don’t want to have anything to do with them, later my action becomes redefined as being hateful. a Feature Creep at its worse.

    I personally am into Philogyny. I am against men beating women, and also against women beating men, (something the pro-woman media bias refuses to inform the public on). I am against honor killings. I think both men and women have the right to say no, for any reason; until wed.

    I don’t think anyone deserves mistreatment. And to mistreat a human based on on gender is highly irrational.

    On the other hand, I don’t reward bad behavior, nor do I celebrate what I consider other peoples mistakes.

    My biggest trouble with an extreme feminist, lies within the fact that I believe that life begins at the moment a sperm fertilizes an ova, and at that moment a life begins cell division, and will be a full human being if not murdered.

    When push comes to shove, You are either Pro-Murder or Pro-Life. Because of my unflinching stance I have been called a misogynist. I wont however stop a woman from getting her “legal privileged to murder her future son or daughter” enforced.

    —————————————————————————-
    @117 Dizzy8

    “Finally, to the guy who “proved” that accomplished beautiful women HAVE TO marry down, because they have so few potential mates at the same level. Oh honey. They only have to marry down if they want to get married. ”

    Prediction for the Elite power-lawyers and other elite professional females unable to locate a male to marry upward, will go to California and marry themselves. Lesbian power couples.

    Like


  125. on July 13, 2008 at 4:46 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @119 dizzy8

    “…but Cathering MacKinnon is a serious threat to males everywhere because she says stupid things and people (usually men complaining about feminists) quote her?”

    Is that your best answer? She says stupid things.
    Not that she is off base, or wrong or NUTS?

    Are you disavowing her statement her “all hetrosexual sex is rape statement”? It seems you are equivocating here.

    Like


  126. Sigh. Home alone tonight. Read the above fascinating exchange from circa @108 and this evening was so apropos.

    Let me be blunt. I could have had a warm body between the sheets. And I’m sure the lady is puzzled at her failure to get me. But she was an almost radical feminist. We were swinging along beautifully until she made the mistake of betraying her politics. (Remember ladies, [and guys], keep it light+fun if you want to bring him home.)

    I consider radical feminists to be defective females. I no longer give them my time beyond the niceties of politeness when in the same space. I no longer bother with them. Period. It’s a pure ROI response.

    Next week we will again go back to the Brazilian ladies (found THE hangout place) and see who wants to play.

    Like


  127. Showing people disagreement (which is mostly what roissy did in the examples you cite) != violence or rape

    (Contrary to popular belief in some circles, there is no such thing as verbal violence, there may be cruel words, but not violence)

    Like


  128. on July 13, 2008 at 4:51 pm Ferox Obscurus

    To sadielou:

    If what you say is true, you should have no trouble at all. That is precisely the kind of woman a large majority of men (especially intelligent ones) want.

    I suggest that if you are willing to make a first move in a direct but not intrusive / insulting / overt way with guys you genuinely like, you will have no trouble.

    Just make sure you truly understand your criteria and stick to it; practice evaluating people effectively. Most guys are loathsome. Then again, most women are loathsome. Both are subsets of humans, you see.

    To Eurosabra:

    Stop the self-hate. If a wheelchair bound quad can leave his wife for his nurse, you can do well. Thankfully for men, a truly dynamic personality, mind, and set of interests can overcome a lot of appearance issues, especially if they are disability related rather than hugely fat from being lazy related.

    You might be surprised what you can do. Quitting before the start definitely ensures failure.

    To Dizzy8:

    You deserve to be belittled for your ignorant commentary, no more. This has nothing to do with your gender. You post like you are a halfwit. You would be equally annoying if you were male.

    Like


  129. Thank you, Ferox and Nupnup. That sounds like a plan.

    Like


  130. > You might be surprised what you can do. Quitting before the start definitely ensures failure.

    But for some of us it is less painful.

    sadielou: That strategy would obviously be easiest in college but it should work outside of it as well. If nothing else, find something that interests you and look for a club or so of it, there are bound to be some decent guys enjoying it and you would have something in common already… As for a first move, some talking and then “How about coffee?” is innocuous enough, I guess.

    And if you like the guy and he seems to like you, most of us do not mind it when the girl goes ahead and kisses us :). Lest I forget, some guys are so surprised (geeks especially) if a girl approaches them that they may behave in a weird way without wanting to do so, so be sure to allow for that in your assessment of the reaction.

    Like


  131. Sovreign male, I called Catherine MacKinnon (and, incidentally, the people who quote her as a scare tactic) “someone who says stupid things.”

    That’s equivocating? Sheesh. Can’t win with you, can I?

    And I love that you guys keep threatening to not date me or all the women who don’t like you. You complain all the time that you don’t have enough opportunities with women, but your biggest threat is, “Wah! I won’t try to sleep with you because you’re mean!” You have to already know that we don’t care, right?

    As for Roissy’s “disagreement” being supposedly normal… yikes. Yelling at people you don’t know in bars, or at people you supposedly love in public, isn’t really normal behavior. Punishing your exes for the crime of no longer doing what you want isn’t normal. Roissy has multiple posts about making women feel insecure as “revenge” notably the “When is it ok to call a woman fat,” thing last month, and the one about how women really like it when a man puts them down and doesn’t let them talk in public, oh, and all the posts about how foreign women are more agreeable (they can’t talk to you, OF COURSE they seem nice) The things people on here don’t even think to question are very scary.

    Like


  132. on July 13, 2008 at 11:07 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @132 dizzy8

    “Sovreign male, I called Catherine MacKinnon (and, incidentally, the people who quote her as a scare tactic) “someone who says stupid things.”

    That’s equivocating? Sheesh. Can’t win with you, can I?”

    My exact words were “it seems like you are equivocating”
    Meaning I could be wrong, and I welcome you to show me more then what you have.

    You could win by being explicit & detailed or lose by just repeating yourself, while adding nothing new to bring meaning or completion (this is what you did)

    My point is this:

    1. You insult my intelligence by trying to get away with crap like that. You don’t respect me enough to communicate honestly, directly and openly.

    2. Someone can say something stupid, and it still be true. You called her someone who says stupid things. But not someone who says un-true things.

    3. You can use the truth in a scare tactic attack. And if so used, it doesn’t make any less true.

    4. You didn’t directly address the comment. By saying “things” you have addressed many items non specifically.
    Obfuscation by addition, and not addressing the point.

    5. You didn’t actually disavow the specific rape statement.

    6. You bring up red herrings, non related topics, “people who quote her as a scare tactic” Rather then addressing the point I asked you about.

    Like


  133. Ah, a nice weekend and I come to look at the comments and what do I see? Incoherence.

    Let’s break it down:


    “Yes, both sexes can reject, but the vast majority of rejection is done by women. “

    That’s only because people like you insist that some unspecified part of the “male psyche” requires the joy of pursuit. You guys are the ones who set it up so you have to pursue and chase and be in control of the “hunt” and any woman who shows initiative is a buzz kill.

    Don’t expect me to feel sorry for you.

    Back up there. When and where did I say that some unspecified part of the ‘male psyche’ requires the joy of pursuit? I didn’t say that, nor did I insinuate it, so I’m calling you out on your strawman bullshit.

    And who the hell are “you guys”? You mean men? You scream every fucking time a generalization about women is made. Either you are being entirely hypocritical or instead you mean some unspecified subset of men, which you fail to define. Please define them and explain why they make up enough of a majority to ‘set up’ the situation, as you so put it.

    Secondly, if we assume what you said was true, which I do not believe, how does the reason why change the material reality? Even if men create the situation, that doesn’t change the veracity of my statement. We’re not debating how good it is, I was explaining why women control the dating market, which you said you don’t understand. It’s tangential.

    And honestly, dizzy, I don’t expect you to feel sorry for me. I don’t want your empathy. I don’t even have a desire to change your mind. I merely want you to understand that no matter what guise you hide it under, your positions have placed you as the enemy. They do not strive for equality, they are jealousy and greed. I simply want you to understand that your ways make you an enemy to many, in turn to understand it was your choice that led you to the oblivion you are so fervently striding towards. I know you may believe you are righteous, but I don’t think you even stop to consider that you are seen as malicious. How do you expect there to be progress if you are seen as an engine of hate? To employ the same violent, underhandedness you so proclaim upon generations of patriarchy from your pulpit?

    Like


  134. One more, since I didn’t see it!

    You complain all the time that you don’t have enough opportunities with women,

    Who is the “you” here, dizzy? Seriously. It’s not Sovereign. It’s not me. It’s not Roissy. Maybe David Alexander? But he’s not even complaining, he’s just *resigned*.

    Put down the straw.

    Like


  135. on July 14, 2008 at 1:21 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @135 Animus

    “Put down the straw”

    Well, she may have a coke habit…
    but Imho, she is a paranoid delusional person, who has issues with men. And no place better then a men’s forum for men to help others, but mainly men, then to come dump vitriol and spread dissension.

    She sees ogres where windmills spin, (straw men ad infinitum) and loves to play her cards against such. And while everyone here is playing, say Poker, she thinks its Hearts or Spades.

    I think she cannot understand what is being said, because of the programing of her creed. Femi-Nazism is no different, really then any other cult (Scientology, Jeho witnesses, Rev. Sun Young Moonies) They lose the ability to discern reality, and have their mind control propaganda spoon fed to them.

    Redefinition, and re-interpretation of all that has happened (History, becomes Herstory) before, and is going on presently have been filtered through groupspeak. The reason she says “you guys, you men etc.” is that she is locked into a Us vs Them mindset.

    Like


  136. >The reason she says “you guys, you men etc.” is that she is locked into a Us vs Them mindset.

    You mean cosmo is NOT counter-intelligence? *shock*

    Like


  137. Put down the straw meaning ‘stop building strawmen’. I don’t think she does cocaine.

    Like


  138. on July 14, 2008 at 2:57 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @137 Nupnup

    “You mean cosmo is NOT counter-intelligence? *shock*”

    Right, but it does generally run, like most women’s mags…

    “Counter to Intelligence”

    Like


  139. Look, folks, just because you’re posting anonymously doesn’t mean you’re not communicating with real people. Common courtesy still applies. Please don’t call dizzy “paranoid delusional” or a “feminazi.” (Seriously — remind yourself for three seconds what the real Nazis did.)

    We would be better off without an us vs. them mindset about the sexes. But, all vitriol aside, think about what dizzy’s actually saying:

    Yelling at women in public, refusing to listen to them, giving them “punishments,” and so on, is a form of bullying.

    Preferring younger or foreign women, explicitly because they are more compliant, indicates that you’re more interested in obedience than equal companionship.

    Of course not all men do this — in fact, from personal experience the bullies seem to be an (unhappy) minority. But it isn’t right, I think, to reduce someone’s agency, or to treat her as a means to an end. I don’t think submissiveness to aggressors is a desirable trait. I had thought most people would agree with that, but apparently not. I can understand why dizzy writes, “The things people on here don’t even think to question are very scary.”

    Like


  140. “…Preferring younger or foreign women, explicitly because they are more compliant, indicates that you’re more interested in obedience than equal companionship.…”

    Uh no. The preference for foreign females has to do with the fact that they still act, respond, and arouse as women — not the least the fact that they actually love and admire men. In fact, the one determining aspect which puts them a quantum leap over a good fraction of US women is that actually care about the comfort of the male and his place in the relationship. And anyone who has been on the receiving end of a Latin babe’s anger knows damn well “compliant” is not a word in their vocabulary. Or to borrow a line from Species: You guys don’t get out much do you?

    Also, equal companionship is an extraordinary myth foisted upon the bamboozled male side of such relationships. A few hours of observation will show that the female dictates, more or less, in the totality of such relationships. The word “no” hardly ever crosses even the antechamber of the male mind in those so-called “equal companionship” deals. Like all myths it has a basis in fact — that a small minority of couples actually can make it work. The majority can’t and shouldn’t even f’ing try.

    Like


  141. on July 14, 2008 at 7:01 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @140 az

    Look, folks, just because you’re posting anonymously doesn’t mean you’re not communicating with real people. Common courtesy still applies. Please don’t call dizzy “paranoid delusional” or a “feminazi.” (Seriously — remind yourself for three seconds what the real Nazis did.)

    1. Reminds himself: 3, 2, 1
    60 million U.S.A. children aborted.. for the crime of being expendable for the sake of the feminist agenda.
    Nazis killed 10 milion, hell Stalin only managed to kill 50.
    So ya, I call it like I see it.

    Until I see her take a pro-life position or a pro man one, she is a feminist-socialist-nationalist. Her biggest loyalty is to herself, and then to her gender role identity belief system. The religion-nation state of feminist womanity.

    2. Real people? She may have human flesh, bone and blood but imo her brain is running on bad software instruction sets. Is she in tune with human compassion like Sidartha?
    Is she fighting for everyone? or just her own group?

    To fight for someone else when there is no personal gain to be had by doing so, This is Noble.

    She is fighting for a belief system, and she is gaining from it directly. Nothing noble about it. Even animals fight for what is perceived as their own.

    Oh but SAM you are so judgemental.

    Yes, I admit it, hell lets be honest. Every one is judgmental. But those who are heartless (scared) are unwilling to be upfront about it.

    “We would be better off without an us vs. them mindset about the sexes. ”

    No kidding.. I think I just said something about Dizzy being in that mindset.

    “Preferring younger or foreign women, explicitly because they are more compliant, indicates that you’re more interested in obedience than equal companionship.”

    There is no such creature as equality, never has, never will be. There will always be someone higher and someone lower. In the US we have the taxman to answer to, don’t pay him, and he will take your family, home and possessions and jail you. Drive too fast, and you will get a ticket. Miss too many days at work, your master gives you a pink slip.

    Obedience is not optional, its required. The question remains “who is the lead dance partner and who is the follower?”

    Will it be the man, who is quickly able to sacrifice himself for the well being of his family, or the woman who can on a whim sacrifice her unborn sons and daughters?

    Like


  142. “The reason she says “you guys, you men etc.” is that she is locked into a Us vs Them mindset.”

    No. The phrase is not meant as an over-generalization of, “Those MEN” sort of thing. (I leave the sweeping statements about an entire gender to Roissy. He manages to get at least one into each post).

    Rather, it refers specifically to the guys on this site.

    Like


  143. And SAM, sheesh. You’re tilting at Catherine MacKinnon, abortions-are-entertainment windmills. Also, your world view is kind of creepy. You do realize that, “There’s no such thing as true equality because we are all created differently” is an argument often used by white supremacists to justify disparate treatment?

    Like


  144. “Obedience is not optional, its required. The question remains “who is the lead dance partner and who is the follower?””

    The guy who has to be in charge of his partner is a loser who can’t trust. I feel sorry for you.

    Like


  145. But thanks for beginning with a nod toward common courtesy. I’m already regretting the “loser” comment. You’re not a loser. You just don’t trust people who aren’t under your direct control, and that’s fear-based.

    Like


  146. “You could win by being explicit & detailed or lose by just repeating yourself, while adding nothing new to bring meaning or completion (this is what you did)”

    Or, I could win by observing that I don’t have to justify myself to you, and your insistence that I should try to, on criteria set by you, is a red flag for an abusive personality.

    I’ve already said that the woman says stupid things. That means, shockingly, that I think she says stupid things. I don’t see how any sort of elaboration would be required. What, I need to put a few “really really” in front of “stupid” to make you happy? Why?

    Like


  147. “Personally, I like the best of both worlds — love with an incredible woman spiced up by the occasional fling.”
    -Amen. a steady supply of sex will make you more confident and able to be relaxed in your pursuits of the opposite sex

    Like


  148. I suppose I should point out that I am actually upset about being an “AFC”, not a total lack of dates. Every couple of years I’d find a nerdy, fat, or ugly chick who spontaneously liked the blend of smart/funny/cynical/tortured soul I had to offer. But that’s no way to live when every fiber of your being screams “Sex NOW!”

    And of course I plead guilty to woman-as-status-object, but I don’t see the harm in my being a sexual mentor to a hot 25-year-old when I’ve played the same role in the past for a fat or nerdy woman the same age–nota bene I don’t date my students or former students.

    Basically, I need and should have “game”, because I can think of about 14 more women–over and above the 6 I have dated seriously (I’m 34)–who really WERE interested in the “real me”, but whom I could do nothing about because of the nervousness and inadequacy brought on by being the low man on the totem pole my entire life. And, as I noted, I’ve seen the evolution from “Greatest Generation” to “Superannuated Nerd” in the previous generation of men in my family.

    Like


  149. on July 15, 2008 at 7:22 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @144 dizzy8

    “You do realize that, “There’s no such thing as true equality because we are all created differently” is an argument often used by white supremacists to justify disparate treatment?”

    I never said “there is no such thing as true equality because we are all created differently” Nor do I use such arguments like white supremacists to justify disparate treatment for any group.

    I reject your unfair, false, and unrealistic comparison. My statement within its clear context, is worlds apart from such racial thinking. It has nothing to do with subgroups and everything thing to do with individuals in relation to other individuals.
    —————————————————————————
    “Or, I could win by observing that I don’t have to justify myself to you, and your insistence that I should try to, on criteria set by you, is a red flag for an abusive personality.”

    1.
    Nice Dig there. At no time ever, had I said “You MUST”.. therefore, no insistence ever existed. You said there was no winning with me, I corrected that inaccurate statement. But I didn’t Insist, I offered options and examples.

    Your lies betray you, yet again. Do all women lie like this or just you?

    The fact I call you Liar, and Bitch may be misconstrued as abusive. But I speak the truth about you, and cause no actual harm by doing so. Show the court the evidence (not opinion) of harm, or withdraw the abusive personality charge.
    —————————————————————————-
    2.
    “I don’t have to justify myself to you”

    There is no way to self-justify a human life. Ever. Period.
    You couldn’t if you were willing to even try. Nothing like giving up on an impossible task, with a fit of righteous indignation, to make yourself feel empowered.

    But I am not condemning the Human Lifeform that posts, here under the name of Dizzy or Dizzy8. I am criticizing the works/words/positions of that lifeform. They are “not” the same thing.

    Again, I dont have a problem with “You” personally Dizzy. I have a problem with the words that come from your thoughtless UltraFeminist Programing (that you dump into this arena of thought). Your programing is not who You are as a person. I do think you are mentally unbalanced in the least.
    —————————————————————————-
    “Rather, it refers specifically to the guys on this site.”

    Whom are not alone in their view, but rather are much more commonplace then you would like to admit. Infact, there is a Seachange afoot and these “guys on this site” are becoming more mainstream with each passing minute. The old guard of feminisim is under major assalt.

    You are losing, In the free market place of Ideas/Thoughts. The hearts and minds of the people hate you.
    We rejected blind faith in the middle ages and had the renaissance.

    Feminisim is goddess worship repackaged for a new generation, under the guise of “gender equality”, for the advancement of the goals set by social engineers.

    They were unmasked some time back, and are feeling the blowback even now. No one but the “Zealot Faithful” of this cult are sold on it. Anyone who examines it with an open, critical eye sees its failures clearly.

    Like


  150. on July 15, 2008 at 7:38 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @146 dizzy8

    “But thanks for beginning with a nod toward common courtesy. I’m already regretting the “loser” comment. You’re not a loser. You just don’t trust people who aren’t under your direct control, and that’s fear-based.”

    I fear God, and thats the only thing I fear. I don’t completely trust “Any” human ever (regardless of placement above or below me), except for my fiance. I bare my jugular to her, and she licks it.

    I let her shave me with a straight razor. Not because I am lazy, but because it gives her pleasure to care for me. She could end my life in a second, and I would not fear a thing. She has the meek and sensitive spirit of a real woman. Something very alien to your female nature.

    Like


  151. > I suppose I should point out that I am actually upset about being an “AFC”, not a total lack of dates.

    Yeah I know that one. I never blamed women for the fact that I’m too damn shy to approach them (either blamed myself or figured it is just my personality) even if they seem interested. And considering how many guys hit on them, I can see why they don’t approach me (not in general anyway). That my shyness is often misinterpreted as arrogance does not really help it, either.

    Like


  152. 150: “Feminisim is goddess worship repackaged for a new generation, under the guise of “gender equality”, for the advancement of the goals set by social engineers.”

    It isn’t, and it never was. If wrongs have been done by extremists in an ideology’s name — and is there any ideology that this *hasn’t* happened to? — that’s not the fault of the ideology itself. Your beef is with the poseurs attempting to commandeer feminism, not genuine, fair-minded feminists. And fine — have at those poseurs! But don’t confuse them for the real thing; they are not representative of it.

    Feminism is about fairness for all, not the exaltation of either gender. Seriously.

    Like


  153. on July 15, 2008 at 9:10 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @153 Anonymous

    “Feminism is about fairness for all, not the exaltation of either gender. Seriously.”

    Hey Joe, I mean Jane (whatev).
    I got a slightly used bridge in Brooklyn for sale…

    And again, I refer you to “..under the guise of “gender equality”… ”

    Fair = Equal and then Orwell points out Some will be more equal then others.

    Like


  154. on July 15, 2008 at 9:18 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @146 dizzy8

    “I’m already regretting the “loser” comment. You’re not a loser.”

    An actual apology would be nice.

    *turns the other cheek*

    Dizzy8, I forgive you for calling me a loser.

    Like


  155. I have a lengthy article I need to finish writing sometime, but I’ll get the point out right here: Almost everyone who strives for equality is lying either sub-consciously or consciously. Their perception of reality is naturally self-skewed, so what they see as ‘equal’ is really not. But ultimately this is because I agree with SAM: that even given equivalent circumstances and ability, fate always puts one person in an advantage. Chaos theory assures this.

    Like


  156. on July 15, 2008 at 11:06 pm Gunslingergregi

    Ultima Online Video Game has others online games have proven this. Everyone has the same chars to make exactly equal chances of everything and yet some make in the online world and become rich others beg for money. Some also quite and start over to become rich again.

    Like


  157. 154: “And again, I refer you to “..under the guise of “gender equality”… ”

    Fair = Equal and then Orwell points out Some will be more equal then others.””

    Orwell wrote that as a cautionary tale, pointing it out so that we could strive to avoid it. It’s not written in stone, it’s correctable — rise above this, do better: that’s the point.

    And once again, this is where honor & character come in — for *everyone*. This all has a lot more to do with being responsible & accountable than it does with being one sex or the other. I am one of those feminists I’m describing. I’m living it, 24/7, and yet you speak as though I’m as rare and mythical as a unicorn or something.

    It’s possible to live outside the narrow lines you draw for womanhood. Really. I do it every day, and I’m hardly unique in that. Why is it so threatening that a woman should have a say in what kind of life she gets to have, whether she wants to reproduce, or whether she has other goals? As long as I pay my own way and I’m not asking you for anything, what’s it to you?

    I just don’t get why you’re so hateful to the notion that women can be just as competent, independent and complex as men. It’s true whether you’re hateful or not, but it seems so pointless and sad that you guys (the commenters here in general) seem to harbor such tamped-down rage against complete strangers who’ve never done you the slightest wrong. But you assume they would, given the opportunity, which is unfair, and only serves to perpetuate the problem. When you treat people antagonistically, the chances are good that they’ll retaliate in kind. That’s not gender-specific behavior, either.

    156: So basically you’re saying it’s not possible because you believe it’s not possible. And you’re putting this down to fate? Well, see, how that comes across is that you don’t *want* to believe it…perhaps because the status quo suits you, or perhaps because the idea of a woman who doesn’t depend on you is unnerving, somehow.

    You’re demonizing feminism because you need to see women as the enemy, for some reason. I don’t understand it; I and women like me are not the enemy, and yet you don’t leave room in your worldview for any nuance or variation of behavior. Women are no more programmed automatons than men are: do any of you subscribe to the notion of free will? (The general impression from the commentary here is no, but it’s not fair to draw that conclusion without asking the question outright.)

    The intellect is the final arbiter of behavior, and if you’re basing your definition of what women are on the lowest common denominator of female behavior, you’re doing both yourselves & women an equal disservice.

    It’s beneath you.

    157: “Everyone has the same chars to make exactly equal chances of everything and yet some make in the online world and become rich others beg for money. Some also quite and start over to become rich again.”

    So everyone has an opportunity to make or break on the basis of their own abilities & effort?

    Why might that premise be acceptable in an online game, yet objectionable in real life?

    Like


  158. on July 16, 2008 at 8:31 am SovereignAmericanMale

    Anon: It’s possible to live outside the narrow lines you draw for womanhood. Really. I do it every day, and I’m hardly unique in that. Why is it so threatening that a woman should have a say in what kind of life she gets to have, whether she wants to reproduce, or whether she has other goals? As long as I pay my own way and I’m not asking you for anything, what’s it to you?

    S.A.M.: I have never said woman Must DO THIS OR THAT, I show the consequences.

    1. I do point out single parenting is against nature and generally produces criminals and harm to society at a far higher rate then the nuclear family { the consequnce of women choosing to change priorites, and elivating self above wife-mother }
    2. The economic effects of women leaving the home for the workplace effects all consumers in the shopping market.
    3. Delayed motherhood for carreer, increases birth defects (fixable if teen girls froze eggs, beforehand)
    but expectations to find a male who prefers an 35+ Non-milf to become a milf with is unrealistic.
    4. Women who dont pair bond, and don’t procrete commit gene suicide. There is nothing smart, or empowering about betraying your family bloodline. The genetic imperitive is higher then self, our genes dont belong to us, they belong to our future.

    Anon: I just don’t get why you’re so hateful to the notion that women can be just as competent, independent and complex as men. It’s true whether you’re hateful or not, but it seems so pointless and sad that you guys (the commenters here in general) seem to harbor such tamped-down rage against complete strangers who’ve never done you the slightest wrong. But you assume they would, given the opportunity, which is unfair, and only serves to perpetuate the problem. When you treat people antagonistically, the chances are good that they’ll retaliate in kind. That’s not gender-specific behavior, either.

    S: Not I! I accept some individual females can be as competent, independent way way way more complex as/then males. I don’t hate… there is that word “hate” again… funny, how its being redefined in useage. And we, or at least I have been wronged, and I understand human nature, on the whole people think people are nice, good, etc. I think males and females alike will fuck each other over, in a moment. Some rare individuals exist, and they are exceptions. I don’t pre-emtively strike out at people. But Dizzy and a few others, strike out at the males here, and Sometimes I challenge her.

    Anon: 156: So basically you’re saying it’s not possible because you believe it’s not possible. And you’re putting this down to fate? Well, see, how that comes across is that you don’t *want* to believe it…perhaps because the status quo suits you, or perhaps because the idea of a woman who doesn’t depend on you is unnerving, somehow.

    S: I think you totally missed the point, and because of the feminist programing, you are incapable of percieving it. You are locked into Cult Groupthink. You have missed the point, because it challenges the program in your head, and the program will render an alternate understanding of the intended words.

    Animus is onto something here:

    “Almost everyone who strives for equality is lying either sub-consciously or consciously. Their perception of reality is naturally self-skewed, so what they see as ‘equal’ is really not.”

    Which is understood by you, to mean, we don’t intend to bother trying. Because of status quo conflicts, you say or its unnerving for females to not depend on men. I have tried to do more for the plight of women, but you are not oppressed like you say you are, { here in the US }. You do Seek Power over Men. Its a lie to say otherwise. Men will Rule, or Women will Rule. Power is like a Gun, only one person can use it at a time.

    Actually I think more can be done for women, I have issues with a lot of things that happen to the half of humanity, called female. Puberty onset based marraige in Yeman (1st period and your sold), Puberty onset based age of consent in Boliva are very detremental to the minds of young girls, and should not exist. But this is just one REAL issue affecting women.

    Anon: “You’re demonizing feminism because you need to see women as the enemy,”

    S: No, I don’t like male feminists either, and I love women as the whole, and individuals. I have no need for an enemy, but that doesn’t change the fact that we, the males have suffered an assault collectively and individually, and have someone acting like an enemy against us.
    We didn’t ask for a war, but there now is one.

    Failure to acknowledge that in today’s world, if you are born male, you are “WRONG”. We as a people, now retrain males to act against their biology, if they display alpha-ness during childhood development. (unheard of five or six decades ago) This is both harmful, and against nature yet its a direct result of feminism’s political correctness run amok.

    Morally no different then female genital mutilation of sub saharin Africa.(woman on woman violence harm, in that instance)

    Anon: “Yet you don’t leave room in your worldview for any nuance or variation of behavior.”

    S: No, I do leave room because I am a realist. I accept reality is not the way I would have it, but I do speak out against things I perceive to be harmful. I can’t force my views and remain true to my own values. But I can reason with the sane, persuade the open minded, and get women/men to put down the gun.

    Anon: “Women are no more programmed automatons than men are”

    S: In their natural state, you are correct. But there is Programing, and its taken at face value (a Blue Pill) and it leads women/men out of that natural state, and on the surface this information seems noble and true, yet the side effects of buying it, believing it and acting upon it are detrimental.
    Both to society, and the individual woman/man. After enough of this programing has be up-taken, the human brain fails to use logic correctly and starts skewing reality interpretation. Women are more likely to become feminists because of personal gain factor.

    “do any of you subscribe to the notion of free will?”

    As a matter of fact I do, and I believe there will be an accounting for how that free will was used.

    Like


  159. “Failure to acknowledge that in today’s world, if you are born male, you are “WRONG”. We as a people, now retrain males to act against their biology, if they display alpha-ness during childhood development. (unheard of five or six decades ago) This is both harmful, and against nature yet its a direct result of feminism’s political correctness run amok.”

    Of course maleness is not wrong – only a fool would say so, and only a bigger fool would listen. And again, evils being done in feminism’s name are not a product of the core beliefs of feminism. Stop the poseurs commandeering the name, by all means. This man-hating dogma is an abomination, and has never been the point of feminism.

    “I accept some individual females can be as competent, independent way way way more complex as/then males.”

    You can’t honestly accept that if you think that our lives, by virtue of being born with uteri, should then be defined by being wives and mothers. (That does seem to be what you’re conveying; my apologies if I’m mistaken.)

    “: No, I don’t like male feminists either, and I love women as the whole, and individuals. I have no need for an enemy, but that doesn’t change the fact that we, the males have suffered an assault collectively and individually, and have someone acting like an enemy against us.
    We didn’t ask for a war, but there now is one.”

    So despite your earlier protestations to the contrary, you *are* anti-feminist.

    And you don’t think that women having their options limited until relatively recently doesn’t count as something that was long overdue for change? Really?

    There is no gender war. Or, more accurately, there doesn’t have to be. But that requires both sides to live up to standards that, apparently, neither one is currently doing.

    “You do Seek Power over Men. Its a lie to say otherwise. Men will Rule, or Women will Rule. Power is like a Gun, only one person can use it at a time.”

    And so we come to the crux of the matter: this is your belief system, which you are assuming, by default, to be correct. But *my* belief system is automatically dismissed as the product of hive-mind programming, despite the fact that a) it’s clearly not, but it’s easier to dismiss me if you make that claim, and b) I am living proof of the inaccuracy of your belief.

    Nothing I say – or do – is going to satisfy you. And no, I’m not going to get all shrill and condemn all men on your account, because that is not how sensible people handle disagreement. But I’m not about to let people like you determine the course of my life for me, either, and *that* is the actual point of feminism: to have that choice. There will always be people who make bad choices; it does not follow that the choice should be removed.

    So it would seem we’re at something of an impasse, would it not?

    “As a matter of fact I do, and I believe there will be an accounting for how that free will was used.”

    I stand by how I use mine. Do you?

    Like


  160. You’re demonizing feminism because you need to see women as the enemy, for some reason.

    Flawed premise.

    Feminism is not “women.” Feminism is a radical ideology that is an offshoot of Marxism, and is embraced by a tiny minority of women who are very unrepresentative of femalekind.

    Like


  161. on July 16, 2008 at 12:46 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    “So despite your earlier protestations to the contrary, you *are* anti-feminist.”

    When did I say I wasn’t “anti-feminist”?

    I am against the affects of feminism. You try and make this all about “Self Determinism” for a woman. When I have sat through about 429 hours of woman’s studies at UT Austin, Berkley and other schools, I have seen it is taught to thousands of students otherwise.

    Its not just about that, its about my male self-determination and other males as well. The de-masculinization of men, en masse, the new laws that are not equal, that punish men for non crimes. Among many other things, cultural redefinition, new gender role construction, Speech codes the list is staggering in length.

    But wait… thats not “my” feminism you decry!

    “And again, evils being done in feminism’s name are not a product of the core beliefs of feminism. Stop the poseurs commandeering the name, by all means”

    Can you show me the “cannon” or list ratified by the congress of feminists that lists these “core beliefs”?
    Where are the “core beliefs”? Are they a mutable mercurial mix of words? I suspect they have “feature creep” written all over them, and produce much more then you will admit they do.

    My dear lord, the whole system is flawed. You think it’s firebrand radicals, hi-jacking the feminist Brand. Honey, its epidemic. The numbers are too many for it to be just a splinter sect, or marginal extremists.

    But I typically go after the most obnoxious, who ask for a fight (Dizzy comes to mind)

    —————————————————————————

    “You can’t honestly accept that if you think that our lives, by virtue of being born with uteri, should then be defined by being wives and mothers.”

    Sure have a career, be the best @ what ever occupation you want to be. But if you want a side of “family” with that…

    Dont expect prospective husband to respect your being the breadwinner. Nothing humiliates, like telling someone:

    “I want to spend my life with you, but you have to stop being who you were raised from childhood to be”.

    Males express Love through being a provider. Don’t expect us to become the de facto house-husbands. In your quest for self definition, don’t redefine the roles of others. Instead, (dispenses free advice) Go get some cats, and a lesbian and leave us, and our kid’s minds alone.

    Don’t Oppress us, in your search for Liberty from the “Oppression” Because if you are right, then you did nothing more then role reversal. Which is all that I see, when I look around.

    —————————————————————————-

    “Nothing I say – or do – is going to satisfy you. ”

    Malarkey! You can say, “I was wrong”. That’s satisfying.

    Like


  162. on July 16, 2008 at 12:57 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @161 PA

    You’re demonizing feminism because you need to see women as the enemy, for some reason.

    Flawed premise.

    Feminism is not “women.” Feminism is a radical ideology that is an offshoot of Marxism, and is embraced by a tiny minority of women who are very unrepresentative of femalekind.

    ——————————————————————————-
    You Sir,
    Are totally correct.
    Please enjoy the free German imported beer.

    But the tiny minority of women, happen to include very very powerful people in DC who code our nation’s laws and populate powerful positions in the Dept of Education and N.E.A.

    To among other things, facilitate the dispersal of feminist dogma and rhetoric into the classrooms of America. Go study the links between federal funding (no child left behind) and feminists (no male child gets ahead).

    Why are males failing so bad in the schools and turning into gun toting nuts?
    Please, don’t tell me it has nothing to do with it.

    (puts his aluminum foil back over his head to protect him from the cancer-causing cell tower radiation)

    Like


  163. on July 16, 2008 at 2:13 pm anonymous 57

    “You try and make this all about “Self Determinism” for a woman.”

    In in practice, that’s exactly what it is.

    “When did I say I wasn’t “anti-feminist”?”

    I’ll have to sift through previous posts, but that won’t happen until this evening. I was the poster to whom you said it.

    “When I have sat through about 429 hours of woman’s studies at UT Austin, Berkley and other schools, I have seen it is taught to thousands of students otherwise.”

    Never took one moment of “women’s studies”. Was raised by a man (a man the men here would likely hail as an alpha,) and he instilled in me a set of values that transcends sexual organs.

    “Dont expect prospective husband to respect your being the breadwinner. Nothing humiliates, like telling someone:
    “I want to spend my life with you, but you have to stop being who you were raised from childhood to be”.”

    And how is that different that what you’re suggesting for me? What’s good for the gander is also good for the goose. I’m not asking anyone to change for me; I expect that same courtesy in return. If either party expects the other to change to suit them then it’s not a very smart match, but you can’t save people from themselves.

    “Malarkey! You can say, “I was wrong”. That’s satisfying.”

    But it would be untrue, and I won’t lie to make you feel better about yourself. Actually, I won’t lie, full stop.

    Like


  164. on July 16, 2008 at 2:52 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    I have no recollection of ever saying I was not anti-feminist.
    I could be mistaken, but I very much doubt that I am.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Me:
    “Dont expect prospective husband to respect your being the breadwinner. Nothing humiliates, like telling someone:
    “I want to spend my life with you, but you have to stop being who you were raised from childhood to be”.”

    You:

    “And how is that different that what you’re suggesting for me? What’s good for the gander is also good for the goose.”

    Me clarifies, by suppling additional information:

    “but you have to stop being who you were raised from childhood to be”

    Is to be understood in light of males being raised to be providers:

    My ancestor that hunted Mastadons and Wooly Mamoths
    ran them off cliffs and carried the meat miles and mile back to the home. He had sons who grew up doing the same type of work.

    When some of of those sons/daughters learned how to plant, It was the sons that captured the live stock to breed, that we wouldn’t have to hunt. Its been in our dna for thousands of years, and in our social customs. Its in our genetic make up to provide, and we express love by doing so.

    So now, someone who isn’t a man usurps this role of provider leaving us just with the role of protector (defunct in a civilized society) what are we left with. How to we show love with action? Men who instinctively seek to provide are reduced to consumer observer roles.

    Your feminist dogmas recent arrival on the scene has upset the gender roles applecart.
    You are a novelty, a recent thing challenging the fabric of society. And its tearing the society apart.

    —————————————————————————

    Its not just the woman in the work place
    that is challenging us men for the role of provider.

    The welfare system that won’t provide a family financial aid while a husband is present. I have talked with 8 divorce attorneys about this. Welfare precipitates divorce by its ruthless standard operating procedures.

    Leaving women alone with kids, and unemployed males incarcerated for failure to pay child support dues created by welfare’s aiding the mother.

    There are men who never missed a day of work in their lives, { even went sick to work }, to provide, who were laid off (so a corporation could increase shareholder /qtr. ern. statement valueby offshoring that job.) who now languish in prisons.

    I have talked with these men. All they talk about is their families and how they wish that they were still home with them, and still working at their jobs.

    Like


  165. on July 16, 2008 at 2:56 pm anonymous 57

    For SAM:

    “When did I say I wasn’t “anti-feminist”?”

    64, “Thought Experiement, June 19, 2008, 4.48 am:
    “As for the He-man woman haters club, count me out, as I have already made my position clear in post 37. I don’t hate women or male feminists, but sometimes I hate their actions.”

    That is why I was under the impression that you had some interest in rational discussion of the subject.

    Like


  166. on July 16, 2008 at 3:06 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @164 anonymous 57

    Me:
    “You try and make this all about “Self Determinism” for a woman.”

    You:
    “In in practice, that’s exactly what it is.”

    Me:
    You are wrong.
    You are blind/misinformed.
    Thats the claim, but the actual outcome has been otherwise.

    Like


  167. on July 17, 2008 at 2:19 am SovereignAmericanMale

    I stand by my words.

    “I don’t hate women or male feminists, but sometimes I hate their actions.”

    I can be anti-feminist, and not hate the woman or man who espouses that belief system.

    Anti-feminist does not = hate women or male feminists
    Anti-feminist does = against the belief and actions taken by women or male feminists.

    Anti-feminist does not = misogynist.

    “That is why I was under the impression that you had some interest in rational discussion of the subject.”

    I want to think you mean by “rational discussion” is where I blindly nod and agree, to what you state and accept it as reality.
    But that may be misrepresenting your position.

    I am still waiting on the “core beliefs of feminism” that you mentioned in post 160 Anonymous.

    Please let me read up on this. I want to.

    Like


  168. on July 17, 2008 at 2:40 am Gunslingergregi

    omg MAN Sovereign no wonder people are thinking the world is going to end and shit. Can someone find out how many men are in jail for failing to pay child support.
    Hear the same type of shit when I worked in a warehouse the woman was happy her ex went to jail. She was working for like 7 bucks an hour said he used to make 30k but then quite his job. Well duh you lose your reason for working when you lose your family. What’s the point then. They throw you in jail for it and also I have heard yea if you don’t make money to what you should earn. That happens all the time though where someone earns a certain amount at this point in their lives but earns less at another point. Why I say that is the new slavery. Slavery never dissapears it just goes under a new guise. We need a lincoln for real in the US.

    Like


  169. on July 17, 2008 at 2:44 am Gunslingergregi

    Someone needs to do some investigating inside the dovorce mill. Cops make like 1200 a month and they are more than happy to talk about what goes on. Then theres the ones who watched it every day and were sick to there souls and left. That book needs to be written.

    Like


  170. on July 17, 2008 at 2:46 am Gunslingergregi

    Sovereign go make a mil and write the best seller bud.

    Like


  171. “I want to think you mean by “rational discussion” is where I blindly nod and agree, to what you state and accept it as reality.
    But that may be misrepresenting your position.”

    Of course that’s misrepresenting my position, and you know it.

    “I am still waiting on the “core beliefs of feminism” that you mentioned in post 160 Anonymous.

    Please let me read up on this. I want to.”

    Oh, come ON. I’m talking about the concept, not the political movement, and you know that perfectly well, too. You already seem well-versed in political dogma. If you want the unjust laws changed, then work towards that change. Curtailing the rights of the non-offenders is not the way to go about that. If anything you should be *delighted* by women like me, who are committed & accountable to the path they choose, whether married or single.

    The fundamental beliefs I’m talking about: that I should not be considered less capable or less deserving of opportunity simply because I possess ovaries. That I can hold a job, and own property, and vote. That I have the right to prove myself, just as a man has to — and take my lumps, just as a man has to, too. That I have both the right and the opportunity to determine my own course in life, and am not property to be handed off by my father to a husband. That I’m not obliged to marry or procreate, if I don’t want to. That I pull my own weight in every part of my life. You know, all the basic stuff.

    “I can be anti-feminist, and not hate the woman or man who espouses that belief system.”
    “Anti-feminist does not = hate women or male feminists
    Anti-feminist does = against the belief and actions taken by women or male feminists.
    Anti-feminist does not = misogynist.”

    You’re splitting hairs. If you are against my beliefs and actions to the point where you want to limit my freedoms, then yes, that’s a form of hatred. It’s all well and good to say you could like me personally, but how is that anything but an empty platitude? You are against how I live my life, and believe I am…what was it? “…a novelty, a recent thing challenging the fabric of society.” If you really believe I and my kind are tearing society apart, then whether or not you hate us is irrelevant: you don’t believe that we have the same rights that you do, which is really the point.

    And you are not a stupid person: you know speaking about all feminists as if they are of one hive mind is reductive and pointless, and ultimately begs the question. It’s a false assumption, and everything that proceeds from it is questionable as a result.

    Like


  172. on July 17, 2008 at 3:22 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @169 Gunslingergregi

    The really fucked up thing about it, is in Texas (may be same in other states) is You are not allowed to work and get paid for doing so, while in prison. Nor may you run a business.

    But the State Atty General will tack on interest, in addition to the monthly child support payments, that are in arrears…

    One man, who went in to prison, (arrears $2500.00)
    at the end of his five years inside, he made parole with two years left remaining on his sentence. { 7 total due }

    He gets out, finds out he owes $85,000.00 and looks for work, spends 4 weeks unemployed. He is arrested on failure to pay child support, and his parole is revoked.

    At his hearing, the board member said “I wish I could add more time to your sentence, to teach you to care about your family more”

    He did his remaining two years, got out facing $155,000.00
    in arrears. His professional license has been revoked, as well as his driver license because…
    He was not paying child support. (As if he had the ability?)

    There is something very wrong afoot in the USA.

    Like


  173. on July 17, 2008 at 3:47 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @172 anonymous

    “And you are not a stupid person: you know speaking about all feminists as if they are of one hive mind is reductive and pointless, and ultimately begs the question. It’s a false assumption, and everything that proceeds from it is questionable as a result.”

    Straw Man…
    I never mentioned a hive mind, nor described one. Yet, somehow you found an interpretation of my words to mean that. One that has no basis in fact.
    Tell me how… How on God’s green earth you managed this?

    I described programing, the imagery I used was inert data/software loaded onto a hard drive. Which is nothing like a hive mind. Later on I say that it skews logic and reason.

    I mention how this system replicates by passing on this information. (like a meme)

    But at no time Ever do I say they (feminists) in a hive mind… that their mentally in group consciousness, thinking exactly the same thoughts at exactly the same moment of time everywhere.

    A perfect illustration of a Hive Mind (type 1) is found in the movie “I, Robot” when all of the new robots chest glow red… they cease to function as individual robots and are controlled by a collective intelligence based within a supercomputer.

    I have never given any indication that I think feminists are telepathic, or telemental. You may have a misunderstanding of the word “groupthink”, if this is the case, I refer you to

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

    Like


  174. on July 17, 2008 at 4:24 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @172 anonymous

    “And you are not a stupid person: you know speaking about all feminists as if they are of one hive mind is reductive and pointless, and ultimately begs the question. It’s a false assumption, and everything that proceeds from it is questionable as a result.”

    Straw Man…
    I never mentioned a hive mind, nor described one. Yet, somehow you found an interpretation of my words to mean that. One that has no basis in fact.
    Tell me how… How on God’s green earth you managed this?

    I described programing, the imagery I used was inert data/software loaded onto a hard drive. Which is nothing like a hive mind. Later on I say that it skews logic and reason.

    (this is in post 76, and in post 82, the former is where the “hacking by feminism of the female mind” is broached, to replace the traditional organic value system that has existed for eons)

    I mention how this system replicates by passing on this information. (like a meme)

    But at no time Ever do I say they (feminists) in a hive mind… that their mentally in group consciousness, thinking exactly the same thoughts at exactly the same moment of time everywhere.

    A perfect illustration of a Hive Mind (type 1) is found in the movie “I, Robot” when all of the new robots chest glow red… they cease to function as individual robots and are controlled by a collective intelligence based within a supercomputer.

    I have never given any indication that I think feminists are telepathic, or telemental. You may have a misunderstanding of the word “groupthink”, if this is the case, I refer you to

    *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

    —————————————————————————

    Bottom Line is this… The feminist movement is controlled/guided by parties, who seek the end of the natural family order, they are using class warfare and psychological warfare methodologies.

    And there are long term consequences:

    If you don’t want to be in a family, and want a carrier, go ahead. Take that route.
    (this is what dizzy preaches for)
    Be prepared at the end of it all, to find your life is unhappy for not having had a family (kids)

    If you want a family, but you want the male to be some sort of neo-wife, you are sick in the head, the relationship will fail. (unhappiness galore)

    On the other hand…
    If you want to be the wife, with the children… your odds of finding satisfaction and happiness skyrocket. There are biological consequences for being a mother-wife that change brain chemistry, in addition to other factors on why this is so.

    Like


  175. 175: “Straw Man…I never mentioned a hive mind, nor described one. Yet, somehow you found an interpretation of my words to mean that. One that has no basis in fact. Tell me how… How on God’s green earth you managed this?”

    See 159: “because of the feminist programing, you are incapable of percieving it. You are locked into Cult Groupthink.”

    I read your own words, that’s how I managed it. Your every comment implies — if not states overtly — that feminism is a cult, with a single, unvarying train of thought & set of goals. Whether you use “hive mind” or “groupthink”, your message is the same. Playing semantics and picking nits does nothing at all for your arguments.

    “Be prepared at the end of it all, to find your life is unhappy for not having had a family (kids)”

    OK, that’s a risk I’m willing to take.

    “If you want a family, but you want the male to be some sort of neo-wife, you are sick in the head, the relationship will fail. (unhappiness galore)”

    If I were to marry & reproduce, I’d expect the determining factor re: who stays home with the kids to be the one who brings in less money, out of sheer practicality. If both make the same, then whichever one wants it more/is best suited to it. I wouldn’t dream of making a hard & fast rule about it until I had a partner to co-make that decision.

    “If you want to be the wife, with the children… your odds of finding satisfaction and happiness skyrocket. There are biological consequences for being a mother-wife that change brain chemistry, in addition to other factors on why this is so.”

    You seem obsessively invested in believing this is so, but as long as you don’t try to limit my opportunties in the name of that belief, knock yourself out.

    Like


  176. on July 17, 2008 at 12:27 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    You are advised to relearn the meaning of the word “hive mind” and be precise in your usage of words. Failure to understand word meanings leads to confusion, and profound disagreements.

    To claim its all semantics is an excuse commonly used by the lazy and the inept.

    When I describe an apple, and you say I was talking about an orange and I reject your comment; by giving you detailed information, please don’t throw the semantics card.

    Yes, they are both fruit. They are not the same fruit.

    That dog don’t hunt.

    There is a distinction between “cult-like groupthink”, and a “hivemind” and your defensiveness about discussing it is very much what I have been pointing out.

    You fail to see something very obvious. Then you misdiagnose or mislabel something causing us to launch needlessly into minutia (picking nits, splitting hairs and proper definitions).

    I dare to call it a defense mechanism.

    This is a way of throwing us into these distractions, is very much like the way scientologists, and jehovah witnesses hem and haw that they are not a cult.

    ==========================================
    “You seem obsessively invested in believing this is so, but as long as you don’t try to limit my opportunties in the name of that belief, knock yourself out.”

    I swat that tennis ball right back at you. Feminists seem obsessively invested in believing their ideology. I am willing to converse, but I will not ever Submit to the name of your belief.

    The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don’t have it.

    To them, I say:

    “The truth ain’t like puppies. A bunch of ’em running around, you pick your favorite.”

    Like


  177. “Yes, they are both fruit. They are not the same fruit.”

    Spare me your pedantry. You’re bypassing the point in favor of debating minutae because you just want to squabble. You don’t like feminism — or rather, that thing you define as Feminism — and you dismiss anyone who believes differently from you on that subject as a product of feminist programming. That’s just another way of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, “I can’t hear you, lalalala!” but it’s no way to have a rational discussion with someone who has already proven that they don’t tow the party line to which you are so opposed.

    “I swat that tennis ball right back at you. Feminists seem obsessively invested in believing their ideology. I am willing to converse, but I will not ever Submit to the name of your belief.”

    If you believe that I, a possessor of ovaries, deserve the rights I listed above, then congratulations: you *are* a feminist. If you *don’t* believe that I deserve those rights, then you’re a male supremacist. It really is as simple as that.

    Like


  178. on July 17, 2008 at 2:17 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    “If you believe that I, a possessor of ovaries, deserve the rights I listed above, then congratulations: you *are* a feminist. If you *don’t* believe that I deserve those rights, then you’re a male supremacist.”

    What if I told you: (1) I don’t think humans of either gender (testes or overies) deserve the rights, that they currently have? And (2) that my personal consideration of what is deserved by humans of either sex, is a meaningless because the rights have already been issued by the Creator? { fait accompli }

    That fucks the whole paradigm up.

    I am neither one (feminist/male supremacist) and You can’t make me one of the two, no matter how hard you try. And thank you for proving one of my points. Feminists (perhaps you personally don’t) seek to establish a matriarchy over men.

    I can chose to remain neutral on the matter, if I decided thats what I want to do. And I am sure if I thought about it long enough I could find additional options besides the Binary offering you present.

    On/Off = Yes/No = Liberate/Oppress = New Mistress/Old Master

    There is no means by which you are able to browbeat me into the false dilemma of “if you are not for us, then you are against us” or the inclusive version of the same “anyone not against us, is for us”.

    Both are presumptive assumptions of the 1st order. Black and white thinking predisposes everyone into dipole thinking, when there exists, shades of gray and even colors.

    You have defined with your own words, that the opposite of a feminist is a male supremacist.

    I say by your exact logic the opposite of a Masculinist (some one who wants to stop the new oppression of men) is a female supremacist.

    Your false dichotomy is very apparent.

    Like


  179. on July 17, 2008 at 3:17 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @176 Anonymous

    “Your every comment implies — if not states overtly — that feminism is a cult, with a single, unvarying train of thought & set of goals. Whether you use “hive mind” or “groupthink”, your message is the same.”

    One partially true thing you have spoken “is a cult, with a single set of goals, but with multiple threads/trains of thought”

    I also say its detrimental to females well being. That it harms society, and males as well. That it will seek control, by incrementally until is it the sole dominant force, and has made great gains in doing done so.

    But in the words of the great late George Carlin:
    “Its Bullshit, and its bad for you”. (and I say you in the plural sense “Y’all”, “Youse guys”)

    Sure, I hear the refrain: “But I am not like the others, who are extremists, who are poseurs, who do evil in the name of feminism”.

    Okey. Anon 57, I get that.

    And I am not going to kick your door down and drag you off to a wife/slave auction either.

    I am not out to vote to take away your right to vote. (Even though I think it was a mistake to have given it to women. What point is there, in crying over spilled milk)

    I will lift my voice up against things I observe to be foolish, detriemental or Wrong.

    Like


  180. “I say by your exact logic the opposite of a Masculinist (some one who wants to stop the new oppression of men) is a female supremacist.”

    I guess that makes me a feminist *and* a masculinist, then, since I don’t want to oppress anybody. I just want to avoid being oppressed, but you’re clearly never going to accept that that’s even possible, let alone true.

    It’s not an either/or situation; one doesn’t have to lose so that the other can win. Both sexes can win simultaneously, but that will never happen without respect & compromise on both sides. You may not believe that’s possible, but I do, and I live the truth of it every day.

    “Even though I think it was a mistake to have given it to women. What point is there, in crying over spilled milk”

    So you believe that, ideally, men should be able to vote and women should not? You could have saved a lot of time by coming out with that at the start.

    OK, then. The only reason to continue this any further would be to hear ourselves talk. I hope you find happiness with your fiancee, and that you treat each other well.

    Like


  181. on July 17, 2008 at 7:12 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @181 Anonymous

    “I guess that makes me a feminist *and* a masculinist, then, since I don’t want to oppress anybody. I just want to avoid being oppressed, but you’re clearly never going to accept that that’s even possible, let alone true.”

    Or you can detach from labels and treat *every* human with compassion, respect and dignity.

    I support your desire to not be oppressed, forced, abused, mistreated, hurt violated and harmed.

    I accept that it is possible to want these things, without being stuck on labels.

    Perhaps you are not really a feminist as others, and I have perceived a feminist, but you share some commonality with them. You may be a lime among lemons.

    You have chosen to affiliate yourself with a label. I choose to be an anti-advocate against members of that group that use that label and engage me in debate.

    If this is truly the case, then I have nothing against all of your value-beliefs. You are more rational, and coherent then the last 20 or so I have locked horns with. The ones I have a genuine beef with.

    —————————————————————————-
    “So you believe that, ideally, men should be able to vote and women should not? You could have saved a lot of time by coming out with that at the start.”

    I don’t deal in ideal “what if” construct realities, I deal with the Real, which is infinitely more complex, meaningful and beautiful then the human mind conjure.

    I can second guess something by analysis and determine a finding (valid/mistake), without future projecting some pie in the sky dreamland .

    Given those two statements, I don’t believe ideally that men should vote and women should not. The reality is women do vote, as do men (for now).

    I think that women vote emotionally at far higher rates then men, and this can be gamed by politicians to get bad and harmful laws passed, that normally would not. While (reason/emotion) parity may exist today, this may not be the case in our future.

    In fact I suspect the parity has been in decline, and that all the bad laws coming into existence are partially do to the lose of this parity. {Leading me to believe that “the equality” is not real.}

    I am concerned that at some point, the males will lose their right to vote. Already, convicted felons, lose their right to vote, & males are convicted of felony offenses at several times the rate of females.

    ***Remember that a democracy is two dogs and a chicken voting to see who is for dinner.***

    If we want to talk about “what-ifs”…

    Do the math, and factor in more “New” crimes to the law books and “Voilla!” Men will have been disenfranchised.

    I fear a day, when there is no meaningful reason in the voting booth because all males have been banned from there.

    Do you see my point yet?

    ————————————————————————–

    “OK, then. The only reason to continue this any further would be to hear ourselves talk.”

    So soon? We could learn a lot from each other, but alas,

    she withdraws from the field of honor…

    “I hope you find happiness with your fiancee, and that you treat each other well.”

    …with dignity, class, and grace.

    Thank you very very much for hoping for our happiness, and she treats me like a king, therefore she will be treated like my princess-queen.

    Like


  182. Floggin’ this dead horse…

    Anonymous, you’ve got to understand that while many feminists say they want what you want, the perception is that aggressive users of the ‘word’ feminist claim a desire for simple, reasonable equalities, but in practice make sweeping grabs. The scenario described above about the man in Texas; there is nothing remotely ‘fair’ about that. And ultimately there are those like dizzy who most prominently carry that label, ‘feminist’ and then rage about desperate men with little hope trying to improve their lot sexually. She has no answer for these people. There is a dearth of equality from many self-proclaimed feminsits and you should see that when you enter into public discourse.

    Like


  183. on July 17, 2008 at 11:50 pm Gunslingergregi

    173 SovereignAmericanMale
    @169 Gunslingergregi

    The really fucked up thing about it, is in Texas (may be same in other states) is You are not allowed to work and get paid for doing so, while in prison. Nor may you run a business.

    But the State Atty General will tack on interest, in addition to the monthly child support payments, that are in arrears…

    One man, who went in to prison, (arrears $2500.00)
    at the end of his five years inside, he made parole with two years left remaining on his sentence. { 7 total due }

    He gets out, finds out he owes $85,000.00 and looks for work, spends 4 weeks unemployed. He is arrested on failure to pay child support, and his parole is revoked.

    At his hearing, the board member said “I wish I could add more time to your sentence, to teach you to care about your family more”

    He did his remaining two years, got out facing $155,000.00
    in arrears. His professional license has been revoked, as well as his driver license because…
    He was not paying child support. (As if he had the ability?)

    There is something very wrong afoot in the USA.

    This is stuff straight out of the old testament used in class in school to show how unfair the world could be i.e. throw someone in prison until they pay off a debt but of course they can’t pay off the debt because they are in prison. Like I said man write the tell all book. I looked up man kills woman then self on internet 2,700,000 hits. wild shit. A lot seem to also be woman killing men so yea equal until it is just a woman killing man then it is usually self defense even if the guy is sleeping. another area of “equality”
    You begin to wonder if these equal laws are really trying to protect woman when they are basically backing guys into a corner like an animal with very few choices and they have no sense that the court is fair. 1.9 or so out of 100 people is getting killed good lord.

    Like


  184. on July 18, 2008 at 9:36 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @183 Animus

    “Anonymous, you’ve got to understand that while many feminists say they want what you want, the perception is that aggressive users of the ‘word’ feminist claim a desire for simple, reasonable equalities, but in practice make sweeping grabs.”

    More to the point, its about the means and methods. While you Anon 57 would limit your actions to non-oppressive ones
    There are those among the feminist brand who will obtain their goals by “ANY MEANS NECESSARY”. To free the womyn, and maintain that freedom requires no less then the removal of all men from power.

    “Ultimately there are those like dizzy who most prominently carry that label, ‘feminist’ and then rage about desperate men with little hope trying to improve their lot sexually. She has no answer for these people.”

    Dizzy is just a reactionary troll, fighting against both, the blowback and the game that has recently arisen from the feminist led changes in the dating sphere.

    If she is the best that will come out and fight, instead of cowering in “feminist protected speech” enclaves,

    then we know there is no substance and all flashy rhetoric. Its built no less, then from equal parts: Tinsel and Fail.

    Like


  185. Basically, the problem was a sampling error: since I only knew how to use humor to gain rapport, I interpreted the fact that only 1 in 250 women was interested (when in fact I was always trying, trying, trying–I flip-flop between introversion and extreme extroversion) as a sign that my IDENTITY or BEING was UNattractive. In fact there were quite a few women, let’s say 20 of the 500 I’ve approached in the last 5 years, who would have responded just fine to my BEING MYSELF. But not knowing how to read the signs (as a depressed nerd with an over-investment in my isolation and the belief that my very BEING was inadequate) meant continued isolation.

    I should also clarify that I’m very, very hungry, although my depression takes my appetite away a lot of the time–I’ve been poly a few times in my life, and am always on the cusp of really exploring that, but don’t feel I yet have the *abundance* of potentially interested partners that it requires.

    Lastly, I don’t know what to do about the whole “hot chick” thing. If I could describe my life BEFORE the incident(s), it would be “bareback sex with thin nerdy chicks.” After, it has been “condom sex with fat nerdy chicks.” I understand that you need to be safe, but I feel I went from having “hand”, or at least a superior negotiating position and really great sex to an inferior form of catch-as-catch-can. And yes, I am getting tested on a regular basis, having imbibed the knowledge that my low risk factors and “number” do not excuse/absolve me.

    Like


  186. “There are those among the feminist brand who will obtain their goals by “ANY MEANS NECESSARY”. To free the womyn, and maintain that freedom requires no less then the removal of all men from power.”

    There are *always* those who will obtain their goals by any means necessary, in every walk of life, in every possible belief system! That there are selfish, manipulative people with their own agendas working within the framework of an ideology does not automatically render that ideology evil. Do you paint all Christians with the same brush? All environmentalists? All vegetarians? No, because that would be foolish. There’s a whole spectrum of beliefs and behaviors under every ideological umbrella.

    At the moment there is no other moniker for someone in my position: a woman who doesn’t want to be limited to what, until relatively recently, were the only permitted roles for women. So yes, I am a feminist, because we’re talking about me having my options limited for no other reason than *because I am a female*. If you know of another categorization that encompasses my situation, I’d be interested to hear it, but until something better comes along, “feminist” is going to have to suffice.

    That evil is done in feminism’s name is not indicative of feminism being evil: it’s indicative of the system (political system) being corrupt. It’s a sign of an egregious loss of ethics, values, and personal accountability (in both men *and* women,) which is not the result of treating women like equals, because remember: I am not a unicorn. There are more women like me than you think, but you are never, ever going to do anything but alienate them and perpetuate (or worsen) the problem if your default setting is to punish them all before even bothering to find that out.

    Like


  187. on July 18, 2008 at 12:37 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @187 Anonymous

    Be that as it may. There is currently a need for vigilance on our part to check/counter the over reaching actions of some of that Feminist spectrum.

    If that means some people get their feelings hurt… I am sorrowed by that, but there is a war on.

    “So yes, I am a feminist, because we’re talking about me having my options limited for no other reason than *because I am a female*.

    Correction Miss,
    we are here, and talking talking about both genders, and attempts by either group to limit the other. You have been talking mostly about your group. But I have talked about a wider scope then this.

    When I check you on this kind of stuff, You huff “Spare me your pedantry.” Forgive me, when you ignore the obvious, and state things contrary to it… you act like a child.

    Nice try to redirect focus us exclusively on your plight. Really Equal.
    When this happens I have to talk to you like one.

    Like


  188. on July 18, 2008 at 12:39 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    **Formating Edit**

    When I check you on this kind of stuff, You huff “Spare me your pedantry.” Forgive me, when you ignore the obvious, and state things contrary to it… you act like a child.

    When this happens I have to talk to you like one.

    Nice try to redirect us to focus exclusively on your plight. Really Equal.

    Like


  189. @Anon, “At the moment there is no other moniker for someone in my position”

    Try prefacing it with the adjective ‘moderate’. If you say ‘moderate feminist’, this distinguishes you from the ‘extreme’ feminists who yell equality, but in reality want it all. You must understand that the ‘default setting’ is there because the most vocal feminists, especially those who take up dialog in this blog are extremists who cackle with a ‘serves you right’ at every guy who thinks Roissy’s commandments might help keep him from the total sexual isolation he’s been living in.

    Like


  190. “When I check you on this kind of stuff, You huff “Spare me your pedantry.””

    No. I said “Spare me your pedantry,” when you were nit-picking between “groupthink” and “hive-mind”. At no other time have I called you a pedant.

    If you’re going to “check me” on anything, at least be accurate about it.

    Like


  191. 190: “Try prefacing it with the adjective ‘moderate’. If you say ‘moderate feminist’, this distinguishes you from the ‘extreme’ feminists who yell equality, but in reality want it all.”

    I believe I tried that in my earliest posts here, but it still involved the dreaded f-word. The qualifying adjective didn’t seem to help so I dropped it, but I’ll put it back from now on. I understand that there’s a default setting in the minds of some. I’d like to be an example that helps reset perception so that the “reasonable” ones are the default, and the extremists are the ones who have to qualify themselves.

    I do appreciate the straightforward response, though, Animus!

    Like


  192. on July 18, 2008 at 9:15 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @191 Anonymous

    This level of a response is making me feel like I am dealing with a moron.

    I don’t want you to feel like that was an insult, when I disclose my feelings. I am stating my emotional feelings.

    I know you are not a moron. You are not a simpleton either, so I am led to believe you are willfully being obstinate, passive aggressive, and subversive.

    I think you don’t respect me. At least enough to deal with me on point, and try the underhanded sneaky crap, to evade me.

    It would be nice if you removed the anon mask and dealt with me face to face (nom e. nom). As far as I know there is a team of you. (which may explain some things)

    “If you’re going to “check me” on anything, at least be accurate about it.”

    Nice attempt to redefine events, part of your M.O.

    Its clear you miss my point, because what I said was accurate.

    Now I am required to be specific, (your contradictoriness here forces this response) to get you to understand the obvious.

    Condition: when you ignore the obvious, and state things contrary to it. (commonly called Lying)

    Response: me checking you on this kind of stuff.

    { This kind of stuff. e.g. Several events, a single usage of the pedantic statement. }

    ==========================================
    Example:

    a.
    I draw essential distinctions between two items because you fail to discern the obvious valid differences.

    In doing so, your response was to label this “semantics”.

    b.
    I show you that its not, and rather then accepting the correction.

    You lay several accusations against me.

    “You’re bypassing the point in favor of debating minutae because you just want to squabble”.

    This is the time you used the “pediantic”.

    c.
    “…because we’re talking about…”

    You attempted to rewrite history right here.

    You stated “we’re” and then redefined events that have happened on the forum, within this thread. While the “we’re” that is discussed here, did something other then this.

    You might as well have said “we’re” is talking about frying eggs, and making omelets.

    We have a phrase for this its called “ex post facto censorship”.

    Like


  193. 193: Dude, I’m too busy ripping apart the fabric of society to continue with this. Move on.

    Like


  194. on July 19, 2008 at 7:24 am SovereignAmericanMale

    shouts: “I can’t hear you, lalalala!”

    While he remembers anon’s best hits:

    “If anything you should be *delighted* by women like me, who are committed & accountable to the path they choose,
    whether married or single.”

    “remember: I am not a unicorn”

    “Feminism is about fairness for all, not the exaltation of either gender. Seriously.”

    “I just don’t get why you’re so hateful to the notion that women can be just as competent, independent and complex as men.”

    “You’re demonizing feminism because you need to see women as the enemy, for some reason.”

    “This man-hating dogma is an abomination”

    Like


  195. 195: No. I’ve stated my case — sometimes even eloquently, I thought — and that didn’t satisfy you. So enough already: we clearly don’t agree on a lot of fundamental points. Not wanting to waste additional time on a pointlessly circular discussion doesn’t render false anything I’ve said previously. I’ll let the fact that you’re attempting to spin it that way speak for itself.

    And if I happen to think you’re something of a blowhard, that still doesn’t mean a) that I think you deserve to be hated or taken advantage of, or b) that all men are blowhards.

    Like


  196. dam sam is good. Dude seriously you should help the males with you knowledge. Write the book about what is going on behind the scenes becuse people have no idea really just how sinister this shit is.

    Question to anon is where in your life have you not been treated as good or much better than men?
    In your life do you think it is easier to be a woman or a man?
    Who has harsher penalties right now in marriage woman or men?
    Who will get fired for the same transgression first a woman or a man?
    Who gets harsher prison sentences woman or men?
    Who can get promoted based on there sex only?
    Who works mostly where it is comfortable to work ie A/C all the time?
    Anon no one says you can’t go be a mechanic yet what is your job now?

    Like


  197. Dizzy 132–

    “The things people on here don’t even think to question are very scary.”

    Good, I hope you radical feminists are shaking in your boots. Change is a comin’, and not in the radical feminist direction.

    Like


  198. Eurosabra 148 —

    “nota bene I don’t date my students or former students.”

    Why not? As long as they aren’t under the age of consent and aren’t otherwise illegal (or against your employer’s rules) to date, you should feel morally free. Oh and the age spread isn’t to great — not more than 15 years and usually less.

    In fact it’s radical feminist dogma that makes it sometimes illegal.

    It’s their obsession with abolishing all male power differential over females, including in relationships — despite the fact that MANY women are extremely sexually and otherwise attracted by that very “power” or status differential, other things being good too.

    Free yourself from the dogma, while keeping an eye on the law (and helping to change it).

    Like


  199. Anonymous 153–

    “Feminism is about fairness for all, not the exaltation of either gender. Seriously.”

    Utter rubbish. The smokescreen feminists have been taught to throw up to hide their severely tilted and biased agenda.

    Basic feminism might be about that but Radical Feminism is about remaking men and women through indoctrination into beings that deny parts of their sexuality and basic impulses to achieve equal results in every area feminists care about (meaning women doing at least as well as men, but better is just fine.)

    Do many feminist worry about the fact that women now make up well over fifty percent, and often more like sixty percent, of the students in US colleges and e.g. law school? Hell no.

    Do many feminists worry about divorce theft even in cases where the wife is abandoning her husband because she’s restless and dissatisfied, and receives munificent payouts of child support at levels that amount to alimony if the male provider is middle and esp. upper middle class, more than half the assets including the home (instead of it being sold and her and kids moving into a less expensive place or her new bf’s place), and often even alimony on top of all this — at a time when women have equal opportunities to work and earn? Do many feminists worry about the amazing unfairness of the same huge divorce burdens designed in part to punish and deter husband desertion of the loyal wife and mother for the younger woman, when it’s the wife that is deserting him and taking his kids, with very, very difficult to enforce visitation rights? Especially when women now initiate 70% of divorces? (They are after all trreated munificently by American divorce law, while men are taken to the cleaners as a matter of course, though that’s finally beginning to get never divorced men’s notice.)

    Do many feminists acknowledge that sexual harassment laws and the employer terrifying civil suits that derive from them are massively overboard in susceptibilty to accepted false accusation, making mountains out of molehills, and the wholly one way nature of a big power shift: she can flirt all she wants, and very outrageously, and that’s fine, even when unwanted, up to a very high bar. He can’t flirt or do more with a fellow employee or a subordinate unless she wants it, and never changes her mind afterwards for any reason including co-ercing work benefits. If she does, he’s likely out of there in corp. America. This at a time when a large percentage of yuppie relationships are between people who met in the office. Like I said, she get’s inordinate and highly skewed power, due to feminist law passing, etc.

    Just for starters.

    Like


  200. If you want respect its a two way street.

    If anyone has a problem with reality I’d say it was men.
    You dress up and reenact old wars, old romans, star wars, star trek, bikers, dress up like lance armstrong to go cycling, dress up like your favorite musicians…I can go on and on. You are a delusional bunch 🙂

    Are any of you worried about getting AIDS or some type
    of VD?

    One of the clauses in the Commandments should be that you can beat your lover senseless if they knowingly risk you to a disease.

    Women get cervical cancer from players, you can die from cancer.

    Like