Comment Of The Week: Precision Analogies Edition

chris writes:

Perhaps one way to conceptualise why women don’t like emotional/sensitive guys would be to consider this.

Men value women for their sexual intimacy, while women value men for the emotional intimacy.

Now men don’t want a relationship with a woman who is promiscuous with her sexual intimacy as it either indicates she has low value, or potential for cuckoldry.

Perhaps women don’t want relationships with emotional/sensitive guys as these men are promiscuous with their emotional intimacy. And their emotional promiscuity indicates they are either low value or have a potential for abandonment.

So a niceguy is to women, what a slut is to a man.

Now, when you here feminist therapists telling men they they should be more sensitive and get in touch with their feminine side and what not, those therapists are no different from some old sleazy lecher trying to convince women that it’s in their best interest to sleep around and experiment with their sexuality in the hopes that the woman will sleep with them.

Basically, telling men to be more sensitive is a ploy to make it easier for women touse men, just as telling women to be more sexually open would be a ploy to make it easier for men to use women.

There will be no runner-up comment winners this week, as there was not a recent comment that was close to the same league as this one.

One thing I would add… these psychological ploys — encouraging niceguyness in men and looseness in women so that it is easier for the opposite sex to extract what they want from them — would not be so ubiquitous if they didn’t work at least some of the time. So, emo niceguys who lament getting tossed into the LJBF discount bin and bitter sluts who lament getting pumped and dumped by sexy nonjudgmental alpha males really only have themselves to blame. You can’t be manipulated if you aren’t, on some level, willfully acquiescent to your role, and the promise of pleasure it brings.





Comments


  1. “You can’t be manipulated if you aren’t, on some level, willfully acquiescent to your role, and the promise of pleasure it brings.”

    No. I think many (feminine) girls suffer a lot because of our recent culture trying to force them into sexual experimentation and ‘having fun’. Even when I was young I had to watch, listen and read about sex every day. Soon you start to feel that you are not normal and that what you feel (e.g. disgust) is not okay. Same problem with boys, most likely. I’m sure there are guys who have never secretly enjoyed being humiliated by their female peers. All in all, I believe that ppl can be manipulated into something just because they want to be normal and like everyone else. Girls especially have this herd mentality.

    Like


  2. on August 24, 2012 at 10:55 am Adonis The Vengeful

    Excellent analogy. There is an obvious and well known correlation between low testosterone and emotional behaviour in men. Being a crybaby sappy nancy boy is an overt display of an inferior mate choice for discerning females.

    Like


    • You don’t have to be a “crybaby” to be deemed unfit: You just have to be too transparent with your emotions, if she can sense from a mile away that you’re angry, sad or distressed (or the flipside, that you get overeager, happy and excited easily), you’re pretty much fucked.

      When women say they want a ‘sensitive’ guy, they mean it, but the guy has to be sensitive just for HER. She’s the one who has to crack open your safe of invulnerability and strength to reveal the squishy core, not any random female. And being emotionally transparent is a signal that your safe isn’t very good at all and that any female with a minimum of skill can break it.

      Like


      • Hmm… what’s the male version of a virgin, then? In other words, if hot young women who’ve never had a screw are the most desirable females, what would the most desirable males be?

        My guess is the prick who’s never “fallen in love”.

        Like


      • That would be me. A total emotional virgin. Never been with a chick before game, and I became an insensitive prick after the red pill.

        I said it to some girls and it definitely sparks a little extra attraction, assuming I DHVed enough and depending on the way I say it (“I believe in soul mates, and that love needs time to grow beyond all hopes and dreams but I was never fortunate enough to feel that intense connection. Maybe I’m just unlucky” as opposed to “I don’t fall in love with another guy’s leftovers and honestly I don’t give a fuck about y’all hypergamous bitches”).

        Like


      • Tomato, tomahto. Of course, delivering it as the former sets a much better frame than the latter, but the underlying mindset is the same.

        Like


      • This is interesting. What if I’m a guy who is naturally emotional and happy? Do I need to hide my happiness? Or somehow make myself more depressed so girls will like me? I have hot female friends but never have partners so I think that this may explain both. But I worked really hard to get out of depression and become happy with my life and don’t want to give that up.

        Like


      • You don’t need to “hide your happiness”, or “make yourself more depressed”, just don’t jump around like a puppy who’s got a treat everytime you get some positive female attention, don’t make it obvious to them that you’re overjoyed at being on their company. A more reserved demeanor and a terse disposition will do wonders, so by the time you DO perform a dramatic display of emotion, it will be like a strong artillery salvo as opposed to a mere shot from a BB gun.

        Like


    • Make the ‘ho work for your emotions (i.e., put out) don’t just give ’em away.

      Like


  3. on August 24, 2012 at 10:57 am thasswhatimtalkinbout

    everyone once in a while i read something that changes how i see the world. this post is in that class. pure gold.

    just as every guy wants a girl to be his slut and not anyone else’s, girls want a guy be in touch with his feelings as they relate to her, not promiscuously emoting to every vagina he encounters.

    Like


  4. Wow. Very nice analogy.

    Basically men want to use physically accessible women but despise them because they are easily accessible, and women want to use emotionally accessible men but despise them because they are easily accessible.

    And the men who can’t get sluts bitch about how women don’t give them the time of day, and the women who can’t get emotionally available men bitch about how men are detached.

    It goes back to the age old adage of, “You don’t want what you have & you want what you can’t have.”

    Like


  5. I’m gonna plug myself here, but the comment reminds me of an epiphany I had several years ago regarding emotional intimacy versus sexual intimacy:

    http://www.musingsonlifeandlove.com/2011/03/14/we-werent-having-sex-but-i-was-still-getting-screwed/

    And no, I won’t deny my past “beta-ness”….

    Like


  6. In other news, chicks don’t like it if guys call them too much… even if the guy has been married to them for 50 years:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/u-s-open-ref-accused-slaying-husband-talked-cops-andre-agassi-spouse-body-sat-upstairs-source-article-1.1142712

    Like


    • Alrhough there’s a a lot of bullshit in that article (“we don’t want sluts because they’re not a challenge”… LMAO), I’m ashamed that a bunch of whores stumbled upon this analogy long before us.

      But fuck ’em anyway.

      Like


    • The reason guys don’t want sluts is because they are easy to obtain. If you’re giving yourself out to everyone, there is no challenge. They want a challenge. Someone they need to chase after. It’s no accomplishment to get someone anyone could have.

      Riiiiiiight. (even the hamster had trouble keeping a straight face on that one)

      The sluts who wrote that article (just listen to their language) say the reason they don’t like emo betas is, NOT due to fear of abandonment (as claims our comment of the week), but for the very same reason they give as why men don’t like physical sluts! (project much, ladies?).

      In short, they claim the emo beta falls in love too easily, and (as I suspected in the previous thread when I stated) this doesn’t sit right with their egocentric view of the universe… in short, “I’m a special unique snowflake” syndrome MUST BE SATISFIED. “If he can easily fall in love with many women, well, I don’t want him!”

      The point with betas, though, is… once they find an object of their desire, they get oneitis to beat the band and will remain more loyal than a dog with even the barest encouragement… not so for the alpha… and this is why the analogy rings false.

      What gives the lie to all of this is that the alpha male, prone to make as many conquests as possible, CERTAINLY doesn’t scratch that itch to be considered ‘special’ either.

      I think Anon was correct in his succinct summary of the female mind and motives: amoral creatures who crave alpha seed, not for any high-falutin’ psycho-phsyiological reasons… it’s simply because dominant males have a better chance of protecting them and their spawn until the latter can grow old enough to be just like dad.

      Like


  7. Nice analogy, but does it go that far? A woman that is not promiscuous but that is sexually adventurous only with her man is something that men desire. A man that is unemotional in general but an emo with his woman might be what some women state they want… but is it? Or is his weakening in her eyes a dangerous poison to her feelings of attraction?

    Like


    • on August 24, 2012 at 11:41 am male hind-brain

      I think the analogy holds up nicely. What you seem to be doing is focusing on different degrees of behavior – sexually “adventurous” (reserved willingness to try new things) v. “emo” (extreme emotions).

      What about the man showing just a little emotional vulnerability (reserved willingness to share some emotions) while the woman goes from straight, boring missionary to begging to be “shat upon” (extreme sexual kink)?

      Similar sort of “jump” per your example…

      Like


  8. That is an excellent comment. Men who are too nice will not stick up for you when you need them to. I don’t need to be told I’m right, when I’m not, but I want to at least feel like you are on my side.

    Like


    • Yup. Nice guys are not only afraid of girls but of everyone else. They are not able to protect a woman and that’s repulsive. What I want the most in a man is that he will be able to make me feel safe. Also, you said that you don’t need to be told that you’re right when you are not – couldn’t agree more with that. Who wants to have a retarded boyfriend who has no ability of logical thinking … they always agree with you and smile politely no matter how schizophrenic or boring your monologues are. Even though I’m pretty old I still prefer “assholes” … I doubt this will ever change …

      Like


    • That is the more common angle. What the analogy is trying to say is that this negative trait in a relationship is an opportunity as a public resource. A low fence is good for the thief and bad for the owner.

      Thus nice guys women do not invest their eggs in are resource sluts. They are good for you if you only use them, just like a man’s sex buddy.

      “Hold this”; “walk me home”; “watch my kid”; “buy me dinner”; “wait for the UPS guy”; “drop this in the mail” ; “heat up the baby food”, “be a sport and…” etc. is the exploitation of the male resource slut. The low fence of a slut is great when you don’t own.

      It was an excellent observation. I don’t think it is limited to women however. Men will use his ass even more.

      Like


      • Low fence is a good way to put it. The next time a pretty girl smiles at him and pays him a little attention, he’ll think he’s met his soul mate.

        Like


      • Which is why that “Oh, I was just being friendly!” stuff don’t fly.

        Like


      • Personally I think a better way to put it is your beta hubby is going out on the woolly mammoth hunt, but with an unfortunate complication of his dubious role. Any hunter gather, upper paleo woman who didn’t have a spontaneous abortion upon the news that her boy will be used as a defensive, live meat trap to guard the flanks from bears and saber tooths would be a remarkable woman. Starvation and slunk on the tundra.

        Was we expecting a relish tray?

        Like


  9. I commented how the female director of Seeking a Friend for the End of the World brazenly tried to make her Omega Male “hero” (played by Steve Caroll of 40 Year Old Virgin fame) look like someone male children viewers would want to grow up to be. The money scene was when he freaked out that he let the Kiera Knightley character seduce him when she was “only 26”.

    The Baby Boomer women of America especially need to be removed from all influential positions. It is in the interest of aging women to create as many nancy boys as possible to decrease their chances of being abandoned going forward.

    Like


  10. The analogy is good, but I think it will send hamsters into overdrive.

    I don’t wanna sound bitter or anythin but at the end of the day, females don’t like nice guys because women are amoral creatures who crave alpha seed. Period.

    The analogy is interesting but the emotional slutiness is not really a cause of the LJBF castration phenomenon.

    Like


    • I tend to agree.

      Like


    • …at the end of the day, females don’t like nece guys because women are amoral creatures

      I think biology is more at play here than morality. Think of it this way, if you only had one jizz load per month, like a woman only has one egg drop per month, you’d be more discerning about which girl you used that jizz load on. I believe male and female DNA wills us to go for the best—this females go for alphas that display behaviors that suggest stronger DNA. Plain as that.

      Like


      • You can’t compare one woman’s egg per month with one ‘jizz load’ per month. One egg leads to one pregnancy and one new human being (=lifetime commitment). Definitely not the same.

        Like


      • I think his use of ‘amoral’ is just that… they are without moral consideration in these matters.

        The only debate is whether saying they’re amoral is a moral judgment or merely an observation.

        Either way, the hamster don’t care.

        Like


      • So why is craving alpha seed amoral? I would never have sex with some loser. You’re no better than feminists who claim that men who date younger women are pedos …

        Like


      • It ain’t the craving that’s amoral, toots… it’s the methods by which they seek to scratch that itch.

        Do try to keep up, dearie.

        And remember… amoral immoral, per se… ‘though one could make a strong argument thereof, in the case of female hypergamy.

        Like


      • Yeah but the devil is in the details.
        Your expressions “Going for the best” and “behaviors that suggest stronger DNA” all point out to dark triad traits and devilish asshole charms. Chicks dig jerks and all that.

        I’m not being a crybaby about it, I assume we’re all past the point of whining about female nature. But I’m sticking to the word amoral. The qualities that women find attractive in men are amoral and most of the time immoral, I don’t see why it would be unfair to qualify them as such.

        You would be right if “going for the best” meant going for the natural leader with a big heart and a heroic mentality. We all know that the reality is trickier than that.

        Like


      • Shit, I misread your use of amoral as immoral. I think we’re on the same page.

        Like


      • And if we leave it up to the women, the trick will be on us.

        For the Greeks to win the war, Achilles had to get the girl. Not Agamemnon. Not Paris. If we’re not man enough to make sure that happens, we’ll all be losers and deserve to be.

        Like


      • WTF?

        Aquiles was a mercenary. Not a hero in the current sense of the big guy who has the strenght to conquer and acts ethically and morally.

        Me… I strive to be an Hector. Hard as fuck to find Andromaches…

        Helens don’t do much for me other than giving me boners.

        It’s fucked up when you lose the battle to the lords of lies and witness a pretty Andromache turn into a slut. Very, very sad. Fucking depressing.

        Like


      • Well said. We need to call a spade a spade.

        Like


      • @Anon,
        Been thinking about your comment since yesterday. We’re not exactly on the same page but I think this husk needs to be picked apart.

        What I would say is “morality ain’t got nothin’ to do with it”, and if we called that “amoral” then fine, but there’s an important clarity to add to the point.

        Morality has nothing to do with female attraction. That is what we are saying. What attracts women, sexually, to men, is UNRELATED to morality.

        What’s important though is that on the abstract point, and really in keeping with the spirit of the article and the analogy at play:

        Morality has nothing to do with MALE attraction either … certainly the factors of attraction differ, but their moral qualities are nil in either direction.

        The point and the problem, and the point is: ATTRACTION is the point. Too many men just don’t get this.

        Rollo Tomasi who actually commented a few items below has several articles relevant to this about “relational equity” and perhaps one of the top five “Game” articles ever written, “hypergamy doesn’t care”.

        Hypergamy doesn’t care, and frankly, dick doesn’t care either. That wonderful young woman who inspires your smitten friend (hypothetical but stay with me) because, he says, she’s a volunteer and worked hard to finish her master’s degree and loves puppies and recycles her aluminum and plastic bottles … she is:

        100,000 excess calories from morbid obesity
        12-15 years from disqualifying appearance due to age alone

        She’s the same PERSON though!

        We kid ourselves into thinking the beautiful (or if you are a woman, badass) people we are attracted to are somehow morally admirable, we switch their moral qualities in our minds for their attractive qualities and say that its the moral qualities that attract us, and we collude the two.

        It’s all very blue pill, and very delluded, but most salient here, it cuts both ways.

        Like


      • Excellent comment. I completely agree. Female sexuality and nature is amoral to the extent that male sexuality/nature is. Hypergamy doesn’t care. Dick doesn’t care. Biology doesn’t care.

        Like


      • This is true. Most people are losers in the SMP. They try to make the best of the bad hand they have been dealt. This often requires delusion. We all have selfish needs that must be met or there is no symbiotic basis for a relationship. The moral traits are secondary in importance to those of beauty and status in our society.

        Like


      • “Think of it this way, if you only had one jizz load per month, like a woman only has one egg drop per month…”

        Still not the right pricing. If your jizz load then became a child *you* had to tend to for up to twelve years, then you get a sense of the sort of reproductive pricing pressures a woman feels.

        On the other side of that pricing is the fact that their window for reproduction in about 15-20 years, at best, so they cannot be infinitely picky and reserved. Price peaks early and falls.

        Like


    • “Nice” is not equal to “good.” I remember training a college student in her field study to become a teacher and I told her the most important thing she would need to learn is to stop being so nice. LOL Teaching, dating, everything requires Border Patrol. Often “nice” is a mask and, when it slips, its like witnessing an exorcism. “But, I was NICE!” Nice is not enough.

      Like


      • That’s hamstering. You’re subtly implying that women are attracted to “good”.
        What’s so “good” then about thugs and bad boys, compared to nice guys? Nothing. If you replaced “good” with “strong”, you would make more sense.

        ” Often “nice” is a mask ”

        How often exactly? Most nice guys are genuinely nice, ie they’re not hiding sociopathy or acting passive-agressive. They want to get laid, but they’re not straight forward about it. Does that mean they’re evil?
        No it doesn’t. They are just weak. Women’s instincts are not wired to detect what’s good and moral, but only what’s strong. Whether it’s “good” strength or “bad” strength” doesn’t matter.

        No hard feelings, just stop hamstering.

        Like


      • If we attract what we are, some women are attracted to good. Most are not and so they are not attracted to it.

        How often? Very often. I have seen a lot of ugly behavior from people disenchanted when being nice didn’t “work” to get them what they wanted. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve done it myself, and I know other women in the same boat. We followed what we were told but didn’t achieve a happy outcome. And then we wondered why. Every beta (I could consider myself a situational beta male in that I’m obviously female but have followed the path of a beta male) experiences that.

        I don’t have any hard feelings, either. I just absolutely insist upon reminding the readership that good women exist so that if they find one, they recognize it instead of missing out on it.

        Like


      • Guys don’t seek out the community because they’re getting too much pussy from being ‘Nice’ (or ‘Good’) and appreciative of women’s ‘deeper’ qualities and they don’t know how to let down all these women easy.

        If anything compromises self-respect (assuming an AFC even has a concept of that) it’s a Scarcity Mentality that pushes him well into the Nice Guy end of the spectrum for fear of saying the wrong thing and missing out on his “soul-mate”.

        Worry less about the guys tapping their “harems” and more about the chump crucifying himself to be the martyr for his singular “dream girl”. He’s far more common.

        Like


      • I pay you homage, sir.

        Like


      • Of course they exist and what’s left unsaid is that all of us are inherently amoral creatures. PUA is amoral and openly flaunts being so. There are degrees of amorality. Most of us make moral and amoral decisions daily. We like to think that the balance lies with moral ones. Civilization depends on the decisions being moral.

        Like


      • Nice is the new n-word.

        Like


      • 🙂

        Like


  11. It is a very good comment indeed, but I still can’t wrap my arms around the analogy…

    1. Yes, women hate betas… “hate” meaning, they find them unworthy of sexual favor and/or any sort of say over any aspect of their lives… when said women are in their prime sexual market value.

    2) But as they lose SMV (age and/or kids from another man), they will tolerate betas as husbands, and throw them a few sexual crumbs and a few head-of-the-family-say-sos, so long as the latter are paying the freight and not making too many demands.

    3) They will also tolerate betas as orbiters (LJBF), so long as said betas satisfy some of their emotional empathic and ego-stroking needs, as well as a few freebies (dinner, drinks, fix the transmission, etc.).

    So here’s the rub:

    Perhaps women don’t want relationships with emotional/sensitive guys as these men are promiscuous with their emotional intimacy. And their emotional promiscuity indicates they are either low value or have a potential for abandonment.

    True, it may mark the man as “low value” in the usual warrior-fit-for-survival-and-protection sense.

    But I think it’s too thin a stretch to say a beta’s capacity for emotional intimacy is a form of promiscuity… leastwise nowhere near in the same light as physical promiscuity is in a woman. Her PHYSICAL promiscuity leads to disease, other men’s children, emotional brittleness, intra-tribal conflict, etc.

    The beta male, even if he’s nice to everybody and a ‘sympathetic ear’ to many women, is more likely to be afflicted with oneitis and, in all truly important matters, cleave unto his dearly beloved like grim death.

    And who really cares if he’s also providing emotional boosts to other women starved for such non-sexual companionship? Hell, if anything, that would be a plus for the tribal congeniality.

    So, I’m not getting the whole “promiscuity” thing on the part of betas carrying anywhere near the weight that a woman’s physical promiscuity does.

    And if the fear of abandonment were the woman’s deepest concern, she’d hate alphas, not betas. The alpha male has a far, far greater potential for abandonment, or at the very least, “sharing” himself with other females in an overtly physical and resource-providing manner.

    Like


    • I think the analogy still holds, although I’m right there with you on trying to get a handle on the exact reason why it holds up.

      (Although, it could just be that I’m taking my cues from CH, since he jumped on this like a fat girl on some ice cream, and I haven’t found him to be wrong, yet. )

      If the analogy is to hold, I think it is because it focuses on the reactions (surprised rage/sense of betrayal) of the sluts/betas to their respective outcomes upon following “society’s” advice.

      (I don’t think the analogy will hold up on the analysis from a biological viewpoint due to the asymmetrical nature of the SMP…)

      Sluts have “fitness” in the biological sense – they attract men. Their results of following society’s advice – “have lots of sex with whoever is attractive to you,” “you don’t need a man, get your own career,” etc. – is that they get pumped and dumped, and end up with 16 cats… (NOT that successful alpha that society tells them they will get in the end…)

      Betas (who may or may not have “fitness”), on the other hand, are SEEN BY SOCIETY as the male biological equivalent of the morbidly obese “3” who lacks “fitness” in that sense, precisely BECAUSE they follow society’s advice… (there is every indication that most betas could display enough alpha traits to compete in the SMP. Isn’t that the whole point of game?)

      Like sluts, their results of following society’s advice – “be nice,” “pay for everything,” etc. – is that they get LJBF’d every time. They never get the payoff that society tells them they will get. They don’t get the HB10 who says she really wants a “nice guy.” They end up with a 5/6, who is disappointed she has to “settle.” Or worse, they get to pay for alimony/child support (for a kid(s) that is not his) following an eat/pray/love incident…

      Like


  12. Soliciting advice. Activated chick’s ASD on first date: sloppy makeout in the car and on beach). Wait 1 week to text her, she texts back right away all happy and shit. Text her half-cutesy/half-cocky joke, nothing back. Get fb friended by her 2 weeks later. She msgs and says I moved too fast for her, she doesn’t kiss on the first date. I reply “neither do I”. Some back-n-forth and she asks me to do a surf sesh. I tell her I’m busy (she didn’t give specific date+time, flake risk). She asks where I’m camping for a festival; I tell her and ask back, she doesn’t reply (but posts all sorts of vanity shots on fb in time since).

    She’s an 8 and I only have 2 other girls in the pipeline (6 and 8) so even if it’s not worth my time, it is. Searching for advice on how to turn this around (paging YaReally). Other relevant info is I’m 21 and she’s 3 years older (ie not kissing on first date was total shit test).

    Like


  13. Great comment. I’d never thought of it that way but it seems spot on. Dalrock had a good post on how the male equivalent of a slut is a coward.

    Like


  14. hasn’t this been said before, men are more concerned about whether women have sex(i.e. cheat), women are more concerned about whether men fall in love with the women they have cheat with.

    Like


  15. Read this into the history of the West, the rise of Freudian analysis and the psychologizing academic/media priesthood, and our self-destructive habits and mentality of pathological altruism, and you’re well on your way to filling out the curriculum of the rightist counterrevolutionary university.

    Donate $ to CH generously, for his success at this wing of the intellectual vanguard.

    Like


  16. Ah, Mother Nature… most guys fall in love too easily… and most women, who might otherwise be left on the shelf, hate them for it.

    Like


  17. Beautiful. That was an ideal comment, and explains the situation nicely.

    Like


  18. Most times that wome try to give unsolicited advice i treat it like a shit test and an attempt to take control of frame. Women could give two shits about the content of the advice. They care about the ability to influence.

    I think female therapists love when men take their advice. It could be bubblegum pop psychology, it could be purely wrong advice, it could be ego stroking, it could be logic, etc. That’s irrelevant. You actually believing the things she says IS ALL SHE CARES ABOUT. It validates the female feminist career path and makes her think that she is ‘intelligent’ and an ‘expert.’

    Like


    • How true… once, back in 10th grade, I dared to disagree with a harridan English teacher over what boys ‘practice’ in order to look cool.

      The very next day, I was abruptly told at the beginning of class that I was no longer part of her class, and transferred to another.

      And of course, she had to do this theatrical shaming at the beginning of class in front of all, to show her power.

      I guess the appearance of power was more important to her, however petty, than any semblance of due process or intellectual integrity.

      It puzzled me at the time, but hey, I was a mere 15 years old.

      Like


  19. Good analogy.

    Just like sex for a lot of men, once a girl is sure she can get emotional intimacy from her guy when she needs it, her desire for it drops way off. Thank god….

    Like


  20. Mindblowing stuff here. Solid, solid post.

    Like


  21. I think this is the perfect “Game in 5 sentences or less” analogy ever.

    Like


  22. Brilliant. Just brilliant.

    Like


  23. Excellent analogy.

    …that’s the underlying message of being her emotional tampon – all the benefits and perks of an emotional relationship with no expectation of reciprocal sex.

    This situation is analogous to men using women as “fuck buddies” – fulfilling all his sexual availability needs with no expectations of reciprocating emotional investment.

    Women have boyfriends and girlfriends. If you’re not fucking her, you’re her girlfriend.

    Like


    • on August 24, 2012 at 5:32 pm blackbird.young

      Agreed.

      Like


    • No it’s just called being a friend. If you don’t want to be someone’s friend then don’t be. I think it’s sort of not equal to fuck buddies. There’s a choice to do it or not but feelings and potential are much easier to be delusional about then whether or not your getting any ever. Both scenarios need people to realize what they want and act accordingly. You get what you settle for people.

      Like


  24. Most “nice” guys fail because they are not really nice guys. They are fakers and posers pretending to be good guys just so they can get some. They are afraid of being open, honest, and direct because they want to be affable but girls can sniff out this ruse. It’s not the “niceness” that girls are rejecting, its the insincerity that so often accompanies it. Insincere = unconfident. Dudes with candor, nice or not nice, don’t have this problem.

    Like


  25. Katy Perry riding the alpha cock carousel for all the world to see. Maybe it wasn’t a good idea to toss your husband aside, huh?

    http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20624070,00.html

    Robert Pattinson should start hanging with John Mayer.

    Like


  26. on August 24, 2012 at 4:49 pm blackbird.young

    “You can’t be manipulated if you aren’t, on some level, willfully acquiescent to your role, and the promise of pleasure it brings.”

    Very well put. I’ve been trying to make that point in varying degrees to many as of late.

    Like


  27. on August 24, 2012 at 5:41 pm blackbird.young

    This is completely off topic, but for Heartiste or any other blogger’s or writer’s to answer: regarding posting things on blogs: is it illegal to, say, copy-paste conversation’s from, for example, an OKCupid account (if I remove the other person’s username/images – or can I even poste those in addition to word’s exchanged[?]) to use for an article? If it isn’t damaging nevessarily, or disparaging unless or even if it is – in the manner with which I comment on the interaction – but may or may not be revealing of who they are per se, but who they were in how they represented themselves then, in relation to how I represented myself as well at the time online, regarding what was privately shared between us…? Can that be made public without consent?

    Like, could I take what someone else has written to me, along with their photo/profile & post it publicly for use in an article? Or is that a violation of their civil right’s in some way? Do I need their permission? Or if I remove any semblance of who they are, and make it appear anonymous, is it then OK to use?

    Another way to put it, is what’s shared between people’s “inbox” and “messages” considered private, insofar as civil right’s are concerned? Or once it’s sent to me, does it become partially my intellectual property (of sort’s) in a way?

    I’m not sure how to phrase this conceptual question, but if anyone has an idea, let me know please. Thanks. And my apologies for taking up some comment space for more relevant responses to the article above.

    Like


  28. “…and the promise of pleasure it brings.”

    Damn. Profound theory.

    Are betas just beta solely because they believe that’s the best course of getting what they want? Or is it just because that’s who they are?

    Like


    • It’s who we are. It’s how we feel. Even if i cold fake it, i’d drop the ball or get sniffed out. Once in awhile, we are brazenly honest and get surprising results.

      Like


  29. Girls say they want nice guys; (many) guys say they like big breasted girls.

    But even if a fat girl has a large rack, it doesn’t matter.

    Like


  30. While women may want emotional intimacy, I think it is mainly rooted in ensuring the man invests his resources in her and her children. A man is more likely to do this if he is emotionaly invested. In some arranged marriages (and this still happens) the woman doesn’t really care who he spends his time with, or who he confides in, as long as all his money is spent on her and the household she heads. This appears to be the case in some older marriages as well.

    There are manosphere blogs that go on about how women cannot “love” a man as much as a man may “love” a woman because she is psychologically wired to “use” him for his resources, as much as a child “uses” women for support and sustenance. It sounds harsh, but I believe it is true. And I am a woman being brutally honest here.

    Like


    • When they’re young, virgin, nubile and naïve, they are capable of loving alphas just fine. And they can keep loving him the same way for a very long time.

      With betas, it’s of course different. And sluts and may I say, women with more than one past partner, have a very hard time bonding with anyone.

      I think the widespread idea that you’re talking about is based on the former college slut/greater beta pairings that are way too common now. The idea that male love>female love doesn’t hold well when an alpha is paired with a young pretty virgin.

      Like


  31. Sluts and niceguys forget they are in TRAINING.

    When you act that way you are demonstrating your lack of mastery by attempting to give away your art to the lowest bidder. When you practice use an empty canvas (strangers) and not people that have value to you emotionally or sexually.

    The exquisite art of the human sensation is not something you give away to people for free (and this is literally the only reason that has value) because YOU DONT GET IT BACK.

    Being a slut is emotional masturbation and being a niceguy (in the end) is sexual masturbation.

    People have forgotten to train themselves, become skilled in who they are.

    Like


  32. It would go a long way to explain why being a bit offhanded, unaffected and aloof is catnip to a women especially so to hot ones.

    Like


  33. It’s good to see an excellent contribution get the appreciation it deserves
    (like I posted here about Chris’s comment 2 days ago).
    I guess Chris and the rest of us are just lucky his comment didn’t get held up in moderation for 24 hours and then overlooked because by then the readership had already moved on.

    Like


  34. Blame the Nice Guy

    Like


  35. on August 24, 2012 at 11:05 pm sensitive indifferent bi guy

    My problem is rather different. I’m a bisexual guy, but I want to do very little with women. I don’t desire sex with a woman very much or very often. Ideally I would LOVE to find a pretty, pleasant, and intelligent girl who I can be physically affectionate with but who will not expect sex very often, or at all. I’d be happy if she didn’t want any sex. And it’s not a matter of her using me as an “emotional tampon,” because I’d also love to “use” her the same way, to have a kind, affectionate, smart woman listen to my troubles and problems with sympathy and understanding. But you know, this is actually IMPOSSIBLE for me to find. You’d think it would be easy, right, I mean isn’t that what women want? Well, no it’s not…they want to fuck me eventually, and then when I don’t hysteria and bitchiness and madness ensues.

    Like


  36. Excellent post. Another drill sgt.-esque rap to the back of my beta skull. Thank you, CH, may i have another, sir?

    Like


  37. Have been running game on a 26 year old tall, slim, sexy 8 i met on ok-cupid following your prescribed minimalist approach. Started out cocky funny, then moved to vulnerability game when I could see she was giving IOI’s but didn’t want the player vibe. I’m early 40’s.

    Lots of kino. Then disappearing. DHV. Sexualizing. We go to see that Woody Allen film To Rome With Love. She’s initiating making out with me in the cinema.

    At one point there’s some reference to some anxious sensitive guy vibe in the movie.

    She leans over and says “Is that you?” Major shit test.

    Me: I’m a hard ass.

    Next thing more make out, then we make plans for her to come over this weekend to drink tea and cook…

    3 dates, holding the frame. Keeping it real while avoiding the beta-esque supplication so succintly described in the original post.

    Like


  38. Nah, the analogy is wrong. Since being a emotional sissy-boy is bad because it’s effeminate in nature so too the counter-example has to a woman acting masculine. That is – a women who’s loud, wear guy-type clothes, blokey haircut, lift weights, dominating, domineering, etc.

    Like


  39. How do you account for different cultures preferring nice guys (according to Roosh)?

    Like


    • Spectrum and shit.

      Like


    • Not all cultures have become completely toxic for males. There are some where men get respect and women’s nature is recognized and treated accordingly. In these cultures, women still show respect for their male relatives judgement and this is where “nice guys” have a shot. Male relatives aren’t denigrated for protecting them so they actually give and (wait for it)………………………………………… have their advice acted upon. Bad boys are recognized as horrible providers/protectors so nice guys get to move to the head of the line. Not always, because the toxic bs from the first world countries appears to be enmeshed with everything else to many (feminism gets bundled in with advance surgery, electronics, etc) and some women “follow their heart” as they do in the USA, but a substantial number.

      Like


      • Also, “nice guys” aren’t complete pushovers in said cultures, they actually have some form of backbone.

        Like


    • Cultural regulation of female sexuality i.e. hypergarmy…. duh!

      Like


  40. A undeservedly gentle poetic justice (NSFW):
    http://efukt.com/1727_College_Girl_Attacked.html

    Like


  41. In keeping with the theme everything we ever knew was wrong… and is usually the opposite, I’ve recently been thinking about the importance of orgasms.

    I think I read on this blog how women are more likely to fake orgasms for more alpha or hotter guys. The mainstream picks up on this evidence that they don’t really love them etc. etc.

    But think about how women freak out when they can’t get you off, they start questioning themselves and put in extra effort.

    Is the worship of the female orgasm (after all it’s easy for guys to get off and only a real man can give a woman orgasms) and the shame associated with the male orgasm (coming too quickly is looked down upon, even though it makes sense biologically it displays lack of experience with hot women / pre-selection ).

    Another point, women enjoy sex much more when the guy leads and dominates (ie does what he wants).

    I’m not advocating ignoring a woman’s wants and needs completely. But is this another example of women saying one thing and on a deep level wanting something else.

    In practical terms how can you use this? Openly or in a subtle way questioning if a woman can get you off? I’ve heard of guys who sometimes pretend they can’t finish and that it leads to women putting in lots of extra effort in future sessions.

    Like


  42. Oops meant to say “Is the worship of the female orgams…. indicative of yet another way in which we are lead astray from what is really happening and what really works?”

    Like


  43. For woman’s SMV, sexuality and femininity are her greatest assets. Valuable male SMV includes resource provision, confidence (social/personal), and emotional intimacy. Hypergamy, by definition, leads the woman to seek higher SMV from a man to increase her own value by association.

    High female SMV + low male SMV = LJBF situation where woman gains free access to man’s resource, time, and attention in exchange for illusion of getting with her.

    Any female SMV + high male SMV = Alpha male harem situation

    Male SMV > female SMV = minimum requirement for LTR. if male SMV is equal to or lower than female SMV, the primer is set for for hypergamy to unleash the dragon of cuckoldry.

    http://theprofessorspeaks.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/exit-ljbf-enter-smv-ladder/

    Like


  44. Unrelated:

    This girl did a kickstarter for about misogyny in video games. The comments on her youtube video are pretty funny:
    http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-misogyny-and-silencing-on-youtube/

    She talks about these comments as if it’s an organized woman-hate when it’s actually just guys talking to her the way they talk to everyone.

    Like


    • And she gets a lot of support in her blog’s comment section by fellow fembots and maboobs.
      I saw her video and I’m sure that if more feminists lobbyed in order to make video games more PC and feminist-friendly (ie completely delusional with lots of stupid female characters), that shit is gonna happen fast.

      Video games are the last field relatively immune to that shit. It’s gonna be a shame when men lose that battle.

      Like


  45. Good analogy.

    Just like sex for a lot of men, once a girl is sure she can get emotional intimacy from her guy when she needs it, her desire for it drops way off. Thank god….

    Like


    • I have experienced the opposite situation: an undesirable girl latched onto me, and drifted away after two months because I had absolutely no emotional investment in her. I just flat-out didn’t care. She went back to her ex who had been stalking her and sending e-mails to my sister, etc.

      I guess this would be equivalent to an undesirable guy chasing a girl for two months, she never puts out, and so he dumps her for his clingy ex.

      Like


  46. Rather naive. It confuses rich emotional life with sensitive shallowness. On the contrary, emotionally rich & expressive men have, as a rule, had more “success” with females than somehow dumb macho impostors. Don’t confuse emotionality with mawkish sentimentality; don’t confuse wealth of mind & heart with weakness.

    Like


  47. So, when a girl sees a cool guy walking down the street, she thinks, “Oh God I want to have emotional intimacy with that guy SO BAD”?

    Like


  48. One young woman explained it to me thusly: “Every time a woman gets engaged to be married, that means there is one less marriageable man in the pool for every other woman.”

    Regardless of the lip service about sexual revolution, getting married is a status symbol to most women. It means they have snagged in a man. And given that women generally marry up, it also means more wealth for the bride-to-be down the line. It’s a competition for position among one’s peers, as well as material security. And these fights get bloody. Therefore, it is in a woman’s interests to bring down all other women who are competing with her.

    This is not the case for men.

    Females are competing for a smaller pool of males than are men competing in the pool of women. Again, females tend to marry up, or chase after a limited number of alpha males. Males have a much broader perspective on with whom they will mate. If a woman gets married, there are statistically more women remaining in the marriageable pool. For example, say that men see 50% of women as desirable; women might see 20% of men as desirable. When a couple get engaged, to males there are now 2% fewer available females; to females, there are 5% fewer. A 250% difference.

    When a man gets engaged, other men may show sympathy for a comrade who is losing his freedom (and in these decadent days, much of his wealth upon the statistically probable divorce). To be cynical, for a man, every marriage-hungry female taken out of circulation via a walk down the aisle is one less female who will victimize a single man down the line with wedding vows.

    If anyone ever wonders what the draw to feminism might be for some women, given that it’s completely irrational and obviously harmful pseudoscience, remember: Disapproving indignance, and the experience of having it mirrored back to you, is chick crack.

    Take the words and specifics out, and you’ll find that the “tone” and conversational tactics are no different between a group of girls discussing the Kardashian show, and a group of women in an ‘intellectual’ political meeting.

    This is so. And is something which ought to be explored. Feminism is not simply about an ideology. I’d even say the ideology is largely irrelevant. It’s a social norming ritual for females. They can all get together and agree on something, tearing to pieces females who compete with them — especially traditional women who have a better position in the marriage market.

    Feminism is also a sh*t test to sort out the beta men from the alphas. Any guy who is dumb enough to agree with a feminist is also out of the picture, or is placed on their “To Manipulate” list.

    We’ve had several decades of feminism, and we have seen the destruction of much of traditional marriage. Many Western women who would have otherwise gotten married have been dragged down by the Sex and the City syndrome: they have taken themselves out of the market for marriage by waiting until they are middle aged to settle down with a man. But by middle age, most women have lost their value as a marriage partner. Middle aged men, on the other hand, can retain their marriage potential owing to vast biological and psychological differences between the sexes.

    This is something which young women who are thinking about jumping into the feminist swimming pool ought to contemplate. There just may be no ladder to get out, once you have reached the deep end.

    Like


  49. […] First SWPL President, Hot Girls Need Your Best Game, The Allure Of Male Dominance, Older Man Game, Comment Of The Week, Women Gossip To Compete For […]

    Like


  50. on August 26, 2012 at 4:08 am MyCommentShould'veBeenTop

    Even as a regular CH follower, I am not sold on this analogy.

    Women don’t want men for their emotional intimacy – they primarily want a man that is powerful and signals to her high dominance in society. (and whether that signal comes through as money, physical looks, prestigious job, charming personality etc. variates among women).

    Like


    • I think the “lack of emotion” signals high dominance (nothing gets under your skin/threatens you) whereas being emotional with her only doesn’t reduce your overall high value in society AND adds to her seeing herself as a snowflake (only she can get you to “open up” or make you vulnerable).

      It’s a win/win for the hamster…!

      Example – my wife and I were at an event where I was engaged/getting excited to participate. Mostly, I don’t show any emotion, but here my wife could see that I was getting excited, even though nobody else could. Later, she commented that she alone was able to tell that I was getting excited, and that was only because she knew me soooo well, because she could pick up on my subtle cues. She reeeaaally liked that.

      Like


      • I understand the non-flappable = alpha general wisdom. The West has long loved the idea of the spartan loner, the steely-eyed missile man with the thousand-yard stare, as it were.

        But a lot of beta/omega lack of courage hides behind it.

        And a lot of mommy-state “violence never solves anything”, “don’t raise your voice” male-control shaming language resides therein.

        Alpha males in the animal kingdom don’t calmly handle threats or challenges… indeed, if anything, they overreact to the slightest perception thereof.

        And lack of impulse control is a well-worn trait of those ‘cultures’ that are often considered the most macho and ‘alpha’.

        The point is: righteous indignation and anger is not ipso facto a mark of betatude.

        Like


      • Exactly. What a chimp movie if you wanna learn alpha. Fuck blogs.

        Like


  51. on August 26, 2012 at 10:48 pm John Campbell

    Hey CH, this post is fantastic. I already have serious interest in the project I’ve mentioned to you a couple of times :)))) JOHN

    Like


  52. Chicks dig jerks, 13 year old edition:

    http://marriedmansexlife.com/2012/08/i-see-alpha-beta-everywhere/

    the girls were categorizing the boys into two groups: “Hot & Mean” and “Not-hot & Nice.” There couldn’t be a better example of the Alpha/Beta theory, as interpreted by 13 year old girls.

    Like


  53. Is this what they used to call “hysteria”?

    Like


    • Aww, this comment went to the wrong thread (aimed to the “Hot girl crazy” and missed… this must be becuase I’m used to not to have to aim and just pee sitting down? 😉 )

      Like