How To Handle Femmes Fatales

Clio wrote an informative and entertaining series of posts about the taxonomy of femmes fatales — those irresistible women who will do a man no good if he leaves himself ignorant of and defenseless to their machinations. I’ve decided to do a counterpost explaining to men how to guard themselves against the four main femme fatale types as described by Clio, based on my experiences with women who fell into one or the other category.

The Golddigger

The gold-digger is the classic female heartbreaker, the one everyone except a few feminists loves to hate. She is not a prostitute: although she marries for money she does not have sex for money. […]

In fact, the chief characteristic of this type of female heartbreaker is her ruthlessness in pursuit of what she wants. She has to be careful not to fall in love, because it would cloud her judgment and because the type of man she requires is likely to be frightened by displays of emotional desperation and put off by neediness.

While the golddigger’s ultimate goal is marriage to a wealthy man, she will have sex with rich guys as long as the trinkets and baubles flow. Because payment for her services is not so direct, often coming days or weeks later instead of being left on the endtable by the bed, she is able to delude herself into believing she is not a common whore. But absent love, she is ideologically indistinguishable from her streetwalker cousins. She’s simply smart enough to secure payment without a pimp middleman, and to do it from one or two smitten sources instead of a carousel of johns.

The way to handle a golddigger is to establish your terms of courtship early on, before she has had a chance to suck you into her reality. You really want to sniff out the golddigger quickly, because if you don’t have the money, or you do have the money but don’t want to buy a woman’s love with it, then you’ll want to waste as little time dating golddiggers as possible. Without game, you’ll never change them. The good news is that it’s a simple matter tricking a golddigger to reveal her true inner whore.

The secret is this: Golddiggers target wealthy but gameless greater betas and alphas who deal with women in a very traditional and conventional manner — i.e. buying her drinks and taking her to fancy dinners on the first date. These are the kind of men who work all their lives to eventually purchase arm candy they can bring to cocktail parties. You can jolt the golddigger right out of her utilitarian programming by QUALIFYING HER. For example, you must make clear early on you don’t buy drinks for women and, in fact, if she’s cool, you’ll let her buy a drink for you. Another effective tactic for exposing the golddigger and putting her on the hot seat is to remark on her good taste in clothes or jewelry (golddiggers love when you share their materialistic worldview) and then say without a hint of irony that it’s a good thing you dressed up for the occasion and wore your best watch — while pointing to the Swatch on your wrist. If she laughs or compliments your watch, you have a shot to convert her. If she takes you seriously and looks around the room annoyed or cackles sarcastically, you can escape on a “bathroom break” and leave her with the check.

The golddigger is not used to the tables being turned like this. Indignantly, she will either leave in a huff or become surprisingly intrigued by your chutzpa. You win no matter which path she chooses. She leaves; you’ve now avoided spending money on a de facto whore without the integrity to put out quid pro quo on the first date like an actual whore. She stays; you have broken her and ensured her attraction for you will be genuine.

The more ruthless the woman, the bolder and more alpha you have to be in your dealings with her. An attractive and successful golddigger — and they are usually 8s and up; less attractive golddigger wannabes are simply not in the field of view of rich men — requires the utmost boldness. Beta nerds who have made a lot of money in the tech field should not attempt to tangle with them. They will be chewed up and left more misogynistic than they were before they met her.

The only time it is acceptable to play by a golddigger’s rules is when you don’t mind spending the money for access to sex with a hotter women than you could normally acquire relying on just your personality and charm. There are many men like this, so the golddigger is here to stay. I estimate their numbers in the general population of bangable women at around 15%.

One thing you have to remember about golddiggers — they are not that smart. Don’t confuse ruthlessness for smarts. Being base, corporeally-centered creatures with a crass understanding of the sexual market, they are easily manipulated into behaving by the standards you set for them as long as your game is tight. Shock and awe is how I would describe the game you need to break their will.

Btw, it is possible for a golddigger to fall in love with a man based solely on his money. Cash is a form of power, and women are universally attracted to male power in whichever form it comes. Beware: If she fell in love with you for your money, she’ll fall out of love with you twice as fast if the money disappears. Hopefully for you, by that time, she’ll be a has-been cougar and have no options but to deal with your gameless, poor ass.

The Waif/Neurotic

There is the more vocal Neurotic type, who is probably very intelligent and a high achiever (think Plath, left, or Wurtzel, bottom left, both excellent students), who probably suffers from depression and will do her best to ensure that you do as well; and there is the Waif, who is more obviously fragile in appearance than the neurotic, less verbal, less likely to be an academic success, and more drawn to the visual arts than to writing. What they have in common is that they suffer, and use their pain to hold on to their men. […]

Forget worrying about gold-diggers, men. It’s these ladies who will find a way to make you miserable every time. The ones on the Neurotic end of the spectrum will wear you out trying to take care of them when they’re sick; worry you to death with threats of suicide; make an idiot of you as you try to amuse them with silly jokes or make them feel loved with romantic gestures; persuade you spend all your time and money trying to make them happy. None of it will ever be enough. And then they will leave you for someone else, or have to go for drug or alcohol treatment, or decide that they need to be on their own for a little while.

The Waifs won’t expect you to spend much money, and they tend not to demand as much attention as Neurotics, but if annoyed with you they will give you the silent treatment, drifting around sadly with huge eyes, attracting other men, and suddenly leave you for one. Like Neurotic heartbreakers, Waifs tend to develop drug or alcohol problems, but theirs may be more serious, as they don’t have the same level of self-discipline as their Neurotic sisters. They won’t threaten suicide verbally, but you might come home to find one of them half-dead from an overdose. Lots of drama with these women. […]

One caution I want to make is that not all Neurotic or Waif women are heartbreakers. It’s a special type of Neurotic or Waif who is also a fatale, who learns to use sexual conquest as a temporary antidote to unhappiness.

We all know these types — think any role played by Winona Ryder or Gwyneth Paltrow. I agree with Clio, these women are more dangerous than golddiggers because they wield their feminine power with subtlety and innocent sincerity. Their coin of the realm is fragile femininity and emotional manipulation, as opposed to sex for resources barter. If you are a man who likes his girls girly, you won’t know what hit you until it’s too late and you’re in with both feet and all your heart.

The only way to learn to deal with the waif and neurotic is through experience. It’s hard to teach a man to temper his protective instinct. A waif who connects with a man’s heart and pride enslaves him more than the golddigger who connects through his loins and wallet.

The solution to the emotionally manipulative waif/neurotic is to call her bluff. I once had a girl threaten to kill herself as she sat on the edge of my bed, spastically emptying desk draws for bottles of pills she could swallow. The normal man would crumble and attempt to alleviate her pain and tears with his comfort and listening ability. WRONG. This will only embolden her to greater future outbursts. Instead, I opened the window and told her to jump, it’ll get the job done faster. It worked. She cursed and stormed out, only to return, humbled, a couple days later.

Warning: Sometimes she will actually go through with it and kill herself. Be strong. Her mental weakness is not your moral crisis. You have just saved yourself years of heartache dealing with her recurrent emotional breakdowns.

Don’t get caught up in the waif’s exploitative exhibitions. You are the oak tree, strong and rooted. Let her flail away; you are immoveable. When she sees her tawdry drama and passive-aggressiveness is having no effect on you, she’ll fall deeper in love. Remind her in the strongest terms that her happiness depends on herself, not you. Tell her that she must understand her low self-esteem is no excuse for her shitty behavior and you have little patience for it. You will not be there to validate her ego. Flirt ostentatiously with other women so she knows you can leave at a moment’s notice. Rinse and repeat, and marvel as she learns to manage her worst excesses so as not to disappoint you.

You will have to PUSH AWAY a waif to get her to come closer to you. Consoling her, protecting her, and drawing her tighter into your orbit will work to do just the opposite of what you intended — push her into the arms of another sucker man.

There is really nothing more annoying or frustrating than a waif giving you the silent treatment and allowing other men to flirt with her in front of you. Often, the frustration is precisely because she does not know what she is doing to you. I’ve found the best way to deal with these situations is to confront the waif in clear and calm terms and let her know you are aware what is going on. To wit:

“You’re attitude is telling. If you have something on your mind, you should let me know, or go home now. I will only allow women into my life who are capable of getting past their egos and meeting me with an open heart. Improve yourself, or leave. There are plenty of men who will gladly put up with your shit.”

If this doesn’t shake the waif out of her manipulative malaise, nothing will. And for girls who flirt with other guys in your presence, you have two options: Fight flirting with flirting, or confront her, as I explained above. Showing complete indifference to her provocations will work short term, but fail long term. You’re better off sparking her lust for you by flirting with other women in return, because waifs respond to drama, their own or yours. Otherwise, let her betrayal play out, then later in the evening pull her aside and tell her not to call you again until she’s ready to respect your boundaries. Odds are you will get a call, and notice a positive change in her behavior.

Waifs tend to be drawn to arty, egocentric men who cope with their women’s whims by ignoring them (think of Picasso and most of his women).

I have dated quite a few Waifs and this is exactly how I dealt with them. Often, I would confront her drama with my own drama. Dramafest!

Tomorrow: The Eternal Ingenue and the Amazonian Alpha!





Comments


  1. on September 16, 2008 at 5:01 pm anonymous_coward

    Well said. Though for the suicide-threats, I would take the further step of telling her to do it outside your room, or when you’re not around. This helps you avoid any potential legal trouble, and puts another bit of distance between you, showing that you really aren’t invested in her antics.

    Like


  2. Don’t golddiggers usually target men who are considerably older than themselves?

    Like


  3. Peter,

    I think it just happens that men with money who are willing to get married and share their wealth are older (40+). Young guys with money are rare. You guys with money who are ready to settle down are even rarer. Golddiggers are just playing the odds.

    Like


  4. on September 16, 2008 at 5:55 pm jonathanjones02

    Nails.

    Like


  5. “Don’t golddiggers usually target men who are considerably older than themselves?”

    I think so. Men who are old and have little to offer outside their money and want a much younger, pretty woman are sitting ducks for golddiggers. The young women who want more than money are usually not interested in such men.

    Young, rich men can attract women who are after more than money, so golddiggers would have more competition here.

    Like


  6. There is the more vocal Neurotic type, who is probably very intelligent and a high achiever (think Plath, left, or Wurtzel, bottom left, both excellent students

    It’s a fucking sin to compare a non-talent hysteric like Elizabeth Wurtzel to Sylvia Plath.

    Also, there are plenty of waif types who aren’t consciously manipulating anybody, they just are that way. Being an attractive woman gives a lot of power, and if you’re a depressive type it’s natural to try to use that as a distraction from your internal sadness.

    Like


  7. Thanks for the plug, Roissy. Two points I want to make to save men from their own best instincts:

    1) I think you’re mistaken in suggesting that all gold-diggers are likely to be “8s or more”. Some of them are average-looking women who know very well how to make the most of their looks. They won’t always be regular beauties, but (like waif/neurotics) they may know how to work a man’s protective instincts. Not all gold-diggers are as openly materialistic as men believe; they know how to hide this aspect of themselves. Think (if you’ve seen the movie) of Scarlett O’Hara in Gone With The Wind, trying to get her hands on Rhett Butler’s money by pretending to be in love with him. In other words, whatever “type” you may think your Heartbreaker is, always check to see if she isn’t a Gold-digger in disguise.

    2) Gold-diggers don’t always target really rich men. If they’re desperate (i.e. they come from really poor backgrounds, or they’re foreigners from some hellhole abroad), they’ll take a nice, sweet, beta-ish fellow with a decent job. Easier to catch, easier to manage.

    If they’re foreign girls from highly traditional countries, though, they may see marriage as a lifetime contractual business, and give you good value for your money. That kind of gold-digger tends to make a good wife: she probably knows how to cook and sew; she won’t ever waste money; and she’ll do everything possible to advance her man’s career. The only thing you’d have to fear from her is your own laziness, something this girl does not tolerate in a man.

    Clio

    Like


  8. In her original blog entry, clio wrote that men with literary interests tend to find themselves drawn to the Neurotic type of woman over and over again.

    My reply: True. Pop music is replete with anguish over and celebration of Waifs. Hootie and the Blowfish “Let Her Cry” is a textbook example.

    Like


  9. Clio,

    I think that your Golddigger (gd) and Amazonian Alpha (aa) are cut from the same cloth. The division occurs as the aa grows up with money and opportunity while the gd usually grows up desperate and poor.

    Like


  10. The core idea of handling gold diggers like many other kinds of women is to not let yourself fall in love with a woman who hasn’t fallen in love with you. It’s usually and best a ratcheting process, but let her take the emotional attachment lead.

    You took the lead initially, and in seduction. You risk (and will experience again and again) rejection at that phase. But she should take the lead in emotional attachement, and you should be able to tell real from pretend. That’s one of your jobs. Otherwise you’re falling in love with your fantasy. Self control is a male virtue. Too much female self control, used against a worthy man, is mannish, feminist and unattractive.

    At the same time she probably needs to sense you can and want to fall in love with her too. Well some women are attracted to the really emotionally unavailable man, but a lot more are attracted to men who other women want, but it’s hard — but seems possible — to really win his heart.

    Ok, so lets say an otherwise wonderful girl, who you feel does have gold digger tendencies but has also moved way beyond that in her true feelings for you, has you feel fallen genuinely in love with you. She sure says so, and seems to show so. Naturally you have to be in the position of having lots of scratch or the prospect of soon getting it (rapdily accelerating professional career) for all this to be a real issue. Let’s say it is though.

    Start talking about living together forever instead of marriage, because of, you know, marriage theft. Because while you give up much by committing your heart exclusively to one woman, you are prepared to do that, when you’re really sure. But the legal institution of marriage has become a set of one way obligations, binding only the man (higher earner and non custodial parent). Talk about those investment banker wives who filed for divorce the minute their husbands got fired in this mortgage finance meltdown crisis. Or at the very least how you’d need a prenup with any woman. As Regan said, trust but verify.

    Then see what happens. Golddiggers become indignant, refuse to talk about your concerns, issue ultimatums, and then split. Women in love argue and grumble and get pissed, and can’t figure out why THEY have to be the ones you get caught up “short” in this, and need lots of explanation and reassurance — but you can work something out with them. I have.

    Like


  11. Fun, true. I once managed to get a little something going with a Golddigger, despite my low-budget boho slobbiness. Key to whatever semi-success I had with her was loads and loads of easygoingly defiant chutzpah — “I’m exactly what you’re not looking for,” which did indeed intrigue her some. She was pretty hot, and I had fun with her for a couple of weeks. But then off she went in search of fatter wallets. Which was kinda hot too, to be honest. The whole episode was hot. Exhausting, and nothing I was eager to try again. But hot.

    A suggestion? How about breaking these postings up in a “one type one posting” way? It’d be easier on the eyes and mind, and make commenting much less confusing.

    Like


  12. Clio / Anonymous 7 —

    Two points I want to make to save men from their own best instincts:

    It’s impossible not to love at least a little bit, and probably a lot, a woman like you Clio.

    Meaning you Clio.

    You sweetheart you..

    Like


  13. “Don’t golddiggers usually target men who are considerably older than themselves?”

    Only two requirements for a golddigger in my eyes: the guy has to be relatively richer than her, and the guy has to have no game in relation to the golddigger. If a guy is older but has good game, he’ll be too slick to fall for it. And it’s way easier to find a young guy with no game than an old guy with no game. People think old guys are more susceptible to golddigging because it’s more obvious when it happens to them. You see an old guy with a young hottie and your golddigging radar goes off. But what about people like Kobe Bryant and Mos Def? Their wives were golddiggers but because they physically don’t look strange together people don’t question it as much.

    Young, rich men can attract women who are after more than money, so golddiggers would have more competition here.

    Not necessarily. All other things being equal, a man who is old and has game and swagger and status can attract women much better than a man who is young but has no game and is beta. I don’t think women like youth for its own sake in a mate to the same degree that men do. I think a Bruce Willis would be more attractive to a lot of women than uber wuss Zach Braff

    Like


  14. Being the beta I was raised as (fuck my parent’s generation) my last girlfriend was very much a “The Waif/Neurotic” type of girl. She kind of tossed everything I thought women wanted on it’s head. I came out of that relationship hating pretty much all women. It seemed to me that the things men find honorable and good mean almost nothing to women.

    Reading Roissy posts have been a real eye opener. Women no longer seems nearly as hard to understand. Learning how women are driven by different things and for different goals than men is quite liberating. The whole system is just as stupid as a lot of human systems are, but in the end, it now makes sense.

    Keep up the good work.

    Like


  15. There are domestic-type golddiggers too. These are women whose gold-digger whorishness targets men who can provide, not jewelry, but a “good home”, not lavish attentions and limo rides, but a steady paycheck, not romantic idylls, but a healthy steady stable environment in which to have and rear children. They target a man because he is rich in the qualities of a good husband and a good father, not a good Sugar Daddy. They are Golddiggers because they target a man for what he can provide financially, not because they love him. They’re different, and more dangerous, than the original-type GD because of what they want those man-provided goodies for.

    The key to this kind of golddigger is her subtlety at preventing her essential whorishness from being discovered: this kind of GD is actually honoured by society.

    But then how can you say she’s a GD? Aren’t diggers vain and materialistic? No, they’re materialistic, not necessarily vain. Golddiggers dig gold. Some dig it because they like to wear it on their bodies when they go out at night. Others dig it because it can be put back in the ground and earn them oodles of interest. And lots of snuggies for their children.

    GD1 wants money to spend or to be spent on her. GD2 wants money to save and invest. GD1s are sooner or later outed as whores; GD2s are honoured as clear-eyed sane women, women who know what they want.

    Which one is smarter? Which one is more dangerous? I know! The one that will get more money from you in the long run. Who will, even if her main gambit of marriage doesn’t work out, still extract great fripping wodges, entire lodes, TONNAGES of your hard-earned gold for the rest of your life (you’ll be dying younger than her).

    Golddigger #2. That’s the one to watch out for. She’s a human Front End Loader, a Walking Dragline. The gift that keeps on taking and taking and taking.

    Till you die.

    Like


  16. There’s also Compromise Golddigger. She’s the one who “settles”.

    Any woman who gives sex to a man without wanting to (out of lust or love or both) is a golddigger. A woman who lets a man put that THING deep inside her in order to get attention, to have bragging rights, to have a man in her life, in order not to be alone, to have a stable home, to shut up her friends and family, to advance her career–if she puts out for any of those reasons, for any reason other than desire, she is a golddigger. Golddiggers expect to get paid for making themselves available to men.

    Not all payments have to be in gold.

    Like


  17. I like Clio’s blog. That series on various types of women was very interesting. It seems most of her male readers like the Audrey Hepburn type most.

    waif- Zoey Deschannel &Janeane Garofalo

    goldigger-Coco, Ice T’s wife or any playboy bunny

    Like


  18. You guys put way too much work into this.

    Like


  19. PatrickH, you’re stretching the definition a bit there. A definition stops being useful when it encompasses nearly every woman on the planet. Sure, you can define X as Y all you’d like. You can imitate the way Tyler Durden might derisively call everyone who goes into work every day a “wage slave,” and you can have everyone nodding in unison to your on the surface profound statements. But Tyler Durden was a fictional character, and even in the fiction he was a figment of another character’s imagination.

    At some point you have to stop seeing the world in black and white, but also different shades, tones, hues and colors.

    Like


  20. “Any woman who gives sex to a man without wanting to (out of lust or love or both) is a golddigger. ”

    I actually agree with this. I would feel like a whore if I settled for a man I did not love and had to sleep with him out of duty.

    I guess that is why I have an easy time keeping my skirt down.

    Like


  21. Grace 18–

    You guys put way too much work into this.

    Contemporary America: 50% divorce rate, 70-75% initiated by women. Highest in the world by far. Canada and Australia’s is at half the rate; France at less than 1/10.

    Divorce theft is huge in percentage take in America. American men are regardled worldwide, correctly, as the most henpecked in the world.

    American entertainment media is a never ending fest of blaming men for STILL being too manish.

    A great many betaish men who are good earners and would be loving and loyal husbands now have a very hard time getting dates during much of their twenties with girls that aren’t seriously fat — since “they’re all” chasing a relatively small number of alphas of one degree or another.

    You guys put way too much work into this.

    Ummmm. Maybe not.

    Like


  22. drifting around sadly with huge eyes, attracting other men, and suddenly leave you for one.

    Clio hit it on the nose. My big eyes and very long eye lashes seem to attract a lot of men.

    Like


  23. When the subprime ponzi scheme came to its inevitable conclusion, wiping out wall street incomes and now imploding broker dealers, there was a NY Times story on the sharp number of divorces. One investment banker interviewed whose name was withheld was afraid to tell his wife for fear of divorce that their net asset value had declined so much that they needed to curtail spending supporting their lavish lifestyle. That’s the kind of situation wealthy men find themselves in this city, their balls in the hands of golddiggers. NYC is chock full of gd’s and for those running game in NY its one that you need to be keenly aware of. I suspect there are more gd’s in NYC than in any other city in America, only Miami and LA come a distant second or third but NY is unrivaled in this respect. Women move to this city in droves every year keeping the ratio ripe for guys with swagger but they’re looking for the opportunity to land a man getting paid. I’d say gd’s make up 20% to 25% of the bangable women in this city. A quality girl worth the long term investment is hard to find.

    Like


  24. I would feel like a whore if I settled for a man I did not love and had to sleep with him out of duty.

    Sure, it seems like a terrible thing to you now, but this was the arrangement many women entered into out of duty and tradition for many, many years. My grandparents’ marriage was an arranged one. They are both in their 80s and still together. My parents “chose” each other and are divorced.

    To say that women are gold diggers either if they want the money to be spent on themselves or if they want the money to be saved up for the family is the same as “damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t.” Men here love to say that they evolved to appreciate female beauty, so why blame them for looking? Well, women evolved to want male financial security so their kids won’t starve, so why blame them for the same?

    The always one-way street of blame is really getting old.

    Like


  25. guess that is why I have an easy time keeping my skirt down.

    I had not idea that yours truly is a woman.

    😯

    It seems as if most of the regular commenters here are women.

    dougjnn- Most American men aren’t looking to good either. Most of them are suffering from a new disease which the scientists call bootydoenceplitis.

    Like


  26. Pupu is a big fan of Clio’s Femmes Fatale series and the male heartbreaker series. It is a pity to have missed the window of opportunity to see Clio’s photo when it briefly surfaced and resurfaced.

    Clio’s classification of the female fatales seems to suggest those gals have single-peaked preferences: gold-diggers for money and things, waif-neurotic for mind and attention, eternal ingénue for love and protection, and Amazonian alpha for power (both over men and over themselves). Pupu suffers from characteristics symptomatic of the ingénues, but knows well that age could turn charm into a source of annoyance. The thought of turning into an age-inappropriate, baked-potato-like ingénue is truly unbearable. The question is whether a gal could manage to grow up without the experience of motherhood.

    Like


  27. “Sure, it seems like a terrible thing to you now, but this was the arrangement many women entered into out of duty and tradition for many, many years. My grandparents’ marriage was an arranged one. They are both in their 80s and still together. My parents “chose” each other and are divorced.”

    Marriages out of need are more durable than marriages out of love, because the need does not fade like love can.

    Still, I am a hopeless romantic.

    “Well, women evolved to want male financial security so their kids won’t starve, so why blame them for the same?”

    I’m also realistic and would certainly not marry a man who would let his family go without. An unhappy marriage is also a lot more likely when a couple is poor(ish), statistically.

    A woman who enjoys getting a necklace on her birthday or who values a good provider does not equal a golddigger.
    My definition of a golddigger is a woman who forgoes attraction, compatibility and character values to maximize her profit in a man.

    A man who only cares about looks and easy access, closing an eye to incompatibility, dumbness and bad character, is the equivalent of that.

    Like


  28. @ 15/16 Patrick H

    The second type of golddiggers don’t sound that bad in theory. To some men, the second simply fulfill a need to be useful. While one would prefer to know the true motives of why somebody continues to partner with another person, the second golddigger’s hidden motives can provide a palliative feeling for even the most loserish beta male. As much as the sex and emotional benefits are still flowing, and the financial extraction isn’t to severe, I would suspect that a sizeable, but small portion of the male population would prefer a golddigger over being alone.

    Interestingly, one could argue that most women golddiggers per your reasoning, especially if they choose beta males over alpha males which boosts one of my earlier arguments that women *only* feel attracted to alpha males.

    Contemporary America: 50% divorce rate…Canada and Australia’s is at half the rate

    I think we should study and research why Canada and Australia despite being the closest nations in the world in a cultural and social sense to America have such lower divorce rates.

    Like


  29. 27 Yours Truly

    My definition of a golddigger is a woman who forgoes attraction, compatibility and character values to maximize her profit in a man.

    A man who only cares about looks and easy access, closing an eye to incompatibility, dumbness and bad character, is the equivalent of that.

    Amen, Yours Truly. A-frickin’-men. 🙂

    Like


  30. A woman who enjoys getting a necklace on her birthday or who values a good provider does not equal a golddigger.

    I agree with you. However, if you read between the lines of what the men espouse here — no, you don’t even have to do that — you would see the same vitriol thrown at good, reasonable, “clear-eyed sane women,” who is after all still just materialistic, even if she cares for her man in other ways.

    My definition of a golddigger is a woman who forgoes attraction, compatibility and character values to maximize her profit in a man.

    Few women ever forgo attraction, compatibility and character values completely, even the most desperate of destitute women. Even many prostitutes, especially the ones who work for themselves, pick and choose their johns.

    It’s ironic that a woman who is prudent with finances is being called a golddigger as well. The extremes of categorization seem to require that every woman be dissected and labeled. If a woman wants to be good with finances and save up for a rainy day, better watch out. She’s a golddigger in domestic disguise!

    Give me a freaking break.

    Like


  31. Hope 24–

    The always one-way street of blame is really getting old.

    How about a little perspective Hope?

    This blog, and many of the comments here, is a tiny in impact corrective to a vast sea of American feminist inspired and guided “blame men for everything” wrong, especially in marriage, that pervades American culture.

    “Men are all dogs” is a common place on sitcoms. It’s usually meant to be understood as an exaggeration, but only somewhat.

    If a woman somehow loses interest in sex, or in say oral sex, not long after getting married or a few years later, then that’s obviously the man’s fault. He’s not attentive enough, doesn’t make her feel sexy or loved enough, or is failing to do enough of his job as a man to sufficiently earn her love. And so on. If a man loses interest in having sex very often with his wife, well that’s his fault too. He’s still fixated on young nubile things like some immature teenager that can never grow up. Men are such dogs.

    And so on ad infinitum. It’s the all pervasive wisdom of contemporary American culture. Most people are so immersed and so little familiar with other places and cultures, or different times, that they simply can’t see it.

    Like


  32. Whether you are the man or the woman in the relationship, all you can change is your own choices and behaviour.

    No matter what set of genitals you have.

    Complaining to/about the opposite sex is also a behaviour and it may not be the most effective one to achieve your goal. Blaming the other sex is largely a counterproductive behaviour.

    You can, or course, seek to influence and inspire other people to desirable behaviour. What works for me is doing my best to do my thing according to my standards and not accepting substandard people and actions in my life.

    Like


  33. Hope 30 —

    It’s ironic that a woman who is prudent with finances is being called a golddigger as well.

    I for one would never call you a golddigger. Caring about building up the financial security and freedom / choices of your family is hardly golddigger behavior.

    Leaving a man who you love because he’s had a serious financial reversal, but is working hard to come back — now that’s another matter. But I don’t think that’s you Hope. I’m quite sure it isn’t.

    I agree that PatrickH in particular went pretty far overboard in what he called golddigger behavior. I agree he’s wrong. I think it’s a good thing for women to value good provider ability and partiuclarly behavior in men, among other things. It’s certainly good for society, and family stability, on average.

    So hugs Hope. I like you lots, and very much value your insights and perspective. You sure don’t follow any herd.

    Like


  34. How about a little perspective Hope?

    This blog, and many of the comments here, is a tiny in impact corrective to a vast sea of American feminist inspired and guided “blame men for everything” wrong, especially in marriage, that pervades American culture.

    Of course I get it, but it doesn’t mean that I can’t think it also goes too far in the other direction. Spewing forth the similar kind of attitude and mentality that the hardcore feminists are shouting down from their current perched vantage point is not going to drown them out.

    It may be tiny in impact, but it’s the same kind of hatred being spoken. Fight fire with fire, violence with violence, an eye for an eye, etc. right? When has that worked for relations between sexes? After the power struggle, who emerges as the victorious party? The answer is neither the man nor the woman.

    This also does not exactly convince those who might want to convert to a different, more balanced and less female-centric world view. The guys here might have a version or part of the truth, but to believe that it is the whole, untarnished and holiest truth is going just a bit too far.

    Dogma is distasteful to me no matter what form it takes.

    Like


  35. “Warning: Sometimes she will actually go through with it and kill herself. Be strong. Her mental weakness is not your moral crisis. You have just saved yourself years of heartache dealing with her recurrent emotional breakdowns.”

    Even better if she kills herself and it isn’t in your place. A body in your apt or home is gonna cost you time and money to clean up, especially if there is blood. Blood is a motherfucker to clean up, like with cut wrists or sucking on a pistol, though thankfully most suicidal women take pills. A loony babe who tosses herself out the window is the city’s problem.

    Like


  36. To me, the whiny man in the opposite of masculine virtue.

    Responsibility is power.

    Never to blame is powerless.

    A real man does not abscond himself from power.

    It is kind of like all those people who are obese because of thyroid/diabetes/hormonal issues. Sure, you have been dealt a rotten card, sure it is harder for you than for another, but are you going to sit around complaining about things you cannot change or are you going to take charge of your life instead of letting a lack of backbone cheat you out of good health?

    Like


  37. Pupu 26 —

    I’m wondering if Pupu is really Michael Blowhard in feminine guise.

    Certain telltale phrasings. When “her” posts are longer, they sound quite masculine type analytical. More familitarity with Clio’s blog than here. None of that by itself, though “gals” is pretty telltale.

    Dunno. Just musing.

    Like


  38. If you are a man who likes his girls girly, you won’t know what hit you until it’s too late and you’re in with both feet and all your heart.

    This is a tough one. My ex has entangled himself with one of these. I’ve analyzed her body language since their first date, thanks to Picasaweb. On the first dates she was the classic “wounded bird”. Limp wristed, demure feminine flowing dresses, hands clasped modestly in front of her crotch, feet and legs pressed together; almost childlike. Almost no makeup, natural nails-no polish, angelic.

    Then the transformation to lots of thumb (control) and pinky (entitlement) displays, thumb ring, spaghetti strap tank tops (sheer) with no bra, a new boob job (! I kid you not !), too much makeup, over the shoulder hugs (controlling), low rider jeans, and lots of two handed clinging, and flirting with other men.

    Is this a good thing? You tell ME.

    Like


  39. Hope 34 —

    Fight fire with fire, violence with violence, an eye for an eye, etc. right?

    Yes, I think one generally does need to do that in the wider social realm, at least to begin with, when things have gone way over to an extreme, as they have in the US of A. Or at least there have to be SOME forces out there doing that.

    Then there can be room for reaching a reasonable way forward, a synthesis.

    I’d much rather be part of the later process too. But I see the need for the fighting fire with fire side as well.

    Like


  40. are you going to sit around complaining about things you cannot change or are you going to take charge of your life instead of letting a lack of backbone cheat you out of good health?

    Yes, I like the take-charge attitude, too. Human willpower is a truly amazing thing. But I get the other side of the coin, because I know problems exists and continue to worsen. I also like to whine, and I really sympathize with the men’s conundrum here. American society itself is stacked up against men’s well-being. Sociological terminology coming up: structure vs. agency.

    Every now and then, though, these people start actually believing their opinion (much like assholes that everyone has) is the absolutely correct one. They start to ignore that we women have views, feelings and thoughts of our own, which might be different but just as valid. They start doing what they accuse women of doing, of twisting men into women, only from their side it looks like shaping women into “better” women. They cherish the idea of either some nonexistent epitome of womanhood who is perfect and beautiful, and anything less is unacceptable — or the most awful descriptors applying to every woman on Earth.

    And that’s when my patience wears thin. My husband doesn’t understand why I read these blogs, and I tell him that it’s to try to understand women better and to try to improve myself. He says it is about sampling, and he thinks that men here have been with too many scummy women, and tells me that their insights into scummy women will only damage me and scummify me if I take it too much to heart.

    Fortunately, there are a lot of rather interesting female voices here to offset that, and it’s nice.

    Like


  41. I’m enjoying Pupu, but I’m not her. Fun that someone would think I am, though.

    Like


  42. “They start to ignore that we women have views, feelings and thoughts of our own, which might be different but just as valid.”

    I stopped reading right there. But I’m surprised I got past the “I like to whine” though. Valid? Yeah, right…

    Like


  43. Being the beta I was raised as (fuck my parent’s generation)

    Oh, wah wah wah. Your parents’ generation probably were a bunch of losers, but they didn’t raise you — you never paid them attention, except to laugh at how dopey they were. It’s your own cohort or peer group that socializes you.

    Like


  44. 40 Hope

    My husband doesn’t understand why I read these blogs, and I tell him that it’s to try to understand women better and to try to improve myself.

    You know, I get asked that question a lot whenever I talk about reading something that frustrates me, and my answer is always the same: by reading a lot of different perspectives, even ones that bother/infuriate you, you have a better chance of stumbling on the truth than by reading only those things that you’re inclined to agree with. No one has a monopoly on truth.

    Also, if you ever want to be able to persuade people, you have to be able to speak to them in their language, and you won’t be able to do that if you never learn what their language is.

    (That’s why so many liberal, big-city politicians are so clueless when it comes to speaking to and about small-town or rural voters. They don’t know anything about small-town or rural life; they’ve never even tried to experience it. They only listen to what their advisers — who are usually as clueless as the politicians — tell them.)

    Like


  45. Well said Elizabeth.

    Like


  46. It is a great honor to be suspected as Michael in feminine guise. For a brief moment, Pupu dreamt of taking a reckless gal-ly trip wearing her new bullet-proof jacket. Too bad, Michael showed up so promptly and took the jacket away.

    Like


  47. Hope, you wound me. I mean it. You have taken a post that was intended clearly to be a description of a form of Golddigger…not of all or even most women and claimed it is a spew of vitriol directed at all women. It was not intended that way, nor was it written so. I enjoin upon you in direct appeal to your sense of simple fairness to reread my comments. If you do, you will see that my GD2 is a variation on a type, the golddigger. GD2s are not representatives of all women. They are golddiggers, and cannot be understood without keeping that point first in mind.

    Since my description of Golddigger type number 2 is clearly a description of a golddiger, then it is apposite (and fair, which you have not been) to list the key characteristics of the golddigger as such:

    – She marries for money.
    She does not love the man she marries, indeed must prevent herself from loving him (see Clio’s definition and comment here).
    – Should the man no longer provide her with the money she seeks from him, she will leave.

    To be a GD2, a woman must meet all of these criteria. That’s because she has to in order to be a golddigger at all.

    To be a GD2, she must meet further criteria. These criteria distinguish her from the classic golddigger, GD1. A GD2:

    – marries a man for his ability to provide long-term financial support.
    – in other words, she views his money as a resource to help her attain what may be long-term large scale gains, the kind that determine the course of a lifetime, not of an evening out on the town.
    – is largely indifferent to or may disdain money lavished upon her, including gifts. Her indifference or hostility to such lavishment is part of her attempt to prevent her GDness from becoming recognized, perhaps even including by her.
    – in general, GD2s are more successful at their enterprise of concealment than GD1s, so much so that they are not even recognized as golddiggers, even though they meet the key criterion: they marry a man they do not love or desire or perhaps even like, for his money and his money alone WHILE PRETENDING TO MARRY HIM FOR NORMAL REASONS.

    The consequence of your ignoring my clearly stated intention of describing a type of GOLDDIGGER is that you have mistakenly ascribed to me some of the following grossly misogynistic beliefs: being concerned at all about money, prospects, etc., in your partner means the woman is a golddigger. So any woman who cares about financial stability in her marriage prospects is a golddigger.

    Hope, I said nothing of the sort.

    Wanting a stable home does not make a woman a golddigger. Caring about money doesn’t make a woman a golddigger. Enjoying getting gifts does not make a woman a golddigger. DEMANDING gifts does not make a woman a golddigger. None of these things makes a woman a golddigger of either type, 1 or 2.

    It is the centrality of money as the key, even sole, desideratum in any marriage prospect combined with the ABSENCE OF LOVE OR DESIRE that makes a woman a golddigger.

    I would go further and argue that a true golddigger must conceal her absence of love and her mercenary objectives to be a GD. Why? Because a prostitute is not a GD. Nor are people in arranged marriages. The GD is deceitful; manipulation and deception lie at the heart of her approach to men and to marriage. Women who love the man they’re marrying cannot be GDs. Women who are honest with the men they marry cannot be GDs.

    You ignored completely all of these clearly stated points.

    A GD puts out for money. 1s do it for money right now. Money for themselves and themselves alone. 2s do it for money in the long term, and for money that may be spent on others, including children.

    Very few women are GDs by these, my publicly stated criteria.

    Hope, you have misread my post and said nasty things about me, repeatedly and with some venom. I am disappointed in you. I expected better from you. I am indeed surprised as well as disappointed. If someone had predicted that you would distort my writing and insult me with some asperity and repeatedly, you would be one of the last commenters here I would have said would be likely to be the guilty party.

    I think you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I hope–Hope–that you will reread my post and see that you have indeed wronged me.

    And shame on you, dougjnn, for folding in the face of Hope’s distortions. Shame on you for showing such a want of courage in the face of so obvious an act of misreading.

    Faith Hope and Charity are the biblical virtues. Through want of Charity Hope has shaken my Faith.

    It’s been a rough day.

    Like


  48. A great many betaish men who are good earners and would be loving and loyal husbands now have a very hard time getting dates during much of their twenties with girls that aren’t seriously fat — since “they’re all” chasing a relatively small number of alphas of one degree or another.

    The upshot of all of this: a civilization has to choose between at least partial curtailment of female sexual freedom and sliding into oblivion/chaos owing to the destruction of the family. Female sexuality is a force many civilizations before ours have kept under strict control for very good reasons.

    Like


  49. PatrickH 47–

    And shame on you, dougjnn, for folding in the face of Hope’s distortions. Shame on you for showing such a want of courage in the face of so obvious an act of misreading.

    Want of courage my ass. Bugger off.

    I thought your post was over the top and rather ridiculous when I first read it. I wasn’t exactly offended by it. I rather thought it was taking the notion of golddigger to a ridiculous extreme.

    It’s a very good thing for society that attraction to males as good or great providers is at least one component of female attraction. It might be better for modern society at large if it was a larger one in fact.

    As opposed for example to attraction to thrilling bad boys who’s badness isn’t necessarily expressed only by e.g. stomping corporate or legal or political or professional sports ass, but even by stomping fellow biker boy loser ass.

    It’s also a good thing however that’s there a place in female hearts for the taking big risks rebel leader. It helps invigorate that dynamic.

    Like


  50. PatrickH, you offended me gravely with your posting about the second type of “golddigger.” I’ll explain shortly.

    The only stipulation you made in the first post is that the woman, if she does not marry a man for love, if she cares about saving, and spending on her children, must be a golddigger, and is therefore a despicable woman. The part that really got to me was this:

    Golddiggers dig gold. Some dig it because they like to wear it on their bodies when they go out at night. Others dig it because it can be put back in the ground and earn them oodles of interest. And lots of snuggies for their children.

    Children. That’s the stinger, the one sore point that sticks out of your whole post like a thumb that’s been bashed by a ten ton hammer. This woman you are describing — she is nurturing, motherly, and she wants the best for her children.

    You are talking about my mother, Patrick! It is simple pragmatism to want to not lavish money on oneself and to want to care for one’s children. It is biological. It is innate. It is in fact a woman’s duty to herself and her children to choose a mate who won’t walk out on her like my father did and leave her hanging in the wind. She chose poorly, and she told me not to choose poorly.

    Money is pretty important to me. It was drilled into me by my mother. I watched her sacrifice almost her whole existence so that I could come to America, so that I could be clothed and fed, so that I could go to private high school and university, and more. So for you to say that this choice marks a woman as a golddigger is highly insulting.

    And you are the one who should be ashamed for talking about “Charity.”

    Like


  51. It’s ironic that a woman who is prudent with finances is being called a golddigger as well. The extremes of categorization seem to require that every woman be dissected and labeled. If a woman wants to be good with finances and save up for a rainy day, better watch out. She’s a golddigger in domestic disguise!

    Give me a freaking break.

    Well spoken. A wife who is not a spendrift and knows how to balance the family finances has one of the most important makings of a good wife. It’s normal for a woman who wants a family to choose her husband at least partly based on his earning power and willingness to provide. Why should she go after any lazy bum unwilling to support himself and his family? A family is a joint venture.

    Like


  52. Human willpower is a truly amazing thing

    Human willpower is a resource, just like any other. It is exhaustible. That’s why, according to research, 95% of the time lost weight has crept back with interest within the following five years.

    Like


  53. Hope writes “Spewing forth the similar kind of attitude and mentality that the hardcore feminists are shouting down from their current perched vantage point is not going to drown them out.”

    “It may be tiny in impact, but it’s the same kind of hatred being spoken.”

    Hatred or anger? Certainly some of it is hatred, but how much? I think a fair amount of it is anger, and some of that could be constructive.

    Logically, the parallel you are making should go both ways. One way is the way that you are emphasizing. Should people who recognize behavior (hate, anger, lying, whatever) as inappropriate when it comes from one sex also recognize parallel behavior as inappropriate when coming from the other sex? Indeed they should.

    What about the other implication? Should people who recognize behavior as appropriate when coming from one sex recognize parallel behavior as justified when coming from the other sex?

    Some of those women may appreciate how effective it is, if you want to turn a fight bitter, to answer “no” here. And some of *those* women may have already thought through the political significance of the feminist movement — not just hardcore, but most women I have personally met — saying “no.”

    Sometimes it is explicitly “no” (e.g., men are a privileged class so their complaints are unjustified). Sometimes it is implicitly “no,” by inaction (e.g., ERA going down for the last time as the tide of cynical family law considerations rose) or by stubborn insistence (e.g., structural sexism mismeasurement theory explains women’s performance in mathematical fields, but doesn’t apply to men’s overrepresentation in prison and underrepresentation in disputed custody awards, just doesn’t, don’t ask).

    I strongly disagree with various nasty things that our host says, and that various other commenters say. As I said, some is truly hateful. There’s also nastiness that’s neither hate nor anger, such as a corrupt sense of entitlement. But there’s also anger, and a significant amount of that anger seems appropriate to me. I don’t have any trouble agreeing with anger about a marvellous legal gem like the requirement for a deceived husband to support the children of his wife by another man.

    Women are justifably angry about, e.g., the anti-women marriage laws of a century or so ago. They’re justifiably angry at individual men (rather rare these days) who do not oppose such laws. They’d be justifiably far more angry if so many men turn out to be secret haters that one day a tsunami of men’s votes suddenly reverses the current laws. Haters rejoice, as wives are required to support a husband’s byblows, typically lose custody of their own children in a divorce, and so forth…

    I think women’s anger about such reversed laws could be not only justifiable, but constructive. When I imagine constructive responses, other than emigration, they all seem to start with getting angry. But maybe that’s just a blind spot of mine.

    Like


  54. The upshot of all of this: a civilization has to choose between at least partial curtailment of female sexual freedom and sliding into oblivion/chaos owing to the destruction of the family. Female sexuality is a force many civilizations before ours have kept under strict control for very good reasons.

    Whereas male sexuality is beyond reproach and rightly unfettered? Come on. It really does take two to tango, you know, unless all those destructive, chaotic, unrestrained females were having orgies with each other and leaving the poor, reasonable, oh-so-contained men out in the cold. If there’s a woman out there making a poor sexual decision, then, unless she’s a lesbian, there’s a man making it with her. The onus is on both, not only on the woman, and if it’s in society’s interest to keep sexuality under strict control, then it’s in society’s interest to keep both male and female sexuality under strict control, not only female.

    Mind you, I don’t think it’s in society’s interest to keep sexuality under strict control. Whatever our problems with cultural decadence, I would far, far rather live in the West, with its sexual freedom, than in the Middle East, where “female sexuality is…kept under strict control for very good reasons.”

    Like


  55. It’s a very good thing for society that attraction to males as good or great providers is at least one component of female attraction. It might be better for modern society at large if it was a larger one in fact.

    I agree. Women in middle to upper class American society often don’t care about financial stability, because they feel entitled to it. A lot of times women in lower class America do not care these days either, because of governmental welfare. I grew up with a lower class lifestyle, but my mother never accepted handouts.

    She waited tables and scrubbed rich people’s bathroom floors. She worked two jobs sometimes. She didn’t want me to have to live that kind of life, so she made money an important issue all my life. She worked hard and saved even harder. She still, to this day, tells me to clip coupons and try to put as much away as I can.

    It is the centrality of money as the key, even sole, desideratum in any marriage prospect combined with the ABSENCE OF LOVE OR DESIRE that makes a woman a golddigger.

    Here, you write that money doesn’t have to be the “sole” reason she marries. So how does that contradict what I have written? “So any woman who cares about financial stability in her marriage prospects is a golddigger.” Even if she loves the man, if monetary stability is important to her, then she must be a golddigger by your definition.

    So Patrick, was my mother a domestic golddigger? Or wasn’t she because she didn’t actually marry a guy for money? Such a woman, if she did marry, would become “Front End Loader, a Walking Dragline. The gift that keeps on taking and taking and taking,” apparently? Because to unleash her awesome cooking and cleaning talents on a man for the rest of his life would be too unjust. She would “take” too much from a man.

    The truth is, she would have made most ordinary men very happy. But unlike your so-called domestic golddiggers who do not yet have children, she did have children, and she sacrificed even another chance at love for her child. A woman is not just about love and sexuality and desire for men. You are foolish for thinking that a woman’s love and caring for her children is not also love for men.

    Poor, poor men.

    Like


  56. Hope – Post 7; Sector 2.

    As a ugly, lesser beta, where do I sign up for that deal?

    Like


  57. 56 Misanthrope:

    Korea, Thailand or South America, natch.

    Like


  58. Hope wrote “My husband doesn’t understand why I read these blogs, and I tell him that it’s to try to understand women better and to try to improve myself.”

    Elizabeth answered “You know, I get asked that question a lot whenever I talk about reading something that frustrates me, and my answer is always the same: by reading a lot of different perspectives, even ones that bother/infuriate you, you have a better chance of stumbling on the truth than by reading only those things that you’re inclined to agree with. No one has a monopoly on truth.”

    That sounds like a good answer. In case you ever want some variety, though, here’s another.

    Imagine owning only a chess board and a single-page version of the rules of chess. How fast would you be able to learn to really understand the game? (I.e., not just memorize the legal rules, but start to understand what are effective strategies and tactics.)

    Now imagine you get one more resource: you can read an extremely dysfunctional chess blog. One contingent of posters there are complete posers. A few more are just trolls. To the extent that there’s actual chess information there, it’s from people who do know some chess but who are at least as interested in mischievous cheating and in misleading other people as they are in honestly talking about chess. Everyone who’s more serious has long since gotten disgusted and left. You quickly realize you can’t trust anyone there. Still, I predict you can learn chess a lot more effectively by reading that blog, and cross-checking with your rules and thoughts, than you would by disconnecting from the blog, sitting at the board, re-reading the rules, and trying to notice all the patterns and implications for yourself.

    Who do I trust, a blog or my lying eyes? Generally my eyes. But sometimes I can stare at something for a very long time without noticing a pattern. Other people’s ideas can be such an effective shortcut to seeing the patterns that time spent hunting them can be well spent, even if it involves searching through a lot of confused garbage, even including a considerable number of nonsense claims about patterns that don’t in fact exist.

    Like


  59. 54 Elizabeth:

    Whereas male sexuality is beyond reproach and rightly unfettered? Come on. It really does take two to tango, you know, unless all those destructive, chaotic, unrestrained females were having orgies with each other and leaving the poor, reasonable, oh-so-contained men out in the cold. If there’s a woman out there making a poor sexual decision, then, unless she’s a lesbian, there’s a man making it with her. The onus is on both, not only on the woman, and if it’s in society’s interest to keep sexuality under strict control, then it’s in society’s interest to keep both male and female sexuality under strict control, not only female.

    It’s different for guys.

    *ducks*

    Seriously, a man’s dalliances, which are purely sexual more often than not, are nowhere near as destructive to the family unit, and hence society as a whole, as a woman’s are. See F. Roger Devlin for more.

    I think dougjnn has much to say on this topic so I’ll leave it there.

    Like


  60. roissy:

    The only way to learn to deal with the waif and neurotic is through experience. It’s hard to teach a man to temper his protective instinct. A waif who connects with a man’s heart and pride enslaves him more than the golddigger who connects through his loins and wallet.

    Lord do I ever wish someone told me this some 10 or so years ago.

    Like


  61. dougjnn:

    I thought your post was over the top and rather ridiculous when I first read it. I wasn’t exactly offended by it. I rather thought it was taking the notion of golddigger to a ridiculous extreme.

    And what about the entire post I followed up with? The one that you obviously read…at least the part about you. Does it have any impact? What if any of my arguments do you disagree with? Do you have any reasons at all? “Over the top” and “ridiculous” may or may not be justified about the original comment. But all you’ve provided is your say so. And you have ignored my attempts to expand, restate and clarify that comment.

    “Want of courage” clearly hit home. You’ve presented as one of the more mature and insightful posters here–you’ve even been cited by Michael Blowhard!–but push a little and down goes the house of cards. I don’t think you’re that mature or well read or thoughtful after all. I just wish you were a little less fragile.

    And, by the way, doug, what on earth was all of that stuff that followed your well-thought-out and beautifully phrased “bugger off” about? What on earth did it have to do with anything? Do you deny the existence of the second type of golddigger? Then why on earth are you going on about how caring about money is a valuable component of women’s attraction to men? Do you not know how to read? Did you not read anything at all where I stated pretty damn clearly that golddiggers have money as their central concern…not as a component? Did none of that even sink in? Why not? Because it wasn’t directly about you?

    The teenyboppers who post here can get away with your kind of thing. But you doug, you really do have a higher standard to meet. If you know how to read, if you have any intellectual integrity, you have to make at least a token effort to respond to the actual words on the (web) page. You can’t just pretend they’re not there and then go whingeing on about your ass and telling people to bugger off like you’re some zit-faced teenie-boy staking his claim to his own square foot of the schoolyard. I was trying to make an actual point! doug, doug, doug…it was never about you at all!

    So…”want of courage” is back at you, aimed right your way. Try reading the original post, and especially the follow up–even the parts that AREN’T ABOUT YOU–and back up your slurs with something like facts, cites. You know, the stuff that adults know how to use.

    That would require courage, more than your lazy pandering slime of me at Hope did. So how about it, doug? Grow a spine. Grow up. Take a read.

    Like


  62. Elizabeth — A large group of unattached men with no real hope of marriage and family is never good for society. NEVER.

    The result is misogyny. I do not think that there will be any restriction on female choices / sexuality because the votes of women outnumber the votes of men, due to women living longer. Therefore, the situation will only get worse, as women have every intention of sharing a few bad boys in various permutations, with a great many young men sitting on the sidelines.

    Women will just have to endure a lot of misogyny, and fend for themselves. This includes being left alone, helpless, when confronted by attackers in public (as is happening more often), casual disdain in public, and a race to the bottom in testosterone, as seen in any Rap music video.

    Women typically delude themselves that there is no society-wide cost for a few men winning and many men losing in the mating game. There is. Nothing is cost-free. While it is unlikely that Western society will turn into the Alpha Male harem model (where women are guarded from other men), the West African model — promiscuity and the result of men not caring about women much, widespread violence, race to the bottom in testosterone driven violent behavior, and lots of unattached men waiting to wreak violence as a release for sexual urges, can dominate in a Blade Runner like society.

    [Note: the nuclear family constrained male and female sexuality. That is however gone, so women will just have to resign themselves to widespread misogyny and ever-increasing violence. That is the cost of the Sexual Revolution.]

    Like


  63. I’d personally advise a younger man still looking to avoid golddiggers and alterna-neurotic gals altogether and look for a healthy good ol’ American girl with a positive outlook.

    Some people, men and women, a young person would do well to file under “life is too short” and be done with them. Let them be someone else’s problem.

    Like


  64. 62 whiskey:

    the West African model — promiscuity and the result of men not caring about women much, widespread violence, race to the bottom in testosterone driven violent behavior, and lots of unattached men waiting to wreak violence as a release for sexual urges, can dominate in a Blade Runner like society.

    AWESOME!!!

    I for one can’t wait for a Blade Runner like society.

    I kid, I kid.

    (sorta)

    Like


  65. a civilization has to choose between at least partial curtailment of female sexual freedom and sliding into oblivion/chaos owing to the destruction of the family

    One could argue that restricting female sexual freedom doesn’t really guarantee anything. Even if the Sex in the City types were shamed away from having sex outside of long-term or committed relationships, there’s nothing preventing such women from simply holding out for an alpha for the long-term. If a woman can maintain a career that pays middle class wages, she has no need to settle down with a loser beta for his money.

    The men who post here have magical theories that controlling female sexual freedom will make women love beta males. The problem is that you’ll simply end up with Golddigger #2 instead with the vast majority of the male population. Is it better for men to be used as direct financial sponges for long-term golddiggers or should they be alone and hold out for true love?

    Seriously, a man’s dalliances, which are purely sexual more often than not, are nowhere near as destructive to the family unit, and hence society as a whole, as a woman’s are. See F. Roger Devlin for more.

    I’ve heard numerous stories of men who were serial monogamists who frequently left their wives and children every few years to start the same process with a new woman. My grandmother is Exhibit A with three men leaving her for other women. So, I’m hesitant to believe that men will magically continue to love and support their spouses while only treating their mistresses as simple sexual aids…

    Like


  66. on September 17, 2008 at 1:10 am De te fabula narratur.

    roissy, what’s your take on mick jagger at 60?

    Like


  67. Whereas male sexuality is beyond reproach and rightly unfettered? Come on. It really does take two to tango, you know, unless all those destructive, chaotic, unrestrained females were having orgies with each other and leaving the poor, reasonable, oh-so-contained men out in the cold. If there’s a woman out there making a poor sexual decision, then, unless she’s a lesbian, there’s a man making it with her. The onus is on both, not only on the woman, and if it’s in society’s interest to keep sexuality under strict control, then it’s in society’s interest to keep both male and female sexuality under strict control, not only female.

    When sexuality is not under strict social control, it is under strict biological control. When men follow their biological urges without thinking, they go for beauty. When women do the same without input from social programming, they go for alpha status. The larger extent women are allowed to do that, the more sex becomes a winner-takes-it-all situation from the point of view of men. I think that about sums up the theory that has been under discussion here.

    Mind you, I don’t think it’s in society’s interest to keep sexuality under strict control. Whatever our problems with cultural decadence, I would far, far rather live in the West, with its sexual freedom, than in the Middle East, where “female sexuality is…kept under strict control for very good reasons.”

    The Middle East is fucked up for a host of other reasons but at least it has demonstrated staying power.

    In the end, it doesn’t matter who is right, only who is left.

    Like


  68. Dear Hope: I retract all of my comments about you disappointing me. You did misread my posts, and continue to do so. But your motives are clearly completely sincere. You are defending women you have known and cared about from what seemed to you to be a vicious smear. Hope, I can only insist that if you really do take the time to read my posts, especially the follow-up, you will see that I am not talking about women like your mother.

    When you write:
    Here, you write that money doesn’t have to be the “sole” reason she marries. So how does that contradict what I have written? “So any woman who cares about financial stability in her marriage prospects is a golddigger.” Even if she loves the man, if monetary stability is important to her, then she must be a golddigger by your definition.

    No, by central I do not mean important or relevant. I mean crucial, critical, fundamental, the driving reason. The absence of love is not the decisive factor, it is the pretense of it with money being the only concern.

    The golddiggers I described must be golddiggers first before they can be golddiggers of the type I described. You can’t be a type of something if you’re not that something in the first place.

    So Hope, ask yourself, was your mother a golddigger by the general definition used here, and not just by me? If she wasn’t, and I think she clearly wasn’t, then she cannot possibly be a golddigger of the type I described. She’s not a golddigger at all, so how can she be a GD1

    Women who marry for money while pretending not to are golddiggers. Did your mother do that? It doesn’t sound to me as if she did.

    I’m not going to keep arguing with you Hope. I believe you are passionately set in your view of my comment as somehow vile, a comment that tests your willingness to come here at all.

    That hurts me Hope. To condemn my comment, insisting that this reading justifies those kinds of statements about me is actually hurtful. When I said you wounded me, I wasn’t being hip or ironic. You–get this!–hurt my feelings.

    What is most bothersome about your reaction is not that it is mistaken–it is–or that is unfair–it is that too–but that it is so condemning of me and in such an irrevocable manner. As if you have put me into a place where you can despise me forever more.

    I do not believe that a fair reading of my comments justifies anything like that response. I insist that I was describing a woman who meets the standards of the golddigger. If you object to those standards, then you should condemn and despise Clio and all the others here whose comments are incomprehensible without an acceptance of that definition of golddigger as meaningful.

    And as having nothing at all to do with your mother.

    As for the part of my comment that tore it for you–the snuggies–I was making the point that a golddigger can be a poor wife, but a good mother. And still be a golddigger.

    That doesn’t mean that I think mothers who care about their children are golddiggers, Hope.

    In any case, I expect nothing more from you but continued judgments, or probably just silence.

    But you have been unfair to me, Hope. I don’t expect you to be able, given your current state (of emotion, not of pregnancy) to be able to be fair to me. I don’t expect much of anything anymore about this subject.

    But I can always hope, Hope.

    Like


  69. para ending “how can she be a GD1” should finish “or 2 or 12 or pi r squared?” Only golddiggers can be golddiggers type X or anything bloody else.

    Like


  70. 47 PatrickH

    To Hope: I enjoin upon you…

    Hear, hear! She’s a married woman, with child no less.

    61 PatrickH

    And what about the entire post I followed up with? The one that you obviously read…at least the part about you. Does it have any impact? What if any of my arguments do you disagree with? Do you have any reasons at all?

    Why so serious? Jeez, nothing has changed around here.

    Like


  71. The men who post here have magical theories that controlling female sexual freedom will make women love beta males.

    Make no mistake, I’m under no illusion that the sexual revolution can be rolled back any time soon.

    The problem is that you’ll simply end up with Golddigger #2 instead with the vast majority of the male population. Is it better for men to be used as direct financial sponges for long-term golddiggers or should they be alone and hold out for true love?

    I think we were discussing what’s good for society. But as many have pointed out, a traditional marriage actually is what makes most men happy.

    Like


  72. 68 PatrickH

    That hurts me Hope. To condemn my comment, insisting that this reading justifies those kinds of statements about me is actually hurtful. When I said you wounded me, I wasn’t being hip or ironic. You–get this!–hurt my feelings.

    Oh, this is really too much! It sounds like you’re losing it Patrick. This is a blog site. I’ve never had my feelings hurt here no matter how anyone has tried to hurt them. Just ask Johnny 5. You need to cut back on the T or start it up again, or just quit all together.

    Like


  73. 67 Markku:

    In the end, it doesn’t matter who is right, only who is left.

    *applause*

    Like


  74. sara that’s an appalling statement. I admit to a certain fondness for Hope, and her comments directed at me with such venom did indeed hurt my feelings.

    Of course this is a blog. I am aware of that fact. You remind me of people who say things like “Oh it’s just a movie” to people reacting with any emotion to something up on the big screen, or “it’s only a book” to people who actually (gasp!) are affected by something they’re reading.

    sara [homiletically]: It’s a blog site.

    Patrick: Whaaaaaaaat?

    People feel things. It happens sara. It’s not the end of the world. This is a blog. Hurt is a feeling.

    Deal with it yourself. After all, hurt is just an emotion…right?

    Maybe you should try running your detox again, all $5000 worth. If you’re still so afraid of simple human feeling that you start smirking all over someone for admitting to it, then maybe you’ve got some crap still bunged up inside you that you need to get extruded out your pores.

    Don’t tell me how or what to feel, sara. I don’t need to check anything like that out with you, and never will.

    Oh, and if you’ve never had your feelings hurt by X, then that disqualifies you from making judgments of people who have. You have no experience, no insight, and no even half-useful advice to offer. Someone who doesn’t feel is in no position to look down her snoot at those who do.

    P.S. You’re a liar if you claim you’ve never had your feelings hurt by anything you’ve read on a blog. You were going to leave here not too long ago. That wasn’t because you weren’t feeling anything about the subject.

    Like


  75. PatrickH, I grant you that I am overreacting. This is a sensitive subject for me, and while I never doubted that what I personally observed was not really golddigging behavior, there was the chance that you saw it more broadly than you later clarified and redefined it to be.

    You might think that your definition is one that is quite narrow, but I still personally disagree with it, as I think people could read it casually (as I did) and easily believe that any poor woman who just wants to be financially responsible is a golddigger with sheep’s clothing, so to speak.

    In any case, having experienced poverty myself, I do not harshly judge those who make money “central” to their decisions, particularly if they are just looking for the “basics” and not fancy gold and jewelry. If you knew how much of a struggle it could be, you would not disdain those who overlook such frivolous things like “romantic love” for putting food on their children’s table.

    Like


  76. 62: Therefore, the situation will only get worse, as women have every intention of sharing a few bad boys in various permutations, with a great many young men sitting on the sidelines.

    Yeah, none of this could possibly have anything to do with the fact that most men — regardless of their station in life — turn up their noses at the prospect of being seen with anything less than a 7, could it? Nah, surely not! Does no one see the irony of bemoaning the lonely betas’ existence even as complaints are made about the overabundance of Teh Uglies and what boner-wilters they are, sometimes in the same paragraph?

    Everyone thinks they deserve The Best, but it stands to reason that a large segment — of both sexes — is going to have to adjust their expectations, or be disappointed, or be alone. If you’re holding out for a 9 and refuse to settle for “less”, it’s because that was your choice. It’s not because there weren’t decent, willing women available. To shrug helplessly as though most women have a hand in guys not getting the 9s they think they deserve is to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the very people who are already being punished for not being desirable enough!

    The notion that Women as a group are choosing to “share a few bad boys” is patently absurd. Have you ever had a woman state this ambition to you? I’m not talking about the fantasies trumped up in rap videos or Sex & The City: do you personally know many women who have permanently accepted such an arrangement? I suspect they’re a tiny minority, if they exist at all. I submit that any woman willingly participating in such an arrangement is doing so either as a temporary sowing of wild & rebellious oats, or, more likely, as a means to an end: to appeal to the object of her desire so that she can eventually “win” him — so she can marry him and have a family!

    There are so many pronouncements here about What Women Want, and What Their Real Intentions Are — what, did I not get The Woman Memo? Do I need to update my contact information? I just find it very curious that, as a female living in a major metropolitan area, the overwhelming majority of women I’ve encountered in my life have been quite vocal about their fervent desire to marry & have a traditional nuclear family — indeed, most of them regard any woman who doesn’t share those desires as bordering on the deviant.

    I’m finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile the proclamations about women made here with the reality I witness — and experience — on a daily basis, and I can’t help but conclude that there’s some serious Chicken Littling going on around here.

    Like


  77. Clio’s description of the waif was dead on. i dated one once… it was a nightmare. She won in the end i suppose.

    Like


  78. 58 William Newman

    Other people’s ideas can be such an effective shortcut to seeing the patterns that time spent hunting them can be well spent….

    Yes, very good point.

    59 Tupac Chopra

    It’s different for guys.

    *ducks*

    Yeah, not gonna help you much. I’m good at throwing things. 🙂

    Seriously, a man’s dalliances, which are purely sexual more often than not, are nowhere near as destructive to the family unit, and hence society as a whole, as a woman’s are.

    In what way? Give me the Cliff’s Notes version of whatever this Devlin fellow says. From where I’m standing, envy is an extremely destructive force regardless of whether it’s a man or a woman feeling it, and sexual affairs cause as much envy as emotional ones. More, really. People have an easier time forgiving words, thoughts, and feelings than they do actions.

    62 whiskey

    Elizabeth — a large group of unattached men with no real hope of marriage and family is never good for society. NEVER.

    I realize this. Which is why China and at least certain provinces in India (where the birthrate is 3 girls for every 10 boys) warrant wary observation. However, as you astutely point out:

    Note: the nuclear family constrained male and female sexuality.

    That’s the key point: the constraints fell on both sexes. It was fair, and it was effective. If you want to argue that the breakdown of the nuclear family is a bad thing, I’ll agree with you. If you want to argue that certain policies have the (often unintended) effect of discouraging nuclear families, I’ll also agree with you. But the answer isn’t to put all these restrictions on one gender, and to let the other gender roam free to do as it pleases. That’s antithetical to a free society.

    67 Markku

    In the end, it doesn’t matter who is right, only who is left.

    I’ll put my money on the longevity of a free, open, fair, flexible society over a rigidly controlled one any day. The former has the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. The latter does not.

    And what kind of staying power has the Middle East demonstrated? Many of the countries there have existed in their current forms for less than a century. Before that, they were part of Western empires. It’s true that the Middle East was quite powerful during the Middle Ages. Before that…it was part of Western empires. That’s the way history goes. It moves in cycles. The power of various peoples waxes and wanes. There is no “end.”

    Well, unless we’re all swallowed by Europe’s infamous Black Hole Machine. But so far, the Apocalypse is bearing a striking resemblance to everyday life, so I’m not too worried about that.

    76 anonymous

    Everyone thinks they deserve The Best, but it stands to reason that a large segment — of both sexes — is going to have to adjust their expectations, or be disappointed, or be alone.

    Yes, yes, yes. Absolutely. And I don’t have a problem with having high standards. But I have a major problem with people who blame others for their own choices.

    The notion that Women as a group are choosing to “share a few bad boys” is patently absurd….There are so many pronouncements here about What Women Want, and What Their Real Intentions Are — what, did I not get The Women Memo?….I just find it very curious that, as a female living in a major metropolitan area, the overwhelming majority of women I’ve encountered in my life have been quite vocal about their fervent desire to marry & have a traditional nuclear family.

    I must have missed that memo, too. Because I have no use for Bad Boys and want to get married and have children. And I don’t think I’m the exception to the rule.

    Maybe the distributors of this infamous memo sent it to the boys of America, instead of the girls. 🙂

    I can’t help but conclude that there’s some serious Chicken Littling going on around here.

    Yeah, and it’s kind of silly. I mean, if you’re going to Chicken Little, why not go all out? Half-hearted Chicken Littling isn’t nearly as fun as the big time stuff. Why not say we’re not even going to have time to see Western civilization die or be conquered by polygamist terrorist thugs who want to force all those lovely 9s and 10s into veiled harems? Why not talk about how we’re about to be swallowed by a black hole because of some stupid scientists in Europe? 😉

    Like


  79. “My grandmother is Exhibit A with three men leaving her for other women.”

    Uh, did you ever think that maybe she was the problem?

    Like


  80. Question for Clio:

    What do you think are the connections between the waif’s psychology and her often slight frame? Is it that somehow her perceived vulnerability makes her a more enticing target of abuse?

    Like


  81. Dear Hope and Patrick,
    Your debate today somehow reminds Pupu of a piece of truth Roissy presented on the DC Truth Day — “proximity + diversity = war”.

    Like


  82. Therefore, the situation will only get worse, as women have every intention of sharing a few bad boys in various permutations, with a great many young men sitting on the sidelines. Women will just have to endure a lot of misogyny, and fend for themselves. This includes being left alone, helpless, when confronted by attackers in public (as is happening more often), casual disdain in public, and a race to the bottom in testosterone, as seen in any Rap music video.

    Classic beta revenge fantasy — the bitches wouldn’t sleep with me, so society is going to collapse around their ears, and it will all be their fault! Let’s see how they like it then!

    There’s a fair amount of that around here.

    Like


  83. Well, Tupac, many women with slight frames aren’t Waif-Heartbreakers, of course (and many Waifs aren’t Heartbreakers, either). But the W-H is a woman with a particular type of personality – introverted, artistic, melancholy, silent – who happens to have a slight build and has learned to use it in the construction of her “persona”, her public self, esp. in her relations with men.

    Some W-Hs are the targets of abuse, certainly, but the savviest ones (and if she’s a heartbreaker she may well be “savvy”), know enough to leave when a man seems to be getting dangerously angry or possessive. Since they don’t talk much, or try to explain themselves, they can’t be verbally bullied into anything, so they have some defenses against men with overpowering personalities.

    Waifs also have the advantage of not falling in love all that deeply. I don’t know why it is, but this type of woman, in spite of her apparent femininity, is like a man in that when a relationship goes sour, she tends to leave or find a replacement, rather than hang around asking what went wrong.

    Clio

    Like


  84. I just find it very curious that, as a female living in a major metropolitan area, the overwhelming majority of women I’ve encountered in my life have been quite vocal about their fervent desire to marry & have a traditional nuclear family — indeed, most of them regard any woman who doesn’t share those desires as bordering on the deviant.

    There is what women say and what women do. That is what Machiavelli called the effective truth.

    T. from The Rawness dealt with this one here.

    Like


  85. Dear Hope, a good friend told me that she thought I was overreacting too, and pointed out that you are pregnant. And then it hit me:

    I am arguing with a pregnant woman about motherhood.

    Now, aside from the fact that no man has ever won (or even tied) an argument with a pregnant woman about motherhood, why on earth would I be so touchy about your response?

    I feel abashed at my overemotional bleatings at you. And I must say as well that I repudiate utterly my comment about snuggies. Though I can still make a case that it was legitimate if I were to argue like a lawyer, it was clearly too much like saying that a mother who marries a man who can provide for her children is a golddigger.

    Not only do I not believe that personally, it is a repulsive thing to suggest, and you were right to call me on it. I’m sorry I made the statment. The grain of truth buried in it was under too big a pile of manure to be salvaged.

    I do continue to entertain the possibility that you might come to believe that I did not mean that interpretation, that it was not an accurate reflection of me as a person. I really am a pretty good guy. But I can no longer blame you at all for taking the statement that way.

    It’s odd: I have been very pre-occupied lately with questions of birth and children and responsibility. I was inordinately happy for you when you said that you were expecting (I mean c’mon! I don’t even know you!), some friends are expecting very soon and I’m more nervous about the upcoming birth than they are, I find myself massively protective toward those friends of mine who are mothers (and to their children). I dunno. I’ve got some bee in my bonnet about kids and moms and birth these days.

    So when you said I was putting down mothers, I took it the completely wrong way. That’s what hurt. It’s absurd, but that’s how I took it.

    My friend, a wise soul, calmed me down and helped me see your side. I blushed when I realized how reasonable you were to interpret what I said the way you interpreted it.

    So I take back (all the way back!) my snuggies comment. I won’t repudiate everything about the post. But I think I won’t mention anything about it again for a while at least. That seems wise at least, if not brave.

    My friend also suggested I might want to get some sleep.

    You know, I think she’s got a good idea there. I’m off to bed.

    Sleep well yourself, Hope.
    Patrick

    Like


  86. I have never had to deal with the gold digger type, but I have spent the better part of my adult life dealing with variously different waifs/neurotics. I wish I knew in my twenties what I know today- I would probably have had a more satisfying and happier romantic life.

    That was all good advice, Roissy.

    Like


  87. PatrickH 85–

    Good post.

    You may have temporarily blown a fuse, but really, so what.

    You’re a good guy with lots of good insights and intelligence, from where I sit.

    Like


  88. I think we were discussing what’s good for society. But as many have pointed out, a traditional marriage actually is what makes most men happy.

    Of course, the question that remains is if men are really happy when they’re tied down to a wife and children with minimal sex. Personally, I don’t see how that’s possible, but I’d love for somebody to explain the benefits of such an arrangement over remaining a single bachelor where sex is easily accessible from numerous women, and income is free to be used on any personal endeavor without much in the way of restrictions.

    Regardless, if one subscribes to the belief that traditional marriage is best, but women are more attracted to alphas, doesn’t it essentially turn women into the golddiggers that we frequently complain about? Is it better for everybody to live a lie where men think their wives love them, and women pretend to love their husbands for non-financial reasons? If most men were to find out that their wives were only sticking around for the money, would they leave their wives, or would they stay in their sexless loveless marriages?

    Uh, did you ever think that maybe she was the problem?

    In the case of the first male, she was in her mid-teens and he was considerably older, and yet somehow, the Gannon theory of long-term bonding didn’t hold up, and the guy knocked her up and fled. In the case of the second male, my grandfather, he went on to have 20 more kids with several women in the town. Given that there were other women of my grandmother’s age group who dealt with similar issues, I would suspect that the men’s freedom played a role…

    Like


  89. on September 17, 2008 at 4:55 am Comment_Since_When

    Hope 34:
    ****
    It may be tiny in impact, but it’s the same kind of hatred being spoken. Fight fire with fire, violence with violence, an eye for an eye, etc. right? When has that worked for relations between sexes? After the power struggle, who emerges as the victorious party? The answer is neither the man nor the woman.
    ****
    Yeah, I think that the BEST WAY to ensure reasonable behaviour is to guarentee to the other party that you’ll be reasonable and sane and nice NO MATTER WHAT SHIT THEY PULL. I think that is the most stupid advice I have ever heard ever.

    That said, everyone needs to avoid being sucked into female “drama”.

    Agnostic 43:
    ****
    Oh, wah wah wah. Your parents’ generation probably were a bunch of losers, but they didn’t raise you — you never paid them attention, except to laugh at how dopey they were. It’s your own cohort or peer group that socializes you.
    ****
    Ever heard of a thing called School? You do know what that is, Agnostic, don’t you? It’s a place your required to go and deal with whatever behaviour feminist teachers want to engage in with the active support of the government. Modern school is also a new invention that didn’t exist in the 1950s. Schools were FAR FAR smaller and FAR FAR more locally, as opposed to State/Federal government controlled back then.

    I think the best answer to this is to say “well you aren’t in school 24/7, so it has no effect”.

    Like


  90. @62

    The interesting thing is that the only Western society that broke down (former Yugoslavia) did not do so on the West African model, but in a misogynist frenzy of rape-slave camps, forced births, foreign object rapes and genital mutilations, as well as explicit genocide of males. Kill. Burn. Rape. Mutilate. Force them to bear your new warriors.

    I come from the deepest, darkest heart of the Middle East, having looked twice into a man’s eyes (and once into a woman’s) before they blew themselves up, and even there there were two functioning societies, pledged to each others’ destruction, sure, but coexisting, and with artisanal (as opposed to industrial) mistreatment of women.

    It seems that something about Yugoslavia (either socialist liberation of women or its position in the industrial West or the post-God cynicism of 40-odd years of collectivism or more likely all three together) exploded sufficiently to scare the $#^! out of a veteran Israeli when I saw it in ’95. Such a mess that NATO allowed Croatia to do ANYTHING it wanted to tie up the loose ends, with full intelligence and reconnaissance support from NATO and US contractors.

    Like


  91. on September 17, 2008 at 5:12 am Comment_The_Men_You_See

    76 anonymous
    ****
    Yeah, none of this could possibly have anything to do with the fact that most men — regardless of their station in life — turn up their noses at the prospect of being seen with anything less than a 7, could it?
    ****
    anonymous simply needs to remove her “visual filters” where she can only see single men she want to have sex with, are family, or she needs for some reason.

    It IS true that the alphas anonymous wants to sleep with won’t settle for a 6. It is because they have alot of 7s, some 8s, and a few 9s and 10s after them right now.

    Now, the Loser men anonymous can’t see? Well, that’s different.

    Like


  92. 74 Patrick H

    If you’re still so afraid of simple human feeling that you start smirking all over someone for admitting to it, then maybe you’ve got some crap still bunged up inside you that you need to get extruded out your pores.

    It’s just the drama I was laughing at. You two can fight amongst yourselves.

    Like


  93. Anonymous —

    You are arguing with the wrong person here. I am well known for my view that for most men, there is no functional difference in beauty between an attractive and “beautiful” woman. I would not know what a “7” or a “10” is anyway. Many men would actually prefer a less classically beautiful woman, on the notion that she would be less prone to drama, and require less attention to keep satisfied versus other men and alternatives.

    This is why, generally speaking, men prefer Mary Ann over Ginger. The commercial was funny because it was true. Unfortunately now Mary Ann prefers … the bad boy Alpha. Will share him too.

    More to the point, the illegitimate birth rate in 1965 for whites was 4%. In 2006 it was 41%. The sales of the PUA books is skyrocketing (they are very popular in Sweden, see the Rawness blog) around the world. The majority of births in the UK and Scandi nations are illegitimate. The STD rate in NYC is far above that of the national rate, and the number of partners far above the national average, with many women confessing Sex and the City numbers, around 40-60. This data does indeed confirm the thesis that women in urban centers share a few bad boys. [Note it might be different in places like Kansas City, or St. Louis, but that’s not the case in the major urban centers like NYC.]

    Indeed, with too many partners, men and women (but particularly women) cannot form bonds, based on oxytocin released during sex, and regular, repeated intimacy when both are most attractive (early 20’s). Women with many sex partners in her past — the risk of STDs which affect the ability to conceive and carry to term, and birth defects, is greatly enhanced as is the simple probability of continued promiscuity as a matter of habit. This is why men always multiply the true number of partners by three (to exaggerate their desirability by other women) and women divide their true number of partners by three (to conceal their past liasons which reduce their desireability).

    How a woman will win a man by sleeping around I don’t know.

    Women after spending their twenties banging the bad boys may want to get married, but their ability to do so is limited. They are not as attractive, fertile, or generally nice as they were ten years ago (relationship baggage makes them bitter and angry, and with no slack for their intendeds). They have many partners, making forming a bond difficult and have “lost years” that could have been spent bonding, but were instead spent looking for Mr. Goodbar. This is probably a reason why divorce rates are so high: women delay marriage until they end up with a man they cannot really bond with, and one they don’t really desire (settling as they age). There’s enough Census Bureau data on marriage and divorce to support this thesis — that wealth = earlier marriage, which in turn promotes lesser amounts of divorce as partners bond intensely during prime sexual years.

    This factor (women delay marriage until they can only really have one child) is probably also the reason for the startling decline in fertility.

    Elizabeth — I agree that both sexes would have to have constraints. It will not happen, because of numbers, and so women will just have to live with (this yes sadly includes Anon and yourself) ever increasing misogyny, as the very predictable result of many men without women. It is not your fault but is the result of the aggregate choices of women.

    Europe is not reproducing, it will be all Muslim in 40 years or less. England has just made Sharia Law the official law of the land, enforceable by all the courts. That’s not a joke either. Manpower, and willingness to use violence matters. Muslim nations that have winner take all have a huge manpower pool of unattached men willing and able to conquer “weak” nations to take their women. The sexual assault epidemics against Swedish women by Muslim immigrants, and the replication of that in other European nations is indicative. As is the total lack of response by native European men. Who have no stake in the matter — they don’t have girlfriends/wives, or sisters (only child families, remember).

    It’s a bit better in the US. Here the future will be speaking Spanish. With the mores and attitudes towards women of Mexico. Roles available to women in the future: wife, girlfriend, mistress, hooker, mother. That’s it.

    So much for your free society if it does not … reproduce.

    This is why the Romans eventually fell: not enough Romans. The Greeks too. “Too much” freedom for women = barbarian conquest. Which in turn equals none at all for women. Buenos Tardes!

    Like


  94. This is probably a reason why divorce rates are so high: women delay marriage until they end up with a man they cannot really bond with, and one they don’t really desire (settling as they age).

    i agree with much of what u just wrote in post 93. i would simply elaborate on this point above. since women don’t bond to their men as easily, they are the ones who will likely instigate the divorce. stats, in fact, bear out that women file for divorce in America about 70-75% of the time. even if men don’t bond as easily for the reasons u’ve enunciated, they aren’t filing for divorce as often as womyn.

    There’s enough Census Bureau data on marriage and divorce to support this thesis — that wealth = earlier marriage, which in turn promotes lesser amounts of divorce as partners bond intensely during prime sexual years.

    seriously, explain this wealth component of marriage and divorce b/c i didn’t follow.

    The sexual assault epidemics against Swedish women by Muslim immigrants, and the replication of that in other European nations is indicative. As is the total lack of response by native European men. Who have no stake in the matter — they don’t have girlfriends/wives, or sisters (only child families, remember).

    i agree 100% with this, too. chivalry requires gratitude- as does the prevention of rape epidemics.

    another outstanding comment by whiskey as usual.

    Like


  95. @86 Yancey – I could sign under your words, date waifs/neurotics all the time and am in my twenties. How do you think this knowledge would have helped you then?

    @90 Eurosabra – How do you get to look into a suicide bomber’s eyes? What’s the story? Saper et hasipur shelha )

    Like


  96. @ 93 Whiskey

    Per your theory, women are generally only attracted to alpha males with no other factors involved. Thus, doesn’t that mean if alphas are taken away as an option, women are only going to beta males as de facto golddiggers? Again, is it better for men to be lied to about their wives’ ulterior motives? Or will women magically love their beta boyfriends and future husbands and never desire an alpha?

    This factor (women delay marriage until they can only really have one child) is probably also the reason for the startling decline in fertility.

    Actually, one could argue that a fraction of the human race has become intelligent enough to decide that reproduction *interferes* with a functioning civilization. At this point, the next step is the artificial birth system as specified by Brave New World…

    BTW, remember…
    Louis Vuitton purse > kids
    Nissan GT-R > kids
    vacation to Sandals > kids

    The sexual assault epidemics against Swedish women by Muslim immigrants, and the replication of that in other European nations is indicative.

    Other than having the police look and arrest the offenders with the legal system either imprisoning or deporting him back to his home nation, what else could be done? Do you want people running around beating up random Muslims hoping that you’ll magically find the rapist? Hell, we don’t even do that (anymore) in the US with black men who rape white women…

    Like


  97. In the end, it doesn’t matter who is right, only who is left.

    I’ll put my money on the longevity of a free, open, fair, flexible society over a rigidly controlled one any day. The former has the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. The latter does not.

    A society that fails to reproduce is certain to vanish. And if any other society adopts our liberal and englightened social mores, they will disappear, too.


    And what kind of staying power has the Middle East demonstrated? Many of the countries there have existed in their current forms for less than a century. Before that, they were part of Western empires. It’s true that the Middle East was quite powerful during the Middle Ages. Before that…it was part of Western empires. That’s the way history goes. It moves in cycles. The power of various peoples waxes and wanes. There is no “end.”

    One thing you should understand about the Middle East is that countries there (except for Israel) are irrelevant. The Gulf countries are all clan societies.

    You should note that societies like Saudi Arabia are capable of maintaining a high fertility rate in spite of all their wealth and urbanisation, both of which are poison to fertility everywhere else.

    Like


  98. Given that there were other women of my grandmother’s age group who dealt with similar issues, I would suspect that the men’s freedom played a role…

    The only men whose sexual freedom needs any curtailment are the alphas. Betas have little in the way of choice in the first place.

    Like


  99. DA, you should have your own website/blog.

    You always have a refreshing point of view and incredible self honesty.

    “The only men whose sexual freedom needs any curtailment are the alphas. Betas have little in the way of choice in the first place.”

    Most guys I know that are normal looking have had 2 or 3 girlfriends by the time they are 23, so they are tasting the fruits of sexual freedom too. Note, these are not hunks or alphas, just normal guys, 6’s.

    I do not see droves of male 6’s in their mid twenties proposing to female 6’s and being rejected. I do see young 6’s and older guys who were once 9’s but slid down with age make a fool of themselves in front of young female 9’s. I also see male 6’s having female 6’s as girlfriends and not being in a hurry to marry them and have children. The same with male 9’s and female 9’s. When the men in these couples are eager to settle down, the women follow suit most of the time. A good portion of people still marry in their early twenties, so it is not impossible.

    Female 9’s would generally get married at 24 if a male 9 proposed to them, but if they only get an offer from a 6 or from a guy who was past his prime, most of them will rather wait for a better offer even if that means taking the risk of not having a family.

    You can whine that the 9 is not accepting the offers she is getting, but you leave her choice to her and see how you can make the choices that give you a better chance of accomplishing your goal. If that is getting married, then choosing to date girls in your own league may help you find women more responsive to your advances. Even a beta has that choice if he looks at the choices he has rather than focussing on the choices he lacks.

    The guys who wanted to date but never had a girl by the age of 25, are either 6’s who want 9’s, guys under a 4, I guess the omegas, or 6’s who want a very specific sort of 7.

    Of course, if you are a 6 and want to go after 9’s, this is also fine, just realise that the risks of losing are much larger at that game and take responsibility for your decision.

    Like


  100. P.S.

    but you leave==you can also leave

    Like


  101. – Clio’s description of the waif was dead on. i dated one once… it was a nightmare.

    No one can say they’ve seen it all unless they dated a Waif-Neurotic. I once dated a W-N that was also an energy vampire. It was a most bizarre and exhausting couple of weeks of my life.

    I’ll second those who wish they had read Roissy’s material 10 or so years ago. Like I wrote before, those guys here who are in their teens and early 20s have no idea how lucky they are to have access to this stuff. Those of us 30+ years old, for the most part, had to figure out this stuff on our own.

    – “Too much” freedom for women = barbarian conquest. Which in turn equals none at all for women.

    I have to say that Whiskey is onto something, and it makes me think twice about things like rapes in Sweden or the VT shooting. Inthe past I’ve reacted to these things with the standard “what a bunch of cowards” line.

    But now, while not excusing cowardice, I can see how a young man with nothing invested in his society, and with no apparent prospects for female companionship, will think himself a fool to risk prison (in Sweden) or charge a gunman (at VT) in defense of women that aren’t “his” in any meaningful sense.

    – women are generally only attracted to alpha males with no other factors involved. Thus, doesn’t that mean if alphas are taken away as an option, women are only going to beta males as de facto golddiggers?

    I agree that women are only attracted to Alphas and their marriage to Betas is usually one of opportunism. But for these purposes I define Alphas as men who carry themselves like men (not just PUAs or thugs, who are a very small subset of Alpha), and Betas as men who are weak and make no effort to improve themselves.

    Like


  102. 84: There is what women say and what women do. That is what Machiavelli called the effective truth.

    No, my point is that if this theory of women wanting to share a few choice men had any validity, I, as a 34-year-old single female in a large Eastern city, would have encountered it, in word or deed, at least occasionally. That I have not, even once in my life suggests to me that this “women’s mindset” is not as pervasive as is being promoted here, regardless of what statistics are quoted.

    91: anonymous simply needs to remove her “visual filters” where she can only see single men she want to have sex with, are family, or she needs for some reason. It IS true that the alphas anonymous wants to sleep with won’t settle for a 6. It is because they have alot of 7s, some 8s, and a few 9s and 10s after them right now.

    Actually, I’ve been quite forthcoming on here about my status as a 6 (if that!) and I’ve never had any interest in so-called alphas, so save your ad hominem attack. I am not to blame. (In fact I vastly select for nerdy guys who would not be considered traditionally handsome. You’d call them betas; I don’t.) The problem is that it’s not just the so-called alphas who expect to be surrounded with 8s, 9s, and 10s: it’s pretty much every guy out there. The “I can do better than her” mindset has been drastically accelerated by the advent of things like online dating, which seems to be functioning primarily as a smorgasboard for men, making them increasingly picky. Which they’re becoming, as they are glutted with women to choose from, and eliminate them on the basis of standards that they themselves don’t qualify for.

    Not every guy is going to end up with an 8. But if they’re all competing for the 8s, that’s not my fault, speaking as a 6. If you don’t want women like me, then fine, and also: fuck you! I’ll have someone who cares about me, or I’ll have nobody at all — I am totally cool with that. But don’t trot out the ridiculousness that only women are aiming out of their league and that’s the source of The End of Civilization as we know it.

    93: Many men would actually prefer a less classically beautiful woman, on the notion that she would be less prone to drama, and require less attention to keep satisfied versus other men and alternatives.

    Spoken like someone who has neither gone out with, nor been rejected by, any men recently. I know how anecdotal evidence goes over like a lead balloon around here, but speaking as a woman with first-hand experience dating men, I have some insight on this that you are not capable of.

    What men say they want and what they actually want? Are not the same thing. Women don’t have a corner on the inconsistency market, fellas.

    The sales of the PUA books is skyrocketing (they are very popular in Sweden, see the Rawness blog) around the world.

    If that is the case, kindly never darken my monitor again with the assertion that women are solely responsible for The Decline of Civilization. If they’re making poor choices, they’re not making them alone.

    Women after spending their twenties banging the bad boys may want to get married, but their ability to do so is limited…

    Oh, for the love of whatever deity you believe in, can we PLEASE dispense with the notion that all women have squandered their youths fucking hot cretins til the cows came home?? Jesus Christ, you guys — many of us NEVER HAD THAT OPTION EVEN WHEN WE WERE YOUNGER, and WOULDN’T HAVE ACTED UPON IT EVEN IF WE DID!

    Who are these rutting whores? They certainly weren’t anyone I knew back in the day, dried-up crone that I am.

    94: chivalry requires gratitude

    Honor does not. Honor perpetuates itself, not because it gets positive feedback.

    Things are going to hell in a bucket because our society — and I’m including both genders here, mind — has a drastic, catastrophically outsized sense of entitlement. We are spoiled, and it is manifesting itself in a million kinds of bad behavior. That’s not something that falls under the jurisdiction of women alone, and personally, I believe the damage is done long, long before any of us reach dating age.

    I’ve said it before and been laughed at, but it’s a character issue. So is the financial crisis going on around us. We’re the spoiled brats of the planet, and we’re heading into a comeuppance, not undeservedly.

    This “War Between the Sexes”? It’s a symptom, not the disease.

    Like


  103. on September 17, 2008 at 12:18 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    The only men whose sexual freedom needs any curtailment are the alphas.

    Heavens forfend. I couldn’t live in a society on this rock, if alpha’s were sexually curtailed, they would fall into open warfare all too readily.

    I move we thin the alpha/beta herd with a third world war. And roll back the advancing AOC laws (which are progressing on their way to making it 21 years)

    We need more child brides, and fewer menfolks.

    100 women to 10 men is a starting offer…

    Perhaps sharia law isn’t such a bad thing.

    Like


  104. Hi. Marlowe here. As to femmes fatales, I think I pretty well covered that. Remember what I said about blondes? In case you have forgotten:

    There are blondes and there are blondes and it is almost a joke word nowadays. All blondes have their points, except perhaps the metallic ones who are as blonde as a Zulu under the bleach and as to disposition as soft as a sidewalk. There is a small cute blonde who cheeps and twitters, and the big statuesque blonde who straight arms you with an ice-blue glare. There is the blonde who gives you the up-from-under look and smells lovely and shimmers and hangs on your arm and is always very very tired when you take her home. She makes that helpless gesture and has that goddamned headache and you would like to slug her except that you are glad you found out about the headache before you invested too much time and money and hope in her. Because the headache will always be there, a weapon that never wears out and is as deadly as the bravo’s rapier or Lucrezia’s poison vial.

    There is the soft and willing and alcoholic blonde who doesn’t care what she wears as long as it is mink or where she goes as long as it is the Starlight Roof and there is plenty of dry champagne. There is the small perky blonde who is a little pal and wants to pay her own way and is full of sunshine and common sense and knows judo from the ground up and can toss a truck driver over shoulder without missing more than one sentence out of the editorial in the Saturday Review. There is the pale, pale blonde with anemia of some non-fatal but incurable type. She is very languid and very shadowy and she speaks softly out of nowhere and you can’t lay a finger on her because in the first place you don’t want to and in the second place she is reading The Waste Land or Dante in the original, or Kafka or Kierkegaard or studying Provencal. She adores music and when the New York Philharmonic is playing Hindemith she can tell you which one of the six bass viols came in a quarter of a beat too late. I hear Toscanini can also. That makes two of them.

    And lastly there is the gorgeous show piece who will outlast three kingpin racketeers and then marry a couple of millionaires at a million a head and end up with a pale rose villa at Cap Antibes, an Alfa-Romeo town car complete with pilot and co-pilot, and a stable of shopworn aristocrats, all of whom she will treat with the affectionate absent-mindedness of an elderly duke saying goodnight to his butler.

    — The Long Goodbye, 1953

    Like


  105. Honor does not. Honor perpetuates itself, not because it gets positive feedback.

    show me any evidence whatsoever for this comforting lie. human behavior, honor or evil, is subject to the same basic laws:
    1) positive reinforcements stimulate behavior
    2) negative reinforcements retard behavior

    take a course in human psychology 101 from any community college, and they’ll tell you the same thing. a myriad of human (or even animal) behavioral research is premised around and supported by these two laws.

    that is the basis of the criminal justice system and any other institution you can name. you may want the vast bulk of beta males who aren’t getting anything from women to ‘rise up’ and defend the honor of these same womyn. as we can see from the rape epidemics of europe, that isn’t exactly happening.

    your contention is an absurd yet comforting lie.

    Like


  106. Heavens forfend. I couldn’t live in a society on this rock, if alpha’s were sexually curtailed, they would fall into open warfare all too readily.

    whiskey’s shown a lot of historical precedent that societies get violent and invent more violent inventions when the more numerous betas are marginalized or enticed to create these inventions, rather than the alpha males.

    Like


  107. btw, if honor simply perpetuates itself automatically, do u think that all the guys that didn’t want to date u (a self- described ‘6’) were ‘honorable?’

    Like


  108. I do not see droves of male 6’s in their mid twenties proposing to female 6’s and being rejected. I

    Exactly, they’re off your radar.

    That there are many (in absolute terms) of male 6’s in marriage-bound LTRs with female 6’s, both in their mid twenties, does not mean that there can’t be lots of female 6’s clinging to male 7’s or 8’s in relationships that are going exactly nowhere (there are). (In contrast, there are virtually no sexual relationships of any type between female 8’s and male 6’s at least if explicit monetary compensation is not taking place.)

    Pre-menopausal women’s aggregate sexual market value is higher than that of men. Around the middle of the distribution, pussy is far more valuable than cock. A female 6 in her mid twenties has the same absolute market value as a male 8 in his mid twenties. Men’s sexual market value only exceeds that of their female counterparts somewhere above the 95th percentile (each evaluated in comparison to members of their own sex). At the bottom, the situation is reversed.

    Like


  109. To dougjnn at 21:
    Men are not being beaten down in America for being too mannish. When I see the high school cheerleaders dumping the hot quarterback for the drama kid who can sew an “awesome” costume, then I might agree. But half of the complaints on this blog deal with women going for the “alphas”, or the most mannish of the bunch of men, and the more feminine betas losing out in the dating game. In fact, most of this advice is for men to “man it up” a bit.

    General Comment:

    I totes agree with Anon-57 at 102. The most common problem that I see in this city from men who complain, are ones who consistently aim for women who are not interested in them because those women ARE getting better long term offers thrown at them. I’m also suspecting the concept of these women “banging lots of fictional bad boys”. How many people on this blog are actually in daily familial contact with these bad boys and their legions of conquests? If this conclusion is brought about by observing the hottest women in the room all being hit on by high-competition men (but the observer having no realistic chance at return of affection), then I only sense anger at not having access to “that hottie”. If she was having lots of “relations” with the observer (who may not be willing to offer LTR either), the bad boy anger wouldn’t be there, b/c you’d be sharing in the spoils.

    Former model friend does get approached when out by random dudes all the time, who get visibly upset when she’s not interested (BTW, she’s in a LT relationship). Even SHE says that these men don’t seem to approach women who are attainable for them. They flit from the hottest women in the room, one after another, and then eye the women angrily when they accept attention from a better prospect. Do they approach the average looking women? Yep, at the end of the night. I’ve yet to see male friends be consistently rejected by average looking women.

    Like


  110. on September 17, 2008 at 3:15 pm Usually Lurking

    I do not see droves of male 6’s in their mid twenties proposing to female 6’s and being rejected.

    But you do see girls divorcing and/or cheating on their 6 of a husband.

    I also see male 6’s having female 6’s as girlfriends and not being in a hurry to marry them and have children.

    Which makes a lot of sense.

    Like


  111. “I’m also suspecting the concept of these women “banging lots of fictional bad boys”. How many people on this blog are actually in daily familial contact with these bad boys and their legions of conquests?”

    Excellent question!

    “That there are many (in absolute terms) of male 6’s in marriage-bound LTRs with female 6’s, both in their mid twenties, does not mean that there can’t be lots of female 6’s clinging to male 7’s or 8’s in relationships that are going exactly nowhere (there are). ”

    The women do not know which relationships are marriage bound and which are not, unless we are talking about engaged couples. Especially very young women do not know the difference. If would be nice if they learned to see the difference, though. I feel sad for the women who are in relationships that go nowhere and do not know better. I also feel sad if there are men who cannot find a wife because of that.

    The men that are going after women out of their league may not be having sex with them, but they are not open to asking out female sixes, so they do contribute to less dating opportunities for female sixes.

    I am aware that some 6’s are engaged to eachother, this shows that the men who aim within their league do regularly find succes with that.

    “Pre-menopausal women’s aggregate sexual market value is higher than that of men. Around the middle of the distribution, pussy is far more valuable than cock. A female 6 in her mid twenties has the same absolute market value as a male 8 in his mid twenties. Men’s sexual market value only exceeds that of their female counterparts somewhere above the 95th percentile (each evaluated in comparison to members of their own sex). At the bottom, the situation is reversed.”

    Cock is cheap, because most women are repulsed by the idea of sleeping with tons of anonymous ‘cocks’. It makes sense that the few women who are truly interested in no strings attached sex are looking to do so with the men who are best at that. Why on earth would a woman looking for just sex do it with a stable 32yo banker with a potbelly?

    I suspect what the men here are complaining about is not that a male 6 cannot marry a female 6, but that a male 6 cannot get anonymous sex with female 6’s, or large amounts of semicasual girlfriends. That sucks! It also sucks that female sixes do not have an army of men to buy them perfume and pearls. But hey, that’s life!

    Or is it truly difficult for an average looking man with a decent job and personality to find an average looking, pleasant woman of his own age to marry?

    “But you do see girls divorcing and/or cheating on their 6 of a husband.”

    What makes you think I have seen that in large numbers?

    Like


  112. @95 Sonchay

    It’s really simple, the distance-squared law and stuff in the way. Once there was the bar of a restaurant in the way. The second time there were people in the way, and I only got one small piece of metal. The third time, I was at the back of the shoe store and her handbag snagged on the door, and the fourth and fifth I don’t count because I only saw and heard the flash from a few doors down. “Birkat HaGomel” at the synagogue the next Shabbat and get on with life. And that’s not counting the ones I responded to as an EMT. I want it to end so very badly, without getting too much into the politics. Oddly, a not-insignificant number of the Israeli women I’ve been with have also been terror survivors.

    @76 anonymous

    As the poster most likely to fit into the category you describe, I would say that besides the normal rejoinder that you’re saying “Don’t you people know your place?”, there is also a rather interesting theory from Amanda Marcotte that sex is a collaborationist effort, something like music, rather than something “taken”, “earned”, or “achieved.” Thing is, the women with many options didn’t get the memo, and most men have a lived experience of “never having had that option.” Like 80% of men, whereas almost any woman can reliably find a partner. (I have a visible disability and some eye and hearing impairment from the bombings, and in general my experience dating both disabled women (and able ones) bears this out. Being blown up affects your appearance, and mobile women with burns, scars, patchy hair, etc. had much worse dating outcomes than women who looked “normal” but were missing a limb. So it’s distance from the “ideal” rather than “wholeness” that seems to dominate the observer’s mind.) It’s an extreme case but even at the extremes, women have an easier time of it. Masculinity is performative, and one of the things you have to demonstrate from a wheelchair is the capacity to perform–in work, social, and sexual life.

    Like


  113. 107: btw, if honor simply perpetuates itself automatically, do u think that all the guys that didn’t want to date u (a self- described ‘6′) were ‘honorable?’

    Whether or not they want to date me has nothing whatsoever to do with their honor. So no, not wanting to date me does not automatically make them dishonorable.

    Like


  114. It strikes me that every woman talking on this blog makes perfect sense and agrees with everything Roissy says if we make this simple change:

    Take the number they give for the woman and subtract 1

    Take the number they give for the man and add 1

    Then it all makes sense.

    And if we assume these numbers are Percentile attractiveness, I’m sure that’s exactly what we will find.

    PS:
    A guy I know down the street with a family goes to another state to visit his illegitimate daughter of a woman he banged and abandoned from time to time. He is a sneak, and a thief. That would kind of be like, “where I saw it” girls.

    Like


  115. @111 Yours Truly

    Yes, hypergamy is killing the Jewish community in the USA, whose population will drop by 50% in the next 25 years. Jewish women in their 30s are increasingly unmarried, because they choose to go without rather than marry the average man. This may have to do with daddy issues and not wanting to become their mothers as well. Meanwhile, I would say that your observations about “leagues” only apply to women who are at the extremes, while men in the middle tend to fall two points lower (i.e. male 6s clock in with female 4s, which they resent, as the men are merely average, whereas the women are visibly ugly.) Bear in mind that I think that a certain amount of masculine entitlement is a good thing, because men HAVE to initiate in a heteronormative system for there to BE a sexual relationship.

    Like


  116. If you’re only honorable when you get props for it, then YOU’RE NOT REALLY HONORABLE. Come on, now, you understand the concept; it’s certainly tied up enough with the concept of the ideal Man’s Man so often bandied around here. It means you don’t lie, you don’t steal, you don’t pass other people’s work off as your own, you don’t use other people or cheat them. If you’re stronger, you don’t beat up the weaker just because you can; if you’re smarter, you don’t fleece the less-smart simply because you can. You treat people with respect, not useful only as a source of money, or gifts, or pussy. You do what’s right simply because you know it’s right, not because of the repercussions if you should get caught doing wrong.

    Yes, it’s a difficult — and consequently unpopular — path. Nobody said it isn’t.

    Like


  117. […] 17, 2008 by roissy Today I will continue building on yesterday’s post and discuss how to defend yourself against the next femme fatale in Clio’s list. (As per M. […]

    Like


  118. Take the number they give for the woman and subtract 1. Take the number they give for the man and add 1.

    …will drop by 50% in the next 25 years.

    As the poster most likely to fit into the category you describe..

    … estimate their numbers in the general population of bangable women at around 15%.

    …and they are usually 8s and up

    “proximity + diversity = war”

    A female 6 in her mid twenties has the same absolute market value as a male 8 in his mid twenties

    Men’s sexual market value only exceeds that of their female counterparts somewhere above the 95th percentile (each evaluated in comparison to members of their own sex). At the bottom, the situation is reversed.

    You guys are so ridiculous. Literally, you conduct your lives using only half of your brain and none of your heart. Is it possible to use both in conjunction with each other, or is that too complicated for someone with half a brain?

    Like


  119. Or is it truly difficult for an average looking man with a decent job and personality to find an average looking, pleasant woman of his own age to marry?

    Yes, it is much more difficult than it used to be 30 years ago, if that average looking man is a beta. Also, the quality and stability of marriages for beta males have declined. Opportunities for casual sex and stringing along decent looking women, sometimes in concurrent relationships have vastly increased for alphas. Higher betas have been forced to settle for uglier/more unpleasant women as LTR partners. Many lower betas have been forced to join the ranks of omegas.

    Like


  120. What I am calling a 6 is the average boy or girl inside a hall full of students at a business lecture. (Trying not to pic a course that attracts an unusually pretty or ugly crowd.) I’m assuming the 1’s are deformed people who are not often seen in normal places and the lecture hall contains people from 2 to ten, most being 5, 6, or 7 in looks.

    Of course, average in my city may not be average in yours.

    Eurosabra, would you show me a picture of what you consider a male 6, a female 6, a male and female 8 and a male and female 4, all college age people, so we can get on the same page?

    “Bear in mind that I think that a certain amount of masculine entitlement is a good thing, because men HAVE to initiate in a heteronormative system for there to BE a sexual relationship.”

    It would be good if men had good hope to find an appropriate women so that they would chat up enough women in their league to find a girl to marry. I guess some men seem to have too much confidence and others too little.

    Like


  121. And if we assume these numbers are Percentile attractiveness, I’m sure that’s exactly what we will find.

    I’m sure you meant deciles instead of percentiles.

    Like


  122. @118

    Actually, I’m probably the softie here, although my dating life is indeed the “wanting more but falling between the cracks” model proposed. I cherish the women I date, based on the intangibles of spirit, will, warmth etc. Just to give you an idea, the last three women I dated either had visible scars or was awaiting surgery to correct a major injury from a bombing, and two of them were overweight. This is just Internet Dating selection bias, but I’ve been with outliers so often that I’m regularly accused of being a fetishist. When in fact it’s self-selection bias–“normal” women ran when I told them my story, or of the depression that followed, or ran when I brushed it off with “I don’t like to talk about my injury” because they felt I was “hiding a dark secret”. I’ve always been a tremendous extrovert, so really my life has been shaped by women’s selection bias–the “friend” of 7s and up, a potential lover for 5s and down (see Roissy’s examples on this site, so we’ll be on the “same page.”) I’ve been to parties where I literally could only start a conversation with the chick who was being approached by NO ONE, because the rest felt they could “do better” and walked away upon hearing me open a conversation. Jewish women have more serious entitlement issues than other communities, it seems.

    And, well, I know my own capacity for cruelty and am trying to eliminate it.

    Like


  123. 88 David Alexander

    Regardless, if one subscribes to the belief that traditional marriage is best, but women are more attracted to alphas, doesn’t it essentially turn women into the golddiggers that we frequently complain about?

    Especially since curtailing women’s sexual freedom would require curtailing their economic freedom, if the restrictions were to have any teeth….

    Is it better for everybody to live a lie where men think their wives love them, and women pretend to love their husbands for non-financial reasons?

    David Alexander, the resounding silence with which your very sensible question has been met leads me to believe that some of the commenters here might not really care about love, only sex. They apparently want a woman who can only have sex with them (without, apparently, a reciprocal duty of fidelity, since it is only women who must be curtailed). They want a sex slave, not a wife. So it doesn’t really matter what she feels, as long as she puts out to him and only him.

    93 whiskey

    Women after spending their twenties banging the bad boys may want to get married, but their ability to do so is limited. They are not as attractive, fertile, or generally nice as they were ten years ago….They have many partners, making forming a bond difficult and have “lost years” that could have been spent bonding, but were instead spent looking for Mr. Goodbar. This is probably a reason why divorce rates are so high: women delay marriage until they end up with a man they cannot really bond with, and one they don’t really desire (settling as they age). There’s enough Census Bureau data on marriage and divorce to support this thesis — that wealth = early marriage, which in turn promotes lesser amounts of divorce as partners bond intensely during their prime sexual years.

    Could you point me in the direction of analysis of these statistics, whiskey? I’d be interested to see them, because all I can find at the Census Bureau’s website are Excel sheets (which I’m horrible at reading — I need the analysis, not the raw numbers!), and what you’re saying contradicts the research I’ve seen in the area. According to the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, which specializes in research in these areas, people who marry later and are college-educated have a significantly lower divorce rate than those who marry young. The divorce rate is highest for lower-class people who marry young. According to researchers at the project, “The weakening of marriage and the resultant growth of family diversity thus is found much more prominently among those with less education and associated lower incomes.” There is indeed a “marriage gap” between older, well-educated people and younger, less-educated ones, but it’s the older, educated ones who stay married when they get married.

    Not to say that the picture is all rosy for college graduates who don’t get married — almost a quarter of female college graduates still don’t have any children by their early forties. So infertility is a problem for that segment of society. But the inability to get married and stay married isn’t. Here’s a 2007 fact sheet from the National Marriage Project if you’re interested, and here’s their website. Their publications are quite interesting, if you’re into that sort of thing.

    Elizabeth — I agree that both sexes would have to have constraints. It will not happen, because of numbers, and so women will just have to live with (this yes sadly includes you and Anon) ever increasing misogyny, as the very predictable result of many men without women. It is not your fault but is the result of the aggregate choices of women.

    I haven’t really experienced misogyny, even though I work in what is still a pretty male-dominated field, but then, I live in a pretty conservative “red” state with a high marriage rate, so perhaps the trends are less pronounced here.

    But I’ve seen this argument here a lot — that there are a lot of men without women, and that it is because all the women are sleeping with a few men — and I admit, it flummoxes me. Because I know a lot of girls — a huge number of girls — in their twenties who have never even had a serious relationship and have never slept with anyone. I’m one of these girls. Now, I know I have certain bizarre personality traits that make me an outlier, but for the other girls I know, it’s mostly because they’re not pretty. They have plain features and they’re overweight, though not obese (I’d say with BMI ranges of 24-27. And yes, I know, under BMI, 24 is “normal weight,” but while the girls I’m talking about might not be heavy enough to be unhealthy, they’re heavy enough to have awkward, if not grotesque, figures — they’re pear-shaped, rather than hourglass-shaped, if that makes sense).

    If we’re to believe the statistics that we see printed daily in the newspapers — and given the evidence of my eyes, and what I see every time I’m out in public, the stats aren’t hard for me to believe — most adult Americans are overweight. And most female adult Americans are overweight. And guys seem to view even slightly overweight girls with revulsion.

    So let’s say I accept, for the sake of argument, that all the slim, attractive women are chasing the really hot guys, leaving other guys out in the cold. Meanwhile, most women, who are not slim and attractive, are left out in the cold because no guys, even “beta losers,” are interested in fat girls. Is it really fair or logical to blame all women for the actions of a few?

    The attractive people are going to pair up with the attractive people. That’s just the way it works. And I don’t really see how women are “making a decision in aggregate” when as many women seem left out in the cold as men. Don’t you think we all need to take a step back and realize that we’re not all going to end up with Aphrodite or Adonis?

    Europe is not reproducing…England has just made Sharia Law the official law of the land, enforceable by all the courts. That’s not a joke either. Manpower, and willingness to use violence matters.

    I agree. Fertility does matter to the future of a nation. But I don’t think the solution to infertility is to seize all 17-year-old girls and force them to get married. I admit, it’s hard for me to be very afraid of a future dominated by radical Islamist thugs if my society’s response to those radical Islamist thugs is to take away my freedom of choice. Maybe that would make a difference to men. But not to me. America would not be America anymore, and it would not be an America worth fighting for, if we were to lose our freedom.

    This is why the Romans fell: not enough Romans. The Greeks too.

    Aw, whiskey, how nice of you to bring in the classical world, my favorite era in history! Infertility had little to do with the fall of classical Greece. There were plenty of Athenians around when Athens was conquered — more than in the Periclean Golden Age, in fact, if demographic historians are to be believed. Prosperity destroyed the Greeks’ sense of civic virtue; they were fine being conquered as long as their conquerors left them to their cushy lifestyles. (Part of the genius of the Romans is that they were, by and large, liberal governors and respected local customs. They were harsh only when their rule was challenged.)

    Infertility did play a large role in the fall of Rome, but this was not because of the sexual liberation of women. Late imperial Rome, so influenced by Christianity, was far more conservative in this regard than republican Rome at its height, where women owned their own property, could instigate divorce, and could even hold professions. (And by the way, the most powerful military state in classical Greece, Sparta, was looked askance on by others because of the high place of women there. Spartan women, as educated as the men, were famous — and rather feared — by other Greeks for their brilliance, their independence, and their physical prowess. Spartan women were often called “the heiresses” because they owned their own property.) Marriage was extremely informal in Rome as it was rising and at its height — women could simply leave the house and return to their parents’ home. This grew more formal, not less, as Rome declined. The fall of Rome had many factors — there’s a reason the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is so long — but the “damned women not knowing their place!” isn’t one of them.

    97 Markku

    A society that fails to reproduce is certain to vanish.

    Yes, but what you’re making no allowances for is that free, flexible societies have the ability to adapt to changed circumstances. In America, the divorce rate has significantly declined since its highest point in the early 1980s. Young people, male and female, are expressing far more of an interest in marriage and a traditional family life (82% of females, 70% of males) than did their parents in the late ’60s and ’70s. Liberal “blue” states, with their more “anything goes” cultures, are losing population, while more fertile “red” states are gaining. (And that is not due merely to immigration — America as a whole has a birth rate of between 2.08 and 2.1, so we’re at replacement level, and most of the “red” states have birth rates higher than that, with Mormon-dominated Utah in the lead.) European fertility is declining, but American fertility is holding steady. And Europe certainly hasn’t been bred out of existence yet. If Europeans wanted to change, they still have time.

    One thing you should understand about the Middle East is that countries are irrelevant.

    This doesn’t answer my question. My question was what kind of staying power are you talking about. If the only kind of staying power you’re talking about is whether people there have demonstrated an ability to reproduce, the same can be said of any place in the world. Every region has had periods of declining fertility and expanding fertility. That’s simply the way of human history.

    98 Markku

    Betas have little in the way of the choice in the first place.

    If the goal of betas is merely to have sex, it’s there for the taking. All they need do is find the nearest sex-starved ugly girl.

    If the goal of betas is to have sex with a gorgeous woman, they’re being delusional. Like attracts like, and extraordinary women are not going to be attracted to ordinary men, any more than extraordinary men are going to be attracted to ordinary women.

    99 Yours Truly

    Female 9’s would generally get married at 24 if a male 9 proposed to them, but if they only get an offer from a 6 or from a guy who was past his prime, most of them will rather wait for a better offer even if that means taking the risk of not having a family.

    Exactly. No one wants to mate with someone they consider beneath them. They might have different definitions of “beneath,” but the principle holds true for most human beings.

    Of course, if you are a 6 and want to go after 9’s, this is also fine, just realise that the risks of losing are much larger at that game and take responsibility for your decision.

    Yes. To put it more bluntly, if you’re going to play out of your league, there’s a huge chance you’ll get beat up — and that’s no one’s fault but yours.

    101 PA

    But now, while not excusing cowardice, I can see how a young man with nothing invested in his society, and with no apparent prospects for female companionship, will think himself a fool to…charge a gunman (at VT) in defense of women that aren’t “his” in any meaningful sense.

    Given that I can protect myself, I’m not waiting around for a strapping man to rescue me from the modern world’s dastardly villains. But so much for the band of brothers. Forget the women — aren’t his male classmates, his comrades, his friends worthy of protection? Or are women also to blame for men’s failure to fulfill their duty to their fellow men?

    I’m glad our soldiers believe that serving and defending their country has intrinsic value in and of itself, and isn’t dependent on when they achieved their last lay.

    102 Anonymous 57

    If you don’t want women like me, then fine, and also: fuck you! I’ll have someone who cares about me, or I’ll have nobody at all — I am totally cool with that. But don’t trot out the ridiculousness that only women are aiming out of their league and that’s the source of the End of Civilization as we know it.

    Yes, yes, yes. You rock, Anonymous 57! 🙂

    Things are going to hell in a bucket because our society — and I’m including both genders here, mind — has a drastic, catastrophically outsized sense of entitlement. We are spoiled, and it is manifesting itself in a million kinds of bad behavior….This “War Between the Sexes”? It’s a symptom, not the disease.

    Yes. Prosperity has sapped our sense of civic virtue. We have it so good that we’re losing our strength and self-control, and we have no sufficiently earth-shaking crisis to wake us up and make us realize that survival in the world requires strong-willed adults, not spoiled, pouty eternal children.

    Like


  124. http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/09/17/guyland/index.html

    Seems like it might be of interest to some of the folks here…

    Like


  125. PatrickH, no worries. Takes far too much energy for me to maintain bad feelings at anyone for more than a short period of time. I see now that you didn’t really mean anything harsh by what you have written, so I won’t hold it against you.

    By the way, the really funny thing about men and money for me — the two guys I’ve fallen hard for were really financially broke when I fell. And I turned down the millionaire guy who wanted to fly me to Tokyo and who would have done pretty much anything for me. Looking back, I have actually been an awful little waif-neurotic in my youth.

    as the men are merely average, whereas the women are visibly ugly

    In general, men do want to marry up in looks/beauty, and women want to marry up in status/money. So when that pattern is broken because both men and women are holding out for “something better” — and the possibilities can seem endless in the modern era — people get upset.

    So all the talk about male “6” being with a female “6” in appearance is going to make the men resentful, but to women today it seems equitable. Men seem to be on board with this. One of the guys I fell in love with is more or less “ugly,” and when I used to talk to other men about him, they would be baffled.

    Rational economics applied to sexual dynamics strikes me as a bit odd, because emotions and sex are irrational, most often instinctual. Granted, on some level it’s probably very rational, for example a lover who smells good is one with different MHC genes. But it doesn’t work at the human prefrontal cortex level, which is mostly responsible for what we refer to as rationality.

    Like


  126. Elizabeth 123 —

    David Alexander, the resounding silence with which your very sensible question has been met

    Most of what David Alexander says is met by resounding silence because most regulars here have come to learn how thoroughly and pathetically asexual, or anyway self defeatingly and fundamentally sexually ineffectual he is. Yeah quasi impotence is part of it, but only a part. That after all can usually be dealth with these days if there’s a will to do so. There isn’t.

    So his theorizing from the base of such fundamental utter lack of knowledge and understanding of the human sexual condition is not taken too seriously by most.

    Is this getting through to YOU Elizabeth?

    Like


  127. ” I’ve been to parties where I literally could only start a conversation with the chick who was being approached by NO ONE, because the rest felt they could “do better” and walked away upon hearing me open a conversation”

    This is very sad. I do feel, even if we are not attracted, it is rude to walk away from a conversation unless something crass has been said. I am probably a picky person when it comes to an exclusive relationship, but I would have a quick chat with most people.

    What do you think of this article:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/what-makes-sparks-fly-bet_b_107249.html

    “Especially since curtailing women’s sexual freedom would require curtailing their economic freedom, if the restrictions were to have any teeth…”

    Yup! If a girl would starve on her own she would marry for the money even if she felt like a whore because survival is a higher priority than love.

    “So it doesn’t really matter what she feels, as long as she puts out to him and only him.”

    This is utterly sad. I am glad to see that most men holding that line of thought will not marry. It is fortunate that a portion of women have enough discipline to keep their legs closed to keep men like this out of the marriage market. They truly are the dark side of beta males.

    “But I don’t think the solution to infertility is to seize all 17-year-old girls and force them to get married. I admit, it’s hard for me to be very afraid of a future dominated by radical Islamist thugs if my society’s response to those radical Islamist thugs is to take away my freedom of choice. Maybe that would make a difference to men. But not to me. America would not be America anymore, and it would not be an America worth fighting for, if we were to lose our freedom.”

    This is true. What is the real difference between being locked up and raped by an American man versus by a Saudi? A living hell is a living hell.

    “Marriage was extremely informal in Rome as it was rising and at its height — women could simply leave the house and return to their parents’ home”

    Did not wives stay under the care of their parents in a standard marriage contract? I belive there was posibility for the wife to be taken in hand by the husband, but this was the alternative way.

    Like


  128. Liberal “blue” states, with their more “anything goes” cultures, are losing population, while more fertile “red” states are gaining.

    Those red states are precisely the ones where prevailing social mores de facto curtail sexual freedom to a much greater degree than in the liberal blue states! That’s what I’m talking about. A much greater proportion of red staters are Christian conservatives.

    Like


  129. very amusing.thanks!

    Like


  130. on September 17, 2008 at 6:45 pm Usually Lurking

    What makes you think I have seen that in large numbers?

    Just look at the numbers: 50% of marriages end in divorce, 75% of which were initiated by women. 50% or more of married women cheat…these are the basic numbers and I think that we can assume it is happening to average guys.

    Like


  131. 128 Markku

    Those red states are precisely the ones where prevailing social mores de facto curtail sexual freedom to a much greater degree than in the liberal blue states! That’s what I’m talking about. A much greater proportion of red staters are Christian conservatives.

    The key point is that it’s society doing the shaming, not the government taking forceful action. Social shaming is useful. Tyrannical government regulation is not.

    Like


  132. 127 Yours Truly

    Did not wives stay under the care of their parents in a standard marriage contract?

    In a way. Women were considered to be part of their parents’ family regardless of whom they married. (Their children were considered to be part of their husband’s family, however.) But Roman women did tend to live with their husbands and their husbands’ families.

    Like


  133. i But Roman women did tend to live with their husbands and their husbands’ families.

    Of course, it would be a bit hard to raise children while living apart 🙂

    i The key point is that it’s society doing the shaming, not the government taking forceful action. Social shaming is useful. Tyrannical government regulation is not.

    There is none of that in my society and I don’t belive in a god who will punish me either. Still, I do not sleep around.

    Like


  134. @ PA 101

    I understand why the young men at VT didn’t charge at the gunman. I wouldn’t do such a thing because the last thing that I want is for my mom to be seen on CNN crying over her son’s death. To be quite honest, if I die doing something heroic, what will society give to my potentially distraught mother as replacement for her son? Nothing, just some “thanks” and money from a settlement?

    As for the rapes, shouldn’t we ask where these rapes are happening? If they’re happening in broad daylight, I would be shocked at an unarmed man getting away with such an action. Otherwise, how are you personally going to stop rapists who attack in dark, poorly lit areas at night? Beating up random people obviously is not the solution, but better and more effective police patrols and reduction of such “dark areas” would be key along with arresting the rapists and either remanding them to prison if they are long-term residents or citizens or deporting them if they have not stayed in the country.

    Like


  135. @ 126 dougjnn

    The problem is that nobody has bothered to refute what I’ve written above or at least explain where I went wrong in my thought process.

    1) Per Whiskey’s grand theory, women without social constraints will only date alpha men.
    2) If women are generally only attracted to alpha males, does this mean they will love beta males?
    3) If they don’t love beta males, are beta males willing to marry golddiggers to satisfy their desires for a long-term partner.

    Those red states are precisely the ones where prevailing social mores de facto curtail sexual freedom to a much greater degree than in the liberal blue states!

    That depends on the state of course. Red states like North Carolina, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado are slowly filling up with “refugees” from high tax, high cost-of-living blue states. Remember, Vermont was once one of the most reliably Republican states in the country, and the blue state refugees have turned the state somewhat blue in certain aspects…

    Like


  136. on September 18, 2008 at 12:29 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @106 freak show

    whiskey’s shown a lot of historical precedent that societies get violent and invent more violent inventions when the more numerous betas are marginalized or enticed to create these inventions, rather than the alpha males.

    Be that false or true, the result is still violence, alpha’s relish the hunt but never fear a fight, in fact sex begets violence and vice versa. Also, Consider the higher levels of testosterone of Alpha males, will lead them to having higher levels of aggression.

    Many a lesser woman has played two alphas off in a fight to increase her sexual value. But with a violent winner comes a corresponding increase in Domestic battery. Good times, if she is a pain junkie.

    Don’t forget Don Cassanova was an expert fence, and needed to be as he offended the Honor of many a gentleman’s House by violating his wife, daughter or mother and sometimes all three.

    I remember a vignette, in which, he was set upon for violating a woman, one which he really had not.

    His revenge was very simple, after rendering his attacker helpless for a week with some talented bladework, he then proceeded to take every woman in this man’s family.

    Also, if you observe the tom’s of the felix domesticus rex order you will see very dominant tom’s attacking all male rivals in their territory. The social veneer of humanity is marginally thicker. Expect drive by slayings to increase as other violent crimes decrease in the decades ahead.

    Like


  137. on September 18, 2008 at 12:48 am SovereignAmericanMale

    DA:

    As for the rapes, shouldn’t we ask where these rapes are happening?

    Sure, lets have “Le Guide Rouge Michelin” print up rape travel guides to go along with the fine dinning ones.

    Dinner and a Rape

    Or

    Outstanding Food and Sex, sans dialog

    ( and no snoring after he rolls over and passes out )

    I can hear the Trust-funded Trollops now…

    Girl 1: Lets jet already.

    Girl 2: I am soooo ready, lets blow this betaboy town.

    Girl 1: Cabo?

    Girl 2: Hmmm, lets do Paris this time… I hear the sodomites are really good this time of year, and Jean Michal’s petite foie gras sauced with pinot noir jus. Its to die for.

    Like


  138. on September 18, 2008 at 2:29 am Comment_Thank_God

    Yours Truly said:
    ****
    i The key point is that it’s society doing the shaming, not the government taking forceful action. Social shaming is useful. Tyrannical government regulation is not.
    ****
    Thank GOD we can get rid of divorce laws!

    Do you hear that sound? It’s the sound of silence.

    Like


  139. Elizabeth 123,

    I love the passion. I’m not sure that the oft-cited stats on older more educated couples being more likely to stay married really refute the type of model advocated by Whiskey. Say you have two stages of life, young and desirable and old and, well, interesting. You have two types of men, alpha (10%) and beta (90%), and two types of women, pretty (50%) and, well, interesting (50%). In the younger years, alphas get it on 5 times a week with a different pretty woman each night. So each pretty woman gets it on once a week, and is happy because she is hypergamous. Friday and Saturday are the holy days. This leaves 90% of beta guys to choose between celibacy and pairing with “interesting” girls in their younger years (everyone knows this group doesn’t swing). Say that four of nine betas choose celibacy and five of the nine pair with “interesting” women. I also live in a red state, and I can’t remember the last time that I saw an attractive woman with an unattractive man. I see fit, prosperous men with extremely “interesting” women quite frequently. Anyway, back to the example, youth ends, and the pretty girls scramble for husbands. One of five gets an alpha. The other four marry the four remaining betas. Contrary to some rhetoric on this blog, most betas won’t turn them down because of their sexual histories. There might not be real love, bonding, or children, but what is the point in these people getting divorced? So who are the winners and losers, compared to the expected result under monogamy and earlier marriage, where a male 10 is with a female 10 in both stages of life, a male 9 with a female 9, etc? Clearly, the big winner is the alpha male. If you place a much higher value on the younger stage of life, which is reasonable, most females will also be winners, assuming that they are hypergamous. The beta males, especially those who would have paired with the 5’s through 9’s under early marriage and monogamy are the big losers, right?

    This is only an example of a stylized model, but in general it has some degree of plausibility to me based on my experience. It would be interesting to hear more relevant stats, but these things are hard to verify. Maybe there is some anthropological evidence on female hypergamy or lack thereof that would be relevant. I’m not personally going to dig for it because I know I’d have to dig through a mountain of pc dung to find any buried treasure that may or may not be there.

    P.S: Thanks for all the good stuff on the Romans and the Greeks.

    P.P.S: I actually have a job and a woman, but I’m really fascinated with this stuff because if women are really so predictably hypergamous then its gives me an immediate comeback when my female friends take shots at men. That and the whole decline of western civilization thing.

    Like


  140. 140 Ocho Cinco

    I love the passion.

    Thanks!

    Obviously we can’t open a window into the brains and hearts of every married couple in America to see if they’re really in love. But if marriage — as the means to creating the nuclear family, the building block of Western society — is the goal, and if our society should be promoting stable marriages, does it really matter if those people are in love? From a purely practical perspective, shouldn’t we be looking at what works and doesn’t work? And if the statistics tell us that marriages between older, educated couples last, and that the children of those marriages are more likely to be educated, economically well-off, and in stable marriages themselves, isn’t that the kind of union we should want to promote? As opposed to unions between the young, which are far more likely to end quickly and produce children in unstable family and economic situations?

    Don’t get me wrong — I think love in marriage is important. But if we really want to look at this from an entirely pragmatic, what’s-good-for-society perspective, then aren’t statistics about the marriage gap between the older and well-educated and the younger and poorly-educated important to look at?

    P.S. Thanks for all the good stuff on the Romans and the Greeks.

    Anytime. I’m a passionate classicist. I spend an inordinate amount of time talking about dead Greeks and Romans. 🙂

    Like


  141. “I once managed to get a little something going with a Golddigger, despite my low-budget boho slobbiness. Key to whatever semi-success I had with her was loads and loads of easygoingly defiant chutzpah — “I’m exactly what you’re not looking for,” which did indeed intrigue her some. She was pretty hot, and I had fun with her for a couple of weeks. But then off she went in search of fatter wallets. Which was kinda hot too, to be honest. The whole episode was hot. Exhausting, and nothing I was eager to try again. But hot.”

    What is it about golddiggers that men love so much? I’ve heard a lot of men say this aroused them, at least on some golddigger fantasy level.

    There was also this guy who suddenly got really interested in me when he found out I had a boyfriend from a well to do family. He is actually the sort of guy who can get most girls just by snapping his fingers, but he got all googly eyed and salivating over that.

    Like


  142. What is it about golddiggers that men love so much? I’ve heard a lot of men say this aroused them, at least on some golddigger fantasy level.

    Men love to give gifts to women. This happens all the time in virtual worlds, where the value of items are imaginary but still tangible. Some men will just give out gifts and gold to random women. Incidentally it’s often other men who are playing female characters accepting…

    So men do love women who can appreciate such materialistic gifts — just not women who will take and never give back. The act of giving shows that they are capable, that they can provide, and it makes them feel more like a man. Being protective makes them feel similar, as does after “winning a battle.”

    The man in your story might have been also interested because he feels like your boyfriend being in a well to do family is worthy “competition.” He can easily get other girls, but golddigging girls might have been a challenge for him. Or he’s thinking, “If him, why not me? If I get her, then it’s like I have great wealth, too.”

    This is why some dating advice tell women to “play hard to get.” Many men have a hunter instinct. This could also be why the waif-neurotics frustrate them so much, because they appeal to both masculine inclination toward being the chaser and the protector/provider.

    Like


  143. 144 Hope:

    Incidentally it’s often other men who are playing female characters accepting…

    Heh heh heh.

    Love ya babe!

    Like


  144. Ah, the game of love.

    Like


  145. Thank you Hope!

    You really do know a lot about men.

    So I guess it does not have to be a real golddigger, but rather a girl who enjoys getting gifts and has the attentions of rich men?

    Like


  146. Oh, Hope, how could a girl allude to something along those lines while single?

    At the time I could not do anything with it, but is was a powerful attractor on that guy. I would obviously not want to make up a boyfriend and pretend to be cheating, but it would be interesting to use this attractor on other guys.

    Like


  147. Yours Truly —

    What is it about golddiggers that men love so much? I’ve heard a lot of men say this aroused them, at least on some golddigger fantasy level.

    They’re whores. The kind men dream about, as opposed to the kind you rent by the hour.

    They’re eager to be full spectrum enthusiastic whores, putting all they’ve got into the effort, with at least pretend love thrown into the bargain. They are pre-sold on that being how to get what they want and know that best efforts are essential. (It’s a bonus that the pretend can also become real, particularly if you’ve got a lot more going than just gold.) (Most earning-their-living-that-way whores, particularly most American whores, don’t remotely put everything they’ve got into the event, and really aren’t a very good experience except perhaps for the starving. Golddiggers are the ultimate whore experience.)

    It takes very little work to get the best whorish efforts out of a golddigger — you just have to signal that you’re an experienced and highly discriminating consumer. Then they are also more than eager to learn most new things you have to teach — so long as you confidently expect that of course they’ll do that since after all they’re highly sexual, right? Really feeling it may be more of a challenge.

    What you get with golddiggers is once they’ve qualified you, they chase you, and compete openly and sometimes visciously for you. Catfight city. (Actually if you have high status you get the same phenomenon but even more so. We all know about rock stars and their groupies. It’s the same kind of thing.)

    The dynamic is that even more than usual you can be “a shit” to them and they’ll still come back for more, hungrilly. Being on the prowl, and it all being up to them, is part of the golddigger mindset. The public stereotype golddigger situation is when a hot and sexually and emotionally experienced predator girl goes after a clueless rich or high earning professional guy, and he’s putty in her hands. That does happen lots and may often be their target. But when their target guy has some game the tables can turn big time.

    Best way to encourage hopeless addiction is actually to alternate between lazer like lusting focus on just them, with warm and fully getting them lovin’ thrown in too (good for converting their pretend love to real), and then ignoring them in favor of a rival digger. Drives them batty. We are of course talking about game here, and not just gold.

    Roissy will say this works with all women, not just golddiggers, and it does for most, but I don’t know, golddiggers are particularly objectifiable. You can say “Come back when you’ve gotten better tits” — and they will, if that’s what you want to do.

    However, never marry a true golddigger. At the very least don’t without a seriously limiting pre-nup. (But no pre-nup works as well as just living together does in most states.) It’s not just to avoid the actual financial raking over of divorce theft. It’s also to keep her working/whoring for you once she has that marriage contract. It’s never gonna be as good once she has it though. So don’t give marriage to a straight up golddigger. Just be endlessly scared of marriage, but not quite ruling it out. Or better, graduate from golddiggers. That’s better advice.

    I guess what I’m really saying here is that golddiggers are fast food. Not the best meal, but always tasty in an ultimately soul destroying way if you make them your usual or exclusive diet.

    Like


  148. Yours Truly, there weren’t a lot of guys I’ve actually been with, and I do not know too much about how to attract men while single. I can tell you what I do know.

    It seems like men like an air of unavailability combined with knowledge that the girl will “give him some later,” because it is then all the more meaningful when they do get you that way. For all the supposed dislike of “teases,” many men are attracted to that.

    I don’t think guys are more attracted to women who have boyfriends for that in itself, but when they are really interested, they will often try to break down hurdles to the object of their affection. Some guys go after girls knowing that they have boyfriends, because they want to compete with the guy that they perceive as perhaps a worthy opponent, but also an opponent that can be beaten.

    When men hear that a woman is single, a few things might go through his head. She is available! Sweet, I have a chance! Wait, why is she available? Does she have some issues or is she still pining for some guy? Is she going to be one of those women who’s impossible or never satisfied or bitchy or crazy? (Also, is she going to put out?)

    They will go through their mental list of women that they have been attracted to, and find that a lot of those women were already “taken.” So sometimes they will have some hesitance. They also don’t want to be shot down, because then it’s a personal failure, whereas with a girl that already has a boyfriend, they almost expect it with this reason outside their control, so ironically it’s less nerve-wracking for them.

    At the same time, they relish the opportunity of an unconquered territory or a newly opened plot of land. That’s you. I’d say that as a single woman, do not have any expectations (gifts, attention, love, anything at all really) of a guy. They want to be spontaneous, so expectations make them really unhappy. They want a girl to show interest after they show interest, and they really want a lot of love, loyalty, affection and attention from women (often without really even knowing it).

    I don’t know for sure that they think this way… but I’ve listened to enough male pontificating on chasing after the female that I think it is the gist of it.

    Like


  149. Yours truly 147–

    Oh, Hope, how could a girl allude to something along those lines while single?

    At the time I could not do anything with it, but is was a powerful attractor on that guy. I would obviously not want to make up a boyfriend and pretend to be cheating, but it would be interesting to use this attractor on other guys.

    The allure of the unavailabe or difficult to get chick is a much bigger factor in reverse for women than it is for men. I’m not saying it isn’t there at all for men though.

    First, Roissy is right that appearance if the first and most important thing. But it deemhasizes presentation too much. A lot of that is because he de-emphasizes assment of “sexiness” or sexual heat too much.

    I realize you are a “love first” kind of girl Yours Truly. That simply does present some challenges depending on how far you take it. But let’s work with that.

    One of the most important things you can do is, if you’ll forgive me, signal that you aren’t an Elizabeth. I’m using that shorthand because you were right in there on that whole set of dialoges and developments, and also saw the impediments very clearly after e.g. I became disheartened by them.

    What I mean by that to make it very explicit is that it’s one thing, and tough enough, to make it clear that a guys going to do a whole lot of proving of his affection for you and just you in particular before he “gets any” sexually, but it’s something yet again, and far more disqualifying, to let him think that at the end of the day you’re STILL going to be an ice princess.

    I know for a fact you won’t be, from your very perceptive and ready understandings and yearnings about female deep sexual joy in submission in the bedroom to a worthy man who wants most of all to bring joy to her and both of them, and who is heavily caught up in her and her needs. That is deep understanding and heat my lady. It’s very horny making. Communicate it, at first indirectly. (Most guys don’t think in these explicit terms either, at least most American one’s don’t these days, you tell me about the Netherlands.) If you know these things but don’t say them, yet also don’t try to hide them — you will radiate heat.

    As far as demonstrating value by showing that other men are attracted to you goes, if a guy sees attractive guys hitting on you, that will do the trick. You gain little additional by appearing to have a bf, and in fact that may hurt. It’s fine to not have one because you’re so picky, while still showing suitors. Guys flirting with you is the key.

    That means you need to flirt back, to encourage it. That’s what to practice. Flirting that’s rewarding enough to guys to keep them at it, without committing you to anything.

    Like


  150. djinn:
    A lot of that is because he de-emphasizes assment of “sexiness” or sexual heat too much.

    i don’t deemphasize sexiness. i point out that sexiness is a distant second to beauty in importance, but that it can make a difference at the margins amongst pretty girls competing with each other.

    a sexy andrea dworkin will still be a grotesque ugly pig to the vast majority of men.

    Like


  151. Thank you for the enlightening comments Hope and Dougjnn!

    I really appreciate all the advice!

    “It seems like men like an air of unavailability combined with knowledge that the girl will “give him some later,” because it is then all the more meaningful when they do get you that way. For all the supposed dislike of “teases,” many men are attracted to that.”

    Is this about physical affections, or in general?

    “Some guys go after girls knowing that they have boyfriends, because they want to compete with the guy that they perceive as perhaps a worthy opponent, but also an opponent that can be beaten.”

    Maybe this is odd, but I need time to come to myself after a lost love before being open to a new love. I really could not have two boyfriends without a break in between, for the would melt into one person in my mind in a way. I’m like an atom with just one connection point, and if you put two other atoms on that one point, they sort of merge. I guess that was a pretty weird analogy.

    “I know for a fact you won’t be, from your very perceptive and ready understandings and yearnings about female deep sexual joy in submission in the bedroom to a worthy man who wants most of all to bring joy to her and both of them, and who is heavily caught up in her and her needs. That is deep understanding and heat my lady. It’s very horny making. Communicate it, at first indirectly. (Most guys don’t think in these explicit terms either, at least most American one’s don’t these days, you tell me about the Netherlands.) If you know these things but don’t say them, yet also don’t try to hide them — you will radiate heat.”

    So what you mean is that I do not suppress my sexual fire and that I also not breathe it out and scorch men with it, but rather let is just circulate inside my body and radiate a gentle warmth, right?

    Or does it also depend on clothing/appearance?

    I don’t really know what Dutch men think, in general.

    “As far as demonstrating value by showing that other men are attracted to you goes, if a guy sees attractive guys hitting on you, that will do the trick. You gain little additional by appearing to have a bf, and in fact that may hurt. It’s fine to not have one because you’re so picky, while still showing suitors. Guys flirting with you is the key.

    That means you need to flirt back, to encourage it. That’s what to practice. Flirting that’s rewarding enough to guys to keep them at it, without committing you to anything.”

    This is actually a very good solution to the boyfriend dilemma in Hope’s post! I can flirt, and I do not mind doing it, though I have to be in the mood. I am into pretty innocent flirting though, just smiling, eyecontact, being friendly. Is that enough?

    Like


  152. […] The Gold Digger and the Waif/Neurotic […]

    Like


  153. a sexy andrea dworkin will still be a grotesque ugly pig to the vast majority of men.

    A grotesque ugly pig of a woman coming onto one is gross, not sexy.

    Like


  154. I realize you are a “love first” kind of girl Yours Truly. That simply does present some challenges depending on how far you take it. But let’s work with that.

    What are those challenges?

    Like


  155. Maybe this is odd, but I need time to come to myself after a lost love before being open to a new love.

    Not odd to me, as I am the same way. It took me two years to even start to get over my first love.

    So what you mean is that I do not suppress my sexual fire and that I also not breathe it out and scorch men with it, but rather let is just circulate inside my body and radiate a gentle warmth, right?

    A lot of perfectly nice men are into the “bad” girl thing, not necessarily gentleness or warmth. I think men secretively want a bit of passion and fire; after all, many enjoy adrenaline rushes.

    I don’t think my husband would fall in love with the more mature and stable woman that I am today, nor would I even really give him much of a chance. But he also would not want to be with the 18 year old me again, who was a bit of a bad girl (neurotic, depressive, unhealthy and obsessive).

    I’m not saying you should act this way. But romantic love is really a maelstrom of intense emotional storm, a terrible mix of agony and bliss. There’s a certain component to young love that is fatalistic and intoxicating, but it can lead to a strong relationship if you can both survive all that.

    Weathering rough storms seems to bind people together more. It’s similar to college fraternity hazing or ritual initiations. if they make it through they feel more strongly about the group than without such events.

    Like


  156. “A lot of perfectly nice men are into the “bad” girl thing, not necessarily gentleness or warmth. I think men secretively want a bit of passion and fire; after all, many enjoy adrenaline rushes.”

    I’m a bit scared to unleash that unless I know a man well. You can pretty much tell how I make love by a French kiss, and that makes me feel very vulnerable and exposed. Which is painful if he does not like it but also dangerous when he does in a way, because there is no going back. Like Pandora’s box.

    “But romantic love is really a maelstrom of intense emotional storm, a terrible mix of agony and bliss. There’s a certain component to young love that is fatalistic and intoxicating, but it can lead to a strong relationship if you can both survive all that.”

    How do you replicate some of that in a safer way?

    Like


  157. 157 Yours Truly:

    How do you replicate some of that in a safer way?

    How do you square a circle?

    Can’t have the highs without the lows.

    “Did you ever say Yes to one joy? O my friends, then you said yes to all woe as well. All things are chained and entwined together, all things are in love; if you ever wanted one moment twice, if you ever said: ‘You please me, happiness, instant, moment!’ then you wanted everything to return! you wanted everything new, everything eternal, everything chained, entwined together, everything in love, O that is how you loved the world, you everlasting men, loved it eternally and for all time: and you say even to woe: ‘Go, but return!’ For all joy wants — eternity!” — Zarathustra

    Like


  158. Which is painful if he does not like it but also dangerous when he does in a way, because there is no going back. Like Pandora’s box.

    No, there is no going back when you take that leap. But if you never risk your heart, you will never gain anything. I understand what you mean exactly when you say it is “dangerous.” And our instinctive reaction to danger is to recoil, run away, or fight it.

    After I got my heart broken, I didn’t want to be hurt again, but I still wanted to feel love again. Many times I’d try to force myself to fall, but I was still unable to take that leap because of fear.

    You may know that hope was the last thing in Pandora’s box. And Nietzsche wrote, “Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.”

    How do you replicate some of that in a safer way?

    I hate to say it but… there is no 100% safe way. Love will hurt, and hurt a lot. We must either embrace the pain or reject it altogether.

    To be honest, my biggest mistakes and saddest regrets all were because of fear. If I could do it over again, I would try to be less afraid.

    The safest thing you can do is guard your heart close and never give it out. Slightly less safe, give it out in small doses, and take it really slow. Take all the precautions, and wait for the other party to take the chance first. But you will might not be able to fall for him, even if he does for you.

    I don’t mean be careless with your heart, or with others’ hearts, or be so open physically that you lose your self-respect. If you give your heart, and he really does not appreciate it, then move on.

    Just be sure that it is not your fear clouding your judgment, causing you to turn away when he really did care. Fear is closely related to the ego, because we fear that which poses dangers to our ego.

    This seems like apt advice: “Do one thing every day that scares you.”

    Like


  159. P.S. Easier said than done, I know!

    Like


  160. Slightly less safe, give it out in small doses, and take it really slow. Take all the precautions, and wait for the other party to take the chance first. But you will might not be able to fall for him, even if he does for you.

    I think this is more where I am at, though on a superficial level, I am pretty open. I am good at making light-hearted banter and putting other people at ease. I am also pretty free with light touch, like a pat on the back or light hug. I do need for the man to take the risks on the big things, but I do my best to show appreciation for that.

    I have gotten to the point where I can enjoy early dating for it’s own sake, even if it does not become anything more. It expands my horizons to meet new people and see a glimpse of their innermost stirrings and show them a glimpse of mine. What I mean by that is that I am okay with letting a man see a possibility of what may be there, I do feel a bit she when that happens but I can accept that. But when he sees something and knows for sure that it is there, that is pretty scary.

    I don’t mean be careless with your heart, or with others’ hearts, or be so open physically that you lose your self-respect. If you give your heart, and he really does not appreciate it, then move on.

    This has happened to me, and I moved on. On a positive note,even though it takes time, I can heal myself completely. I do think taking it slowly makes in easier to intervene, as you have the time to stop and think about whether he is a good guy and if his feelings are of the lasting kind.

    P.S. Easier said than done, I know!

    Yes, but saying it is a first step!

    Like


  161. Though, with being hugged, I do have to expect it. If it is too sudden then it can be kind of startling you know?
    The tension has to be there first, and I guess I have a very large capacity for such kind of tension, which makes me at once more sensual and more patient than most. The tension is what says “Perhaps…”.

    Like


  162. Yours Truly 61 —

    On another threat you asked to answer your unaswered question to me on this thread. I asked for a link there and you promptly gave one. It took me back to your question to me after I said:

    I realize you are a “love first” kind of girl Yours Truly. That simply does present some challenges depending on how far you take it. But let’s work with that.

    You asked @ YT 155 :

    <

    what are those challenges?

    I really didn’t mean anything more profound than the commonplace that girls who don’t put out or put out very slowly have a harder time attracting men than girls that do. And also that girls who put out slowly can nonetheless attract high quality sexy guys, if they go about things the right way.

    So now you’re going to ask me what way, right. Ok, now that gets more interesting.

    At one point you ask me or hope about whether clothes and appearance matter. Sure. But don’t girls specialize in that sort of knowledge. Sometimes I wonder how nieve or young you are. It’s a puzzle because you also obviously grasp some basic things about female/male sexuality with great clarity and even thrilling ferocity. Then again at other times you seem almost like a junior high girl (think seveth grade or thereabouts). Smart and with hight sexual drive, but from a sexually very conservative sub group /family within Holland perhaps? Oh well, never mind for now.

    Appearance and dressing. Losing weight if applicable is critically important and don’t let anyone say differently. Lets assume not applicable. The hairstile that makes you look most attractive to the kind of guy you’d find hottest to be in love with you for a year or more.

    Follow that metric on lots of things. Sexier clothes will attract more guys to try to pick you up but a higher percentage will be interested in casual sex only and unwilling to invest in something more difficult and time consuming. More conservative (but not totally so) clothes will cut down the volume but increase the average quality. However, don’t cut the volumne down so much that no one is flirting iwth you. A balance is needed. The prettier and more self confident you are, the more you can go conservative. If that needs work, go a little sexier.

    As for the risking your heart thing, I’m with Tupac and Hope, though I realize that Tupac is urging a lot more recklessness. Somewhere between the two is what I’d recommend. BUT, BUT, BUT. Don’t totally fall in love unless it’s totally right which means among other things that he’s totallly comitted to you forever too. AT least that but that’s not enough. He also has to be good enough. BUT, you can fall less than totally in love, leaving a part of you outside and evaluating, and pulling you back from the brink — and still grow emotionally and experience much and have a lot lof love fun. If you are in this place you should be having full up sex and hoping for the power exchange variety. Just not TOTAL power exchange that lasts beyond the moment. Reclaim yourself after always. Now when facing life committment love, you might or might not go further, but not unless.

    You asked me at one point about how much of your white hot deepest sexual yeanings and surrenderings you should show a glipse of to a guy that’s getting into to you, gets you, and you’re attracted to, but there’s no full commitment with. Well, you didn’t so clearly spell out the type of situation, so I’m filling it in as a for instance. I’d say hold nothing back at all in the glimpses you show. Drive him insane if he can see that clearly!!!! If he can, you may have a live one!!

    BUT, but but. Showing and doing are two different things. YOur posture should be “you so much can, you so much want, to do all of that and more with such as him, such as you hope he is and maybe just maybe he is — but you won’t let yourself. The steal trap door of your will, will intervene and prevent you. It may be a struggle, but it’s one your will can and will prevail on. Unless and until he shows you more, spends more time, becomes more committed.

    You can and should be giving him something as he progresses. How much depends on you. I’d advise oral sex and maybe more, but not full power exchange, not completely letting yourself go until there’s commitment to a sufficient for now relationship degree. But that’s up to you. I don’t know how sexually reluctant you are or why, exactly.

    Anyway, there are some quick thoughts Yours Truly.

    Like


  163. I really didn’t mean anything more profound than the commonplace that girls who don’t put out or put out very slowly have a harder time attracting men than girls that do. And also that girls who put out slowly can nonetheless attract high quality sexy guys, if they go about things the right way.

    Can men see this in your bodylanguage or is this more by word of mouth?

    Smart and with hight sexual drive, but from a sexually very conservative sub group /family within Holland perhaps? Oh well, never mind for now.

    It is more so that a lot of mixed messages are out there, which confuses me.
    I do not believe in anything that I do not experience or is implied logically, though I feel the poetic truth of things.

    Follow that metric on lots of things. Sexier clothes will attract more guys to try to pick you up but a higher percentage will be interested in casual sex only and unwilling to invest in something more difficult and time consuming. More conservative (but not totally so) clothes will cut down the volume but increase the average quality. However, don’t cut the volumne down so much that no one is flirting iwth you. A balance is needed. The prettier and more self confident you are, the more you can go conservative. If that needs work, go a little sexier.

    This is what I meant, thanks for sharing! I have a hard time discerning a clear pattern. I can wear jeans with a top to the collarbone and get more catcalls than the next day in a dress. Though when I am wearing a pretty dress I usually do get more persistent attention when I get it.

    BUT, you can fall less than totally in love, leaving a part of you outside and evaluating, and pulling you back from the brink — and still grow emotionally and experience much and have a lot lof love fun.

    This is an interesting idea to contemplate and try out.

    If you are in this place you should be having full up sex and hoping for the power exchange variety. Just not TOTAL power exchange that lasts beyond the moment. Reclaim yourself after always.

    I don’t think I can give myself unless completely. Oral sex is the same as other sex to me. Sex is a deeply bonding experience, I can’t just wake up and unbond in the morning.
    Now if he turned out not to be for me or hurt me deeply then the bond would be broken, but broken if different than gone.

    ’d say hold nothing back at all in the glimpses you show. Drive him insane if he can see that clearly!!!! If he can, you may have a live one!!

    But I have noticed that this can really make a man lose his mind and unleash the big guns to seduce me, sometimes before I am ready for that.

    BUT, but but. Showing and doing are two different things. YOur posture should be “you so much can, you so much want, to do all of that and more with such as him, such as you hope he is and maybe just maybe he is — but you won’t let yourself. The steal trap door of your will, will intervene and prevent you. It may be a struggle, but it’s one your will can and will prevail on. Unless and until he shows you more, spends more time, becomes more committed.

    Thank you, I think I need to trust my strength of will so I can unleash the passions.

    But that’s up to you. I don’t know how sexually reluctant you are or why, exactly.

    I think I fall in love neither quickly nor slowly, but rather exponentially. It takes some time to get the snowball rolling but eventually it turns into an uncontrollable avalanche.

    Like


  164. Yours Truly 164–

    This is what I meant, thanks for sharing! I have a hard time discerning a clear pattern. I can wear jeans with a top to the collarbone and get more catcalls than the next day in a dress. Though when I am wearing a pretty dress I usually do get more persistent attention when I get it.

    The finer points on what is sexier than what, what looks better on a particular girl, and what is too slutty (too sexy) in a particular circumstance or too boring (too conservative), is both a major avocational interest of a whole lot of young and youngish women, and a whole field of human study! 🙂

    Let me just say that you can’t go too much by crude category, necessarily, such as dress vs. jeans. Now I’m not saying there aren’t some pretty solid absolutes at the extremes. A black micro minishirt with black high heels and made up eyes is gonna look awful sexy (and often way too slutty for the circumstances) on almost any thin youngish woman. A conservative pants suit is pretty hard to make look super sexy. But tight jeans and a tight thin top up to one’s colarbone can look a lot sexier than a boring print sundress, esp. when the local hot to trot college grad student girls favor the former, and religious converatives in the area favor the later. Clothing is social signing, and part of it depends on what the conventions in the time and place are. But as I said, hold up thigh high stockings and a semi transparent top worn with no bra are going to always be hugely sexy — just variously hot as hell or too whorish for words, depending on time and place (but probably always signing at least a fair bit of slutish possibility).

    Like


  165. So what you are saying is that in clothing both femininity and sexiness attract men, but going overboard with sexiness makes men see you as a trollop? So basically tight, but not too much skin showing is usually good, like say, a dress to the knee with a v-neck. But how tight? Tight enough to show off the figure or so tight you see the outlines of the underwear?
    How much femininity is best? Do ruffles and bows and flowers always attract men or is there a limit? Is a dress more attractive than trousers?
    My tastes are pretty classic, though I like vivid colours. I thought what men considered appealing did not vary so much from year to year and that women followed fashion for other women. I have noticed that men are not fond of the extremes of fashion, but I guess a little hipness may not hurt. So do men prefer a fashionable look?

    Like


  166. 166 – Yours Truly: Don’t ask men what they like. Ask the women on the board what their experience is.

    Studies have shown that there is an amazing gap between what we think we want and what we actually chose when it comes to mating.

    This is all I tried to point out in my previous posts.

    Intuitively I’d say, for example, that it doesn’t matter what she wears. After all, I am straight. Then people will point out how much I am influenced by it and I see they are right.

    Like


  167. Don’t ask men what they like. Ask the women on the board what their experience is.

    Exactly. Never seek romantic advice form the opposite sex, even from friendlies, such as a sibling. Ask successful and more experienced members of the same sex.

    Like


  168. The safest thing you can do is guard your heart close and never give it out….Just be sure that it is not your fear clouding your judgment, causing you to turn away when he really did care. Fear is closely related to the ego, because we fear that which poses dangers to our ego.

    Hope is great, as usual. There’s a lot of fear-based ego-driven advice on this site. In fact, a lot of the interest of the place is watching the conflict between fear and love and how it twists guys heads around. E.g. take the belief that no woman will be truly sexually aroused by you or really love you unless you keep her at a distance by playing domineering head games. That is based on fear (the real me is unlovable and unattractive, so I cannot risk intimacy with another person) and ego (I am too proud to take the risk of letting another see my imperfections).

    I’m a bit scared to unleash that unless I know a man well. You can pretty much tell how I make love by a French kiss, and that makes me feel very vulnerable and exposed.

    YT, this is indicative of being an extremely sexual and passionate woman, but not disposed to casual sex. Casual sex can be emotionally tricky or even harmful for a lot of women. The thing is, it is particularly important — necessary, actually — for someone like you to take romantic risks if you want to connect. Choose someone strong enough to respect, but naturally kind and open enough for intimacy. (And avoid at all costs nasty, distanced player types). Good luck.

    Like


  169. Yours Truly —

    MQ quoted something I too was going to quote:

    I’m a bit scared to unleash that unless I know a man well. You can pretty much tell how I make love by a French kiss, and that makes me feel very vulnerable and exposed.

    You do indeed sound hot as hell — very, very sexual.

    I keep hearing these things from you. You keep sounding very desireable and passionate. Having difficulty controlling your upwelling desires, is, well, hot.

    Like


  170. If you’re under 21, miniskirts and show cleavage. If you’re not comfortable showing a lot of cleavage, then just show a little bit. Don’t overemphasize your girliness, instead play up the sexy angle. The college sweatshirt look is cute, but not sexy. Over 21, dress more conservatively, meaning no cleavage at work, but still generally tight clothing. At work you will want to wear pants and pantsuits, but otherwise…

    High heels whenever you can. Bows, ruffles and flowers are fine if they look sexy — you should intuitively know what is and what isn’t. Lace and satin are sexier than flowers. Dress and skirt over pants, even in the winter, when you can do dress with stockings and boots. If you can wear jeans at work, make them short jeans. Short shorts will work a number on men, too.

    While you should find your colors that suit your skin tone, a few colors men associate with sexiness are black, hot red, dark red, pink, hot pink and beige (makes a girl look semi-naked and draws their eye for that reason). White can also work if it doesn’t make you look washed out (e.g. VK’s post on white shorts).

    I had zero girlfriends to talk clothing to, so I just dressed as sexily as I could without looking cheap. I didn’t wear makeup except for nail polish, and I was really shy, so there was no mistaking me for a hooker anyway.

    If you’re shy like me Yours Truly, definitely contrast that with looking like a hot little number. That will get more men to approach you, especially if you act friendly instead of off-putting. Forget the fashions, and don’t spend a lot. Get pieces that will last a while, think thick fabrics that stretch. Get a few pieces of clothing that work for you, hug your body the right way, and keep wearing them.

    Men don’t care — nor do they even remember — what you wear, as long as you look good. For instance, my husband had no idea I wore the same skirt several times in one week. Men just know you look “fine” and want to “hit that.” Hah.

    There is “tasteful” sexy, of course, and you want to be more bordering on that side than the “trashy” sexy. Still, you want to be undeniably sexy. There’s an attitude component to it, too. Your body language is going to signal a lot. Posture is important. The way heels naturally make you have to stand up straighter, shoulders back, hips swaying and walk one foot before another is alluring.

    My e-mail is [email protected] if you want to chat some more.

    Like


  171. Czar 167 —

    Intuitively I’d say, for example, that it doesn’t matter what she wears. After all, I am straight. Then people will point out how much I am influenced by it and I see they are right.

    What we men try to do I think is see the woman naked, or see beyond the clothes, what she’d look like in different ones. We try to ignore them as ephemera, easily changed stuff.

    That doesn’t mean we always succeed. As well, sometimes we take a girl’s choice of clothing of indicative of things such as the degree of her sexual passion. We’re likely to put a lot more weight on facial expression and reaction to things etc. when we get there, but we do look for signs.

    It is true though that a girl has to be above a prettiness/beauty theshold that will vary somewhat for the individual guy before he worries much about these subtleties. However, that’s where most of the competition is going on.

    Like


  172. Yours Truly —

    I’m gonna endorse Hope’s 171. It all sounds about right to me.

    You are definitely better off getting clothing advice from women — from the right ones anyway that actually want for you what you want for you. Hope’s motives are good.

    To some considerable extent though clothing is a local market thing. Not as much if you’re hitting big city international attracting clubs and what not, but that doesn’t sound the case.

    Like


  173. Oops, that should be “make them tight jeans” in the previous post.

    Most of my advice is probably more applicable to American culture, and I am not really sure how it is in the Netherlands. I did meet some girls who immigrated from Holland when I was in middle school, and they were already wearing makeup when they were 12 or 13.

    Eat right and exercise. You’re not American, so you have a big head start on that one. If the girls in your country do not do this, you should do lifts, push-ups and weights, and get your arms, torso and legs toned. Then you won’t fear the extra weight in tight clothing. They will just hug to your curves and look great.

    Like


  174. 171/172: Men don’t care — nor do they even remember — what you wear, as long as you look good. … Men just know you look “fine”

    That is exactly what it feels like for a masculine (ie. non-metrosexual) guy. I am proud if I remember the color of her dress she wore the night before. Heck, I would not even notice she’s showing more cleavage than the other girls.

    I know it’s ironic given the time girls spend matching their purses with their shoes etc.

    Men aren’t joking when they admit they haven’t noticed you’ve been getting a hair cut.

    This having said, I always end up with the same type of girl, as other girls are happy to point out. I just love the classy-dorky “sexy teacher” look. But, it’s not like I am looking for it. It just happens. I am completely oblivious to how it happens.

    And I DO look at her toes when she’s wearing flip-flops. Yeah, I actually love flip flops on (some) girls. That’s because I got a thing for ladies’ feet. So, don’t feel too safe either! Ha!

    Like


  175. Yours Truly: Don’t ask men what they like. Ask the women on the board what their experience is.

    Studies have shown that there is an amazing gap between what we think we want and what we actually chose when it comes to mating.

    Thank you!
    So it is more about what works with men, right?
    Are there some things that men like but don’t work with men or vice versa?
    I do enjoy hearing some things from men’s perspective, it is interesting to know how men think for it’s own sake.

    YT, this is indicative of being an extremely sexual and passionate woman, but not disposed to casual sex. Casual sex can be emotionally tricky or even harmful for a lot of women. The thing is, it is particularly important — necessary, actually — for someone like you to take romantic risks if you want to connect. Choose someone strong enough to respect, but naturally kind and open enough for intimacy

    So I guess I need to accept the risks of connecting deeply. I think it is a bit difficult to estimate the risks correctly and make the right choices in the moment. But then again, those things are difficult for everyone.


    You do indeed sound hot as hell — very, very sexual.

    I keep hearing these things from you. You keep sounding very desireable and passionate. Having difficulty controlling your upwelling desires, is, well, hot.

    You always make me blush!

    I do think this ties in with what Roissy said about waiting to have sex but also showing him that it is not too easy for you to wait. Maybe I could even, at the right time let a man know that he is very seductive but I do have to protect my heart a little.

    Like


  176. High heels whenever you can. Bows, ruffles and flowers are fine if they look sexy — you should intuitively know what is and what isn’t. Lace and satin are sexier than flowers. Dress and skirt over pants, even in the winter, when you can do dress with stockings and boots. If you can wear jeans at work, make them short jeans. Short shorts will work a number on men, too.

    Okay, yes I do need to wear heels more, now that you mention it, that is one of the things that makes a difference in the attention I get. I have some clothes with lace trims, not that many satin items, but I have some pink stretch charmeuse lying around.

    Is the dress over pants look really a good one? Better than boot and stockings/tights for the winter?

    Shorts are not something I’d really wear, though. Or micro mini. I have good legs but I don’t want to feel like people can see my panties when I bend the wrong way. A few inches above the knee may be better than just below the knee, which may be a bit too conservative.

    While you should find your colors that suit your skin tone, a few colors men associate with sexiness are black, hot red, dark red, pink, hot pink and beige (makes a girl look semi-naked and draws their eye for that reason). White can also work if it doesn’t make you look washed out (e.g. VK’s post on white shorts).

    I like red and pink and look great in white too, in fact vivid colours and white are what I look best in. Black is good on me too, but sometimes it can look a bit boring.

    If you’re shy like me Yours Truly, definitely contrast that with looking like a hot little number. That will get more men to approach you, especially if you act friendly instead of off-putting. Forget the fashions, and don’t spend a lot. Get pieces that will last a while, think thick fabrics that stretch. Get a few pieces of clothing that work for you, hug your body the right way, and keep wearing them.

    I like thick stretchy fabrics a lot, they are both comfortable and flattering so that is a very good thing to keep in mind.

    The way heels naturally make you have to stand up straighter, shoulders back, hips swaying and walk one foot before another is alluring.

    My e-mail is [email protected] if you want to chat some more.

    I guess posture and heels go together well

    Thanks so much!!! Maybe I will email you a picture later.

    Like


  177. You are definitely better off getting clothing advice from women — from the right ones anyway that actually want for you what you want for you. Hope’s motives are good.

    Yes, that is also important. See, magazines are looking to sell clothes, mothers want you to look like a baby and friends can be clueless or jealous sometimes.

    Oops, that should be “make them tight jeans” in the previous post.

    Eat right and exercise. You’re not American, so you have a big head start on that one. If the girls in your country do not do this, you should do lifts, push-ups and weights, and get your arms, torso and legs toned. Then you won’t fear the extra weight in tight clothing. They will just hug to your curves and look great.

    Oh, okay, I get tight better than short. I lost a lot of weight in the past year by healing myself of a disease, so I am already in the habit of eating fresh food, exercise and lifting weights. My doctor is happy about my health and weight so I guess that is sorted. I also noticed that as soon as I bought clothes in a smaller size, I got way more attention than with the too big clothes, so I guess that is the magic of the tightness, LOL!

    That is exactly what it feels like for a masculine (ie. non-metrosexual) guy. I am proud if I remember the color of her dress she wore the night before. Heck, I would not even notice she’s showing more cleavage than the other girls.

    I know it’s ironic given the time girls spend matching their purses with their shoes etc.

    Men aren’t joking when they admit they haven’t noticed you’ve been getting a hair cut.

    This having said, I always end up with the same type of girl, as other girls are happy to point out. I just love the classy-dorky “sexy teacher” look. But, it’s not like I am looking for it. It just happens. I am completely oblivious to how it happens.

    So I guess men do not conciously notice clothing that much, but it does affect them subconciously?

    Like


  178. Yours Truly 178 —

    I lost a lot of weight in the past year by healing myself of a disease, so I am already in the habit of eating fresh food, exercise and lifting weights.

    Yeah I recently saw you allude to this somewhere else while I was reading some back posts that a recent comment pulled me to. This makes lots of your apparent contradictions make more sense. You are quite young to begin with it seems, but you’re also brand new as a hot chick, so you have much to learn, but also look at much with a “wise for your years (as a sexpot)” intelligence, so to speak.

    Actually, to my mind all this makes you that much better a catch — assuming you can sufficiently want to and can keep the weight off long term. A guy gets much more freshness than he has any right to expect or anyway than he ususually encounters these days in an 8, so to speak.

    Oh, okay, I get tight better than short.

    I just quoted that as a for example. At the end of the day lots of different things will work about as well. Experiment. Don’t sweat it too much. Get out there and flirt and have fun. Go ahead and get your heart a little bruised by hot guys that really make you wet — just realize there’s more where he came from. Not exactly the same maybe, but that can and probably will mean better down the road, as you learn more and become more confident.

    But yes, who you go into a LTR is always some kind of compromise. It definitely is for most guys also. The one’s, male or female, for whom that isn’t true I think are either very lucky or much more often, very good at kidding themselves. But a little compromise is one thing, and giving up sexual attraction for stability is something very different.

    Like


  179. There’s a lot of fear-based ego-driven advice on this site. In fact, a lot of the interest of the place is watching the conflict between fear and love and how it twists guys heads around. E.g. take the belief that no woman will be truly sexually aroused by you or really love you unless you keep her at a distance by playing domineering head games. That is based on fear (the real me is unlovable and unattractive, so I cannot risk intimacy with another person) and ego (I am too proud to take the risk of letting another see my imperfections).

    There is something pretty sad about this. There is a line between seduction and manipulation and it saddens me that sometimes the latter is sold as the former. Maybe I can add some thoughts from the other side.

    There are some things that may arouse and attract but that also cause distress and fear and can cause a woman to distance herself from you even if she is attracted.
    Also, as a sensitive person myself I would like to add that some things that may cause an exciting sort of stress in a less sensitive person may be too upsetting for me. I guess if you use a very hard, push her buttons sort of game, you kind of filter out all the sensitive people. Not everyone responds to every game equally, and if you are aware who you are filtering out, you have more chance

    Then there is also the fact that what is good during the first few dates may not be good after 5 months and again different when married. I personally am happy with a bit of distance and a light hearted atmosphere early on, because at that point all a guy really knows is that I am a girl he considers pretty that is friendly to him. It is nice if that inspires him to wear a nice cologne and introduce me to his favourite Chinese dish, but when that alone is enough for him to want to introduce me to his parents and buy me some jewellery, it does make him seem not that picky. Not that picky means he rarely gets the chance to date a girl as attractive as me. Plus it also puts considerable pressure on me. If he feels this way now, giving it 5 more dates will likely get his feelings out of control, so I would be more inclined to break it of early unless he was extremely attractive. That said, after 5 months, letting me meet his parents and buying me earrings is perfectly fine. At that point he has a very good idea of what sort of person I am and I know that this is inspired by my deeper personality. If he would still be doing the same as on a second date, I would think that my personality did not affect him much, or he is just looking for a friend and that the relationship would not go anywhere so I would end it. Women are not going to be young forever, so wasting time with a guy who is not progressing visibly is not something clever women will do.

    I think some of the hardcore player types are guys who have experienced considerable hurt and are stuck in that.
    The little brother of a friend of mine was like that. Full of fear and pain and being hard and crass to keep the world at distance so that no one could get to him. He basically hit on everything in a skirt, slept around and drank a lot I guess to a sort of nerdy boy, that can look like a glamorous life on the outside. But using drink and sex to numb your pain is a pretty sad lifestyle and it is a bit revolting when you see it up close; the inability to deal with pain, the inability to say no to another glass or another roll in the hay. I guess that makes it harder and harder to actually let someone else in.

    Like


  180. Dexplorer,

    Thanks for the compliment.

    I was not heavy for most of my life, but not slim either, I probably also had underlying imbalance. Then I got ill and put on 15 kilos in a year and a half or so. And then I improved my health and lost 15 kilos again. So I am the same weight I was before I was ill, but I am much healthier now because I have optimal rather than reasonable functioning physically. I’m also more muscular and wear a size smaller though I am the same weight. I have a very different shape than I used to have and I kind of have to learn again what looks good on me.

    Like


  181. You know, even if it is about what works with the other sex and not about what they say they like, hearing stories from the other sex does bring everything more alive.

    I guess when you focus only on what works you become more effective, but you may start viewing men, or women, as a slot machine that you are trying to figure out. Which kind of defeats the point.

    Like


  182. […] will try to keep you on tenterhooks, extracting your resources for little in return. A simple preemptive qualification should suffice to smoke them […]

    Like


  183. […] the impression of a pleasant personality, but the content tells otherwise. She might qualify as a genuine golddigger. Golddiggers are one step below whores, because at least whores have the integrity to follow […]

    Like


  184. Waifs are the worst!

    Dated a chick once while I was lifeguarding at the beach at same time my brother was dating her roommate. My chick was starting to get territorial and actually showed up at 11 pm one night at our apt without calling first. I stopped calling her after this affront, which drove her mad.

    A couple weeks after i stopped calling her, I’m hanging at their apt with my brother and the roommate watching tv. Nicole comes in with some guy she picked up at a bar. She’s expecting me to be outraged, but instead I offered up my apologies to the guy she brought home. I told him she was just using him to make me jealous, and there was zero chance she was going to have sex with him, regardless of what she may have implied. He looks shocked, Nicole looks outraged, my brother is grinning ear to ear at the show–I get up, leave and go home.

    45 minutes later Nicole’s knocking on my door asking to come in. I tell her before she comes in that I expect an apology bj. I open, she drops, everybody’s happy…After that, she stopped complaining that i was banging other chicks besides her and was happy I called her 1-2x a week. Because, seriously, WHAT GUY IS WILLING TO WORK FOR MINIMUM WAGE AS A LIFEGUARD JUST TO DATE ONE GIRL ALL SUMMER?

    Like


  185. […] this post is about that small minority of femme fatales who are dedicated golddiggers. They exist, especially in feverishly status conscious enclaves, and it’s in your interest as […]

    Like