Optics & Frame

Indiana Governor Mike Pence, the Indiana state legislature, and also the state of Indiana is taking an absolute beating from all corners over the recently passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

He appears genuinely surprised at the reaction:

“Was I expecting this kind of backlash? Heavens no,” Pence admitted Tuesday.

In my view, his surprise demonstrates that he is not politically savvy, and a lack of understanding of optics and frame.  What do I mean by this?

The “optics” of something refers to how it appears or how it can be portrayed, and it may have *nothing* to do with the substantive truth of the matter.  Often, the optics of something are going to be the result of the “frame” in which the matter/issue is taking place.  The frame is the overall contextual background in which the matter is taking place. There are times when a misleading/incorrect frame can be so powerful that even someone with the substantive truth on their side faces a massive uphill battle.

I am not a legal scholar or lawyer so I do not have the competence to judge the language of this law and its potential consequences.  That said, based on my understanding the law does not do what the critics are in an uproar about.  My understanding is based largely on the coverage by Megyn Kelly the last few days who is a lawyer.

Regardless of the substantive reality of the legislation passed, the optics of the law are easy to portray as “anti-gay” and “homophobic”.  For many, it is actually irrelevant to examine the actual language of the bill.  The bill is simply an opportunity to reinforce their talking points.  The reason this works is because of the overall societal frame which is that being “anti-gay” is one of the worst offenses imaginable.  And because in our current society “tolerance” and “political correctness” are two of the highest virtues.  That is the frame/contextual background in which this debate is taking place.  As an example, an alternative frame might be the difference between “public” and “private” spheres.

“Red Pill” discussions of intergender dynamics basically is in the same boat.  The substantive truth/accuracy of many of the things we discuss is actually irrelevant in terms of any broader societal discussion.  The optics are terrible.  It is easy for the intellectually lazy who rely exclusively on rhetoric to simply mention buzzwords like “misogynist” or “toxic” to shut down debate on the substantive matters.  This is true because any debate is taking place in a frame dominated by the feminine imperative.

I’d like to think I am stating the obvious here, but it makes no sense whatsoever to self-identify as “Red Pill” or go into any discussion of the theory in any sort of public way because of the optics of any such discussion.  I’d like to think that anyone with at least an average IQ would realize you would never in a million years bring the subject up in discussion with a romantic/sexual prospect.  The only thing that makes sense (which I will use) in a more public discussion that may involve Blue-Pillers is ask some leading questions that maybe gets their brain working.  Often the best way to persuade someone of something is to make them think they figured it out on their own.

In terms of how you incorporate “Red Pill” views into your everyday life and interactions, I’ll quote a wise man:

“Demonstrate, don’t explicate”.

 

Alpha Redux?

This is a “thinking out loud” post.   It’s based on something I’m seeing among acquaintances and longtime friends.

Lately I’ve noticed an uptick in single/divorced women of my acquaintance meeting up with, and returning to, romances with, past boyfriends and lovers from high school and college. I admit this is purely anecdotal.  I don’t know of or have any science or studies or surveys to back this up.

— For the past year, my sister’s best college friend has been having a sexual affair with a married man she dated for a short time in college. I had become acquainted with the friend over the years from her friendship with my sister. The adulterers reconnected on social media after more than 20 years of no contact. Both are unhappily married but have no intention of divorcing their respective spouses, or so they say.

— A high school female friend married a man she met in college and returned with him to his rural hometown where they had and raised four children. After 23 years of marriage, the last 7 or so unhappy, my friend divorced her alpha provider husband.  Reasons: her inlaws’ intermeddling into the marriage, her ex-husband’s refusal to do anything about it, and her general unhappiness and isolation while living in Podunkville. She “came back home” to regroup, and has rekindled things with her high school boyfriend, who is himself divorced and a father of one son.  In high school, he was a jock; she was a cheerleader — a stereotypical football quarterback/prom queen pairing.

— Another female acquaintance never married after college, and remained unmarried for 15 years. She had a chance meeting with a college boyfriend and rekindled things with him.  He was a frivorced father of two. She since married College Boyfriend, after a hiatus of 15 years and 2 years of dating.  These two were always, and still are, the least physically attractive of the three pairings.

I can think of a few others, but these are the most illustrative.

These women have the following in common:

–They are all in their mid to late 40s.

–They all first met (and first became sexually active with) their current paramours before reaching age 20.

–They all had dating/sexual experiences between the end of the first relationships with these men and the later reconnections.

–They are all around the same age as their paired men.  Their age differentials do not exceed 2 years.

–They all moved away from home to attend college and earned 4-year baccalaureate degrees.   #1 holds a master’s degree.

–They have all worked as professionals.  #1 is a public school teacher.   #2 was briefly an office administrator but was a stay-at-home mother for a long time.  #3 is a lawyer.

Finally, #1 and #2 are still reasonably physically attractive.   #3 is not.

___________________________________

1. Social media has undoubtedly influenced a lot of this.  Social media allows people to find each other and reconnect easily, inexpensively and unobtrusively.   One can search for and find people with a minimum of effort and money; no private investigators or skip traces required.   And one can tailor “friendship” on social media to suit one’s liking.  One can be as forward or as coy as one wishes.   And most importantly, connections can take place on computers and phones, away from the prying eyes and ears of spouses and other people.   It doesn’t require phone calls or face to face meetings unless and until the participants want to meet.  It would have been much more difficult for these people to have found and reconnected with each other had social media not been the catalyst.

2. With social media, there’s some “chicken/egg” stuff going on here. Were these unhappy women before social media and reconnection with past lovers? Or did social media cause otherwise content women to seek out past lovers and feed into “fear of missing out” and “you only live once”?

3. This ties into something I’ve seen Buena Vista talk about. He posited that the traditional “alpha fux, beta bux” model doesn’t completely describe what’s happening with the older set.  It’s more accurate to call it  “alpha fux, beta bux, back to alpha fux.” In other words, AF from 18 to mid 20s; BB from marriage to about mid 40s or the last child is more or less independent; then back to AF from age 45 or so.

The blogger Black Dragon has noticed this too. He has talked about what he calls “Long Soft Next for Temporary Exclusivity”. In this situation, a woman “nexts” an attractive man who won’t offer commitment in favor of a man who will commit. But, she always keeps the attractive “nexted” man in the back of her mind and in her sights in the event she wants him or things don’t work out with “commitment man”.  A “soft next” means she is still attracted to him despite the relationship not working. This is in juxtaposition to the “hard next”, meaning she never has anything to do with him again. The “soft next’s” duration can be a few weeks to many years.  Black Dragon says this explains how a lot of women reconnect with past loves after years of no contact.

4. I have to believe that women’s unprecedented independent access to resources enables this too. It used to be that women’s “cougaring” and pursuing “old flames” was limited to the landed gentry; the so-called “idle rich”;  the Western European aristocracy; the old money, upper crust, “polite society” Americans. Now you have $40K/year middle school teachers and legal secretaries doing this, with kids in tow.

5. These examples are anecdotal observational support for the alpha widow concept and the sexual bonding concept. These women are returning to men who are now well into middle age.  These men have lost at least some of their past male vigor, and one is unavailable for commitment due to his marriage to another. This suggests more than just raw sexual attraction or need for sexual release. It suggests these women have very, very deep emotional connections to these men. These bonds were forged in a cocktail of carefree socialization and hormonal flooding when both the men and women involved were in their late teens and early 20s, right around the same time lifelong friendships are formed, and around when marriages used to happen.

Women in their late teens and early 20s, have sex only with men they are REALLY attracted to.  I knew these particular women back then, as I was and still am one of their contemporaries.  They were as most of us describe – sexually feral and uninhibited; and willing to do just about anything with and for a sexually attractive man.  Women at this age have sex exclusively with attractive men.  They aren’t thinking about Beta Bucks at 19 or 20.   Women at this age who get sexually active can be, and are, very selective about who they’ll sleep with.

I think those women really, truly fell deeply in love with these men.   Those women never really got over their long lost first loves; and they didn’t get over them because they bonded hard to those men.  There is no other reasonable explanation why women who are still reasonably attractive return to the old well of boyfriends from ages past, after 15 to 25 years.   There’s more to it than just comfort and sexual attraction.   They’re still in love with these men.

6.   And why do the men do this?     I think for the men, it IS about comfort (modified wife goggles) and easy sexual attraction.  These men are comfortable returning to these women who they remember from years past.  I think they also bonded to these women (though not as hard as the women did), and they find it easy to return to women with whom they had early sexual success.  I suspect that the sex comes easy, because these women fell so hard for them.   And, well, they don’t really have to work for it.

I know the men involved, too.  These men weren’t hot stud alpha top 10%, not then and not now, but they weren’t Poindexters either.  I’d consider them at best Vox Day Betas in their younger days — the guys who got with Alpha castoffs; the Alpha sidekicks, so to speak.  And they’ve retained most of their sexual market value.   The involved men are also in middle age, mid 40s to early 50s.  These are not lifelong bachelors with options who cleaned up with women.  But they were not gammas or omegas either.  Man #1 is a physician who would take a massive hit in a divorce.  Man #2 was a high school jock and is now a high school principal/football coach (and dumber than a bag of hammers).  Man #3 is now a middle manager for a utility company; his new wife is a lawyer.

Or, maybe I’m just all wet on this.  Maybe these six people are just horrible human beings.

Have at it in the comments.

FURTHER READING:

blackdragonblog.com/glossary/   (Long Soft Next For Temporary Exclusivity)

Female Emotional Entitlement

Female emotional entitlement is just a new name given to an old concept.

Many women claim absolute entitlement to a man’s thoughts, emotions, and feelings. Worse, many women claim an absolute right to burden their husbands, boyfriends and/or any other nearby man with her own thoughts, feelings and emotions. She claims she can express her feelings anytime, anywhere, and without regard to anything else that might be occurring at that moment.

Many women view a man who doesn’t talk about his feelings as defective in some way. Stoic men, quiet men, men who don’t “share”, are routinely labeled “emotionally unavailable” men, or as men with low “EQs” (emotional quotient).  Some women deride these men as autistic; Aspergers sufferers; or as inwardly underdeveloped men who can’t read social cues.

1.   This is just another expression of the Feminine Imperative.   What she wants must always have primacy, must always take precedence over all other considerations.  His wants, needs or desires from his sexual relationship are illegitimate, unimportant, and need be given no consideration.

2.   She’s not entitled to know every thought, emotion or process going on in a man’s head.    She doesn’t have a right to know everything you think, feel or believe.  So don’t tell her.

3.    She doesn’t WANT to know all of your thoughts, emotions and mental processes.   It’s really quite rich that the women who demand that men share absolutely every cogitation they have are the very same women who deride and denigrate men for overemoting and oversharing.   On one hand, men are called spergs, socially inept, and “emotionally unavailable” for hanging back and not talking about feelings.   Almost in the very same breath, these very selfsame women turn up their noses at men who emote.  They sneer “ewww, stop talking about your feelings, that’s so unattractive and effeminate.”

Don’t tell her all your feelings.   She doesn’t really want to know — even if she asks, and even if she’s your wife.

4.   She’s not entitled to vomit emotionally all over you whenever she feels like it..  I’ve noticed this among a lot of women and it’s getting a bit more prevalent now.  Women seem to feel entitled to discard the emotional tampon entirely, and they simply emote in public, anywhere, anytime.   A growing number of women are given to overwrought emotional displays in public.  Private emotional displays are also more and more exuberant, unpredictable and unnerving.   It could be the reality show phenomenon, more widespread mental dysfunction, social media,  or just narcissism.

The average man might not be able to squelch this everywhere, but he can put a stop to it in his own life.   Women aren’t entitled to dump their emotions all over you any time they feel like it.   They’re not entitled to use you as the emotional tampon of the moment.  They’re not entitled to say anything they want to you.  They’re not entitled to attention or validation just because they feel a certain way and just have to express it verbally right now.  That goes for mothers, sisters and other female relations.   They’re not entitled to unburden their souls on their sons, brothers, uncles, and other male relatives whenever the mood strikes.

5.    Male emotional displays kill sexual attraction or prevent it from manifesting.    This is the reason men should play their feelings cards close to the vest.  Don’t show your emotions to a woman before attraction is established.  Contrary to what the “EQ” and “emotional availability” advocates would have you believe, male emotional displays DO NOT generate or build sexual attraction.  In fact, it’s just the opposite. You’re more likely to prevent sexual attraction from ever getting a chance to germinate and grow if you start talking about how you feel.   Emotional involvement with a woman where attraction isn’t established doesn’t serve your interests.

Shut up about your emotions.   Just shut up and keep it to yourself.  If you want to be garrulous and gregarious, gain experiences that give you stories to tell.   Don’t run off at the mouth about how you feel about this or that.

6.    In a male-female intimate relationship, the female demand to know all your emotions, thoughts and feelings is ultimately about power.  On the playing field of emotions and feelings, most women are superior to most men.  Her knowing all your emotional “pushbuttons” enables her to pull you from the realm of thought based logic, where more men are comfortable and competent; and into the world of feelings based emotion, where more women are comfortable.  She will almost always gain the upper hand when all your feelings and emotions are at her disposal.  She will make every attempt to pull you into discussions that appear logical and fact based, but are really emotional and feelings-based.  Or, she will slowly distract the terms and phrases from logic to emotion:    “I feel like….”  “I don’t like it when you….”   “It hurts me when you….”   “I’m so HURT!”

If you say anything she does not like, she will then proclaim that you hurt her feelings.   At that moment, you have lost any hope that your perspectives, opinions, wants, needs or desires will have priority, or even that they will be heard or given any consideration.  The discussion must then necessarily turn to your salving her bruised feelings and ego.  Your concerns, wants, needs and desires will have to wait until later, to allow healing for her injured feelings.   Meanwhile, the problem or issue that requires a logical, fact based solution continues to fester.  It cannot be addressed until she has had a chance to “heal”.

Don’t misunderstand me on this last point.  I am not saying that women, or even more than a tiny fraction of women, intentionally do any of this.   All of this is subconscious.  Most women who do this are not even aware they’re doing it.   But this is a common pattern, and one which most men can be easily sucked into if they are not vigilant and don’t understand the dynamic at work.

______________________________________

She’s not entitled to know all your thoughts, feelings and emotions.   She doesn’t want to know them all.   Do yourself – and her- a favor.   Keep your feelings to yourself.

You’re Not Entitled, And It’s Not Fair

Ladies, you’re not entitled to anything.

You’re not entitled to commitment. You don’t have a right to anything from any man. You don’t have any right to a man’s time, money, attention or sexual fidelity. You’re not entitled to get pregnant, and you don’t have a right to have children. You’re not entitled to “have it all”.

You’re not entitled to protection from any nearby man simply because you want it or think you need it or feel afraid of someone or something. You don’t have a right to a man’s “protection” because of your excessive consumption of legal or illegal substances. You have a right to make poor decisions. But you definitely do NOT have a right to demand that nearby men relieve you of the consequences of your poor decisions. Men are not your personal bodyguards, janitors, mediators, or moral enforcers.

You’re not entitled to any nearby man’s help with anything simply because you want or need his physical strength, height, intellect, or expertise. You’re not entitled to a man’s help because you are not strong enough to move it, aren’t tall enough to reach it, can’t figure it out, or don’t have the stomach for it. You’re not entitled to attention from a man just because you’re a woman and he’s a man. You’re not entitled to help with your work.

You’re not entitled to favors of any kind. You’re not entitled to free transportation on demand. You’re not entitled to help moving furniture into or around your home. And you don’t have a right to a shoulder to cry on after you discovered your boyfriend “cheating” on you with your coworker or your best friend.

You’re not entitled to a drink from that guy. You’re not entitled to anything from that hawt guy just because you went home with him from the bar that night. You’re not entitled to commitment from him. You’re not entitled to a relationship, breakfast in the morning, a return text, or even an acknowledgment that he knew you. Why should he value you more than you value yourself?

You’re not entitled. To anything.

Men, it’s not fair.

In the sexual market, you’re not entitled to fairness or justice. You’re not entitled to be heard or even to plead your case. And you don’t have a right to leave the market, either. You don’t have a right to be free from rejection. You’re not entitled to excuses or justifications. You will be evaluated and assessed on your sociosexual status. There is no escape from any of this.

Each and every one of you are players in this game, whether or not you know it and whether or not you wish to be. The only question is by what rules you will play it.

You will be rejected for reasons that have everything to do with you, nothing to do with you, and every point in between. Most of the time you will never know the truth of why you were rejected. You will be rejected many, many times, and you will need to develop a thick skin for it.

In your mission, you will be entitled only to what you earn — nothing more, nothing less. If you or others receive more than what was earned, it is because someone gave it freely or it was otherwise received unfairly. No, it wasn’t fair. No, they weren’t entitled to it. Yes, you will need to get over that. And you cannot change that. Sometimes, you will be deprived even of what you earned. And if that happens, it will be up to you to change it, challenge it, or remove from your life the persons who so deprived you.

And none of that is fair.

Misandry in Super Bowl Advertising

 

“Sorry, it’s a boy”

Identifying misandry, even of the “soft humor” type is actually pretty easy.  Simply take the example, story, video, whatever and flip all the genders, and then ask what the reaction would be.

What if a commercial had aired during the Super Bowl that had two male comedians/talk show hosts, and one quipped “Sorry, it’s a girl”?  I’d bet my entire life savings and maybe even my life, that the next day the howls of rage and indignation over misogyny would be everywhere.  Every talk show, every newscast; the women of The View would be apoplectic.  Joy Behar’s head might explode.

Some might argue “hey, lighten up, it is just a joke”.  OK, but would it be a funny joke with the genders flipped?

Why the blatant double standard?  Because we live in a society where the feminine imperative dominates the frame of media and discourse.  I don’t recall where I first read this, but the comparison was made that taking the Red Pill is like having the sunglasses in They Live which allow the wearer to see the aliens for who and what they are, and all the subliminal messages.  Similarly, you begin to immediately recognize anti-male bias or negative messaging against men even when it is subtle or cloaked in humor.  Many TV sitcoms rely on the formula of the strong, in control woman juggling a dozen items successfully coupled with the doofus husband that she needs to borderline treat like another kid.

Interestingly, skimming rapidly a Google search on the ad, there was quite a bit of pushback on the ad with people calling it out for the sexist misandry that it is.  Of course, the hamsters were out in full force spinning the hamsterbation wheel like an epileptic seizure in arguing why the ad was not sexist.  You see, men are NOT part of a “marginalized class” affected by “systemic oppression”.  Because they are not, we could make jokes about chopping off their penises and that would be perfectly fine.

So what are some other examples of misandry and anti-male bias in popular media?  Share them in the comments.

The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same

Below are a series of quotes on “Game” from August 21, 2009, from A View From The Right, which is a site run by the late Lawrence Auster, a traditional conservative author, philosopher and social commentator.

You’ll see that the various claims and arguments made around these parts have been made for a long time.

Here’s “Jacob M.”, writing in Auster’s post dated August 21, 2009. I edited his comment only a bit, and added some paragraph breaks for ease of reading.  I’ve added some bold for emphasis in his and others’ comments. Read all of it, and go to the link to read his full comment and those of his detractors. 

Here’s the link:  http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014017.html

_______________

Jacob M.:

We were raised to believe that women like “nice guys.” We were told by our parents, teachers, church leaders, and the media that women just wanted marriage and family, and that if we pitched ourselves as a family-oriented, commitment-oriented guy with a steady job, women would find us attractive. We watched from the sidelines in high school as the girls threw themselves at the captain of the football team or the guy who played guitar in a band, but we were told, “just hang on—once you get out there in the real world, those guys will be losers, and you’ll meet a nice sweet girl who’ll be happy to become your wife and have children with you.”

We have always been prepared to believe that a life devoted to marriage and family was more satisfying in the long run than the chance to score with multiple hot babes that the “alphas” got for a few years when they were young. But when we entered the adult world, we found that the women were still throwing themselves at those athletes and guitarists. They can afford to; they have their own jobs and don’t need our support.

“***I’m a little less optimistic that belief in Christianity can save the day. I moved to the Midwest to attend medical school, I attend a large evangelical church and am part of a large evangelical social circle, and I haven’t had a date in over two years. I’ve seen it with my own eyes—even these conservative Christian women, whom everyone thinks are just dying to get married and have babies, and who certainly aren’t sleeping around with “alphas,” aren’t particularly attracted to a guy just because he’s on a good career path and is willing and ready to settle down. Even they seem to seek excitement, fun, above all other things. Even in church, they tend to ignore the betas and all hold out for the coolest guys. That’s why I think any man today needs to learn some “game” just to attract a wife.”

Here’s “Stephen T.”, from the same Auster entry.  Again, some paragraph breaks were added.

“I participate in a sporting activity with many guys much younger than I. I’m quite sure that, in previous generations, I would never have heard so many young, virile, athletic (meaning in good physique, not pro athletes) men report the exact same thing that Jacob M. has written you about. Many of them literally cannot get a date, much less a steady girlfriend. I hear it all the time. These are guys with steady jobs.

I get the impression that many girls their age (twenty-something) spend a great deal of time fantasizing about media-driven images of bad-boy rock stars and sexy, dynamic millionaires whom they (somehow) believe will be attracted to them—even though many of them are probably not what you would call supermodel material themselves. Still, many would literally rather sit home than settle for the “boring” responsible type.

“As for the guys, frankly, I think many COULD benefit from a bit of “game.” Feminism seems to have neutered their natural male instincts to know when they are being toyed with or, frankly, made a fool of by a girl. Many are led like sheep into one-sided scenarios where a girl soaks them for time, money, and strictly platonic companionship—meanwhile, it’s the unemployed rock guitarist or the gangsta rapper on probation whom she’s actually *sleeping* with (while Mr Responsibility spends his nights with himself.)

I try to counsel these guys to open their eyes to stark reality, develop some backbone, and manfully bail out of no-win situations like that. But they are, I believe, much more like babes in the woods than guys of my generation were when it comes to “chicks” (as we called them then.) They are so afraid of the disapproval or censure of liberal females, of being called “chauvinist” or whatever the current equivalent of that is, that they will not stand up for themselves.”

Curmudgeonly Roger G., tells everyone to “suck it up, buttercup”:

“The men asserting that they can’t find wives because the women “don’t want nice guys” are engaging in self-justification and/or self-delusion. What is actually happening is that the women whom they consider sufficiently attractive to pursue don’t find them sufficiently attractive and/or interesting in return. Women who fail to measure up to their standards of beauty won’t get the time of day from these “nice guys.” As to that young future doctor who wrote in, I’ll guarantee that his church is full of single women who would welcome his interest, but they don’t look good enough for him. The market is overloaded with good single women, if you’re not picky about looks.

Not that I blame the guys. They shouldn’t feel obligated to accept women they don’t find attractive; it’s their lives, after all. They should just be honest about the situation, at least to themselves.

“And this looks thing is almost entirely about weight and physical fitness. The brutal truth is that few men want fat cows, whatever their virtues.

“So in this regard, the women are at fault too. To reiterate, men want a woman who looks good. So girls, instead of whining about the shallowness of it all, accept the realities of life and be willing to sweat for what you want. Get to a gym, and lay off the cupcakes for heaven’s sake. It’s pretty difficult for a woman who’ll put in the time and effort not to end up looking good to a substantial percentage of the male sex.”

“Passive Rejection” Is Not a Thing

(Repurposed from some comments at

http://www.justfourguys.com/it-isnt-all-our-fault-guest-post-by-deti/)

“Passive rejection” is a developing meme among a lot of women.  Women claim to suffer rejection from attractive men when those men don’t approach them and don’t ask them out.

It’s essentially a claim that women feel the sting of rejection when attractive men ignore them, don’t approach, and don’t ask for dates.  I’m seeing women argue that “passive rejection” is every bit as valid as “active rejection” is done to a man, i.e., he approaches or asks, and she turns him down or blows him out.  

 There are more recent examples; but I’ll point to one here. Discussion starts at the link below.

 http://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/market-failure/comment-page-3/#comment-1732

Sigyn: “[Average “nice guys”] get attention. Believe me, they get attention. There’s a girl right over there whose heart soars every time he walks into the room–but because society has this expectation that “nice girls wait to be asked”, she will never make the move. And he won’t, either, because SHE’S NOT ON HIS RADAR. They’d suit each other perfectly–she’d fly to the moon and back to please him–but for some reason he’s not interested in her, so it doesn’t even occur to him that he’s getting attention from her (i.e., it’s not the kind of attention he wants, from the kind of girl he expects).”

deti:     “As for your Sixteen Candles scenario, well, I’m sure it happens. In this SMP there’s nothing stopping her from making her attraction known. Actually, he’s not getting ATTENTION from her. She’s not giving him any attention. She likes him from afar. That’s not attention. That’s just unrequited, unexpressed attraction.”

Sigyn: “It’s incompletely expressed attraction. She does things for him. She speaks kindly to him, a little more warmly than most, and compliments him as much as she feels comfortable doing. She remembers his birthday and makes him a cupcake. When someone does him wrong, she takes his side fervently. After they meet, she may doll herself up a little. She may even go so far as to suggest “hanging out together, oh just casually, later this week”–and if he asks if it will be just the two of them, she quickly offers to invite some other friends because “nice girls wait to be asked” and “men don’t want to be pursued”. And the whole time, she’s just thinking to herself, “I like you so much, ask me, ask me, I’m right here and I’ll say yes, can’t you see I’ll say yes?””

_________________

The above is an example of what is claimed to be “passive rejection” — where a woman simply admires a man from afar. There is no interaction, or there is very limited interaction.  And she views the mutual inaction and inertia as “rejection”.  

TYPES OF REJECTION

Rejection doesn’t work the way Sigyn claimed in the above exchange.   One is not being “rejected” unless one actually takes some form of action. One is not rejected unless and until one does something or a series of things which will be either “accepted” or “approved”, or “declined” or “rejected”.

Women reject men “covertly” and “overtly”.

We all know about overt rejection – the nuclear blowout. The “LJBF”. The polite let down.

Then there’s the protection shield. The “don’t even THINK about it, loser” vibe that a lot of women put out.

There’s also the bitchface look that women show to men who approach them. That’s the facial expression that says “there is no way I will EVER go out with you, so Do. Not. Even. Ask.” Or it’s the expression that says “what is this thing that dares to address me?”

There are also women who just aren’t very socially astute. They exude social discomfort and unease.  Some of these women believe that all men will immediately go from “hi” to sex. A few militant, maladjusted women fervently believe that all men are rapists. Or, they just don’t know how to read or respond to it when a man shows attraction.

None of these, however, are the same thing as “passive rejection” that women complain of with men. In the cases I’m describing, there is interaction. There is, at the very least, a man observing a woman and drawing conclusions about her, her body language, her expression, her mien, her bearing, her attitude, and the odds of her saying yes or no (as well as the odds of a very public nuclear rejection and/or a sexual harassment complaint).   There is the cost-benefit analysis.  He assesses the odds, and makes a decision based on what he observes.  

In “passive rejection”, there’s no interaction. Nothing actually “happens”. There is only her admiration of him from afar.  There is only her seeing him and noticing him across a room, or over time.  There are only her maelstrom of feelings.   The woman is attracted to the man but builds it all up in her mind and is crushed when nothing happens.

FEELINGS ARE NOT FACTS

“Passive rejection” is nothing but feelings. It is nothing other than what an individual experiences in her own mind and heart. It is not even an exchange. There is no interaction, no conversation. There is only “I feel bad because that attractive man won’t pay any attention to me”.

It is not that she WAS rejected. It is that she FEELS bad because she did not get something she wanted, yet wasn’t willing to do anything to pursue what she wanted.   When a woman steps up to a man she finds attractive and she asks him out, and he says no, then, and only then, can she say that he rejected her.  Until that point, there are only her feelings.  There is only what she feels. 

Feelings are not interchangeable with facts. It is true that she feels this way. Feelings are real. But feelings are not the same thing as facts. Facts exist independently of what someone thinks, feels or believes about them. Feelings are entirely and completely a product of an individual’s own mind and heart.

The subtle innuendo here, of course, is “That attractive man is a bad man because he is ignoring me. Therefore, it is all his fault.” The innuendo is that the rejection is not something she feels, but is something that the attractive man does to her by omission and by failing to act. Therefore, it is his fault that she feels this way. He is somehow responsible for her feelings.

This is all a bit like saying “I would like that job. I want that job. I would like to do that job. But I am not going to do anything to try to get that job. I am going to hang back here and wait for that employer to approach me and offer me that job. Oh no! That employer isn’t talking to me! I’ve been rejected!”

No, you weren’t rejected. You didn’t get that job because you didn’t do anything to try to actually get hat job.

If “passive rejection” is so powerfully horrendous, and just as bad as being directly rejected from an approach, then there is no reason a woman cannot and should not simply make the direct approach of the man she is interested in.  If she thinks she will be rejected but she is interested, she might as well make the approach and talk to the man.   Yet the vast majority of women will not do this. They are terrified to approach.  Yet, these selfsame women will sit back, do nothing, and tolerate the “passive rejection”.

No one, male or female, is “passively rejected”. There is no such thing as “incompletely expressed attraction”. You didn’t get what you wanted because you didn’t do anything to pursue it, or because what you did to pursue it was insufficient, or you just didn’t have what it takes to get it. 

The old rules don’t apply anymore. That much is clear from society’s completely doing away with beta males as good husband material. Good providers are universally seen as chumps.  Most women will without mercy or second thought reject kind and good hearted men. Men cannot attract women with provider bona fides or affable, forthright conduct.

It is the same for women. The old rules of “hang back and let the guys come to you” and “nice girls don’t pursue” and “nice girls don’t call guys for dates” and “nice girls don’t do the asking”? Those rules are dead.  Women who want good men will have to go out there and find one. You are going to have to beat the bushes and pull them out of the woodwork. Good man you find attractive? YOU have to go to HIM. YOU have to make your interest known — clearly and unmistakably — to HIM.

_____________________

There is much digital complaining from women about alleged “male sexual entitlement” (a nonentity if ever there was one).   The whining about “passive rejection” and complaining about insufficient attention from attractive men sounds much to me like female emotional entitlement and female relational entitlement.   Certain women claim they are entitled to emotional investment from any man they desire, with no conditions on any sort of concomitant investment from her.  These women demand that men give them attention and relationships whenever they want, on their schedules, at their whim, and with no reciprocation on their part. 

Women are not entitled to anything from any men.  Women are not entitled to attention from men.  Women are not entitled to a man’s emotional availability.  Women are not entitled to a man’s time, money, resources, commitment, or sexual fidelity.

Why Female Settling Is Bad For Relationships

(H/T Novaseeker and Rollo Tomassi)

Over at Rollo’s “The Love Experience” thread, the subject of male optimization and female hypergamy came up, as well as a claim that men are hypergamous.  This isn’t true, because while both men and women optimize, only women are hypergamous.   The difference is in where the attraction floors are for both sexes.   In today’s SMP, this creates problems because most women cannot marry men they are sexually attracted to. This is a problem for most men because they are beneath most women’s attraction floors. With all restraints on female sexuality removed, this creates situations in which you have a majority of women marrying men they don’t really want to have sex with.   The average man can marry a woman he’s sexually attracted to, but the average woman cannot marry a man she’s sexually attracted to.  

Keep in mind that in this post, “attraction” means sexual attraction. It refers to women who men want to have sex with; and men who women want to have sex with.  

Hypergamy just means “attracted to higher sexual market value than one’s own sexual market value”.

Optimization vs. Hypergamy

Everyone optimizes in life.  In other words, everyone, male or female, seeks the best they can get, in everything: sex, schools, jobs, careers, marriages, leisure, home and car purchases, whatever. At all times and all places, in all situations and circumstances, everyone seeks the best they can get with whatever they can use to trade for what they want; be that money, sex appeal, resources, knowhow, wits, personal connections, and whatever else individuals have at their disposal.  Everyone, men and women, seeks the best they can get.   Everyone optimizes.  

 Optimization is different when applied to men and women because of their fundamental differences in the way men and women approach sex and relationships.   Both optimize, but it looks different with men vis a vis women because of hypergamy and where the attraction floors are for each sex.   Men optimize; but women optimize in light of their hypergamous natures.

The Male Approach

Men have much wider attraction filters than women do. Most men are attracted to most women.   Thus, a man can be, and almost always is, attracted to women above his SMV, at his SMV and a bit below his SMV. His attraction runs to a much wider spectrum, and at all three places on the SMV scale:  above, at and below his own SMV.

All men have an attraction floor which is almost always below their own SMVs.  The attraction floor is in different places for different men.   A man will not go below this floor for sex with a woman because he isn’t attracted to her. He will never invest in or commit to a woman he’s not sexually attracted to.   Thus, a man can be attracted to women who are less attractive than he is. So a man can be attracted to his own SMV, expressed as SMV +0. He’s also attracted to women who are his SMV +1, +2 and +3, for example.   He will also be attracted to women who are SMV -1, and maybe even -2.

The “floor” can be in different places depending on circumstances.  A male 9 or 10 will have a much deeper attraction floor.  He can reach down to HB 5s and 6s and still not descend below the floor.   A male 5 if he’s thirsty enough might have a floor as low as female 2s.   A male 2 can only go to female 1s and 2s.  Keep in mind – they are below his SMV, but not below the attraction floor.

Take an average man, a male 5.   He will no doubt be attracted to female 6s and up.   He’s also attracted to his SMV counterpart, the female 5. He will also be attracted to some female 4s and maybe even some 3s. His best relationship will be with a female 4 because, as we’ll soon see, he will be above her in SMV and satisfies her hypergamous nature.  Because he’s a 5, he will not be able to keep a female 6 or above for very long, if at all. He could make a relationship work with a HB 5 but they can become precarious because an HB 5 is usually not attracted to her own SMV counterpart.

When it comes to marriage, his attraction to her is an absolute must, a dealbreaker.   A man will not marry a woman who he doesn’t want to have sex with.  This is because for men, sexual desire is binary. It is either “want” or “don’t want”.   It is either “I want to have sex with her” or “I do not want to have sex with her”; “Hell yeah” or “Hell no”.   No man is “meh” about sex with a woman he finds attractive.   And no man will marry a woman he isn’t attracted to.  

The Female Approach

It works quite differently for women.   Women have much narrower filters than men do.   A typical woman is NOT attracted to most men.   Women’s attraction floors are always at or above their own SMVs.  Hypergamy requires this.   Women are never attracted to men below their own SMVs. So a woman’s attraction will always be SMV +1, +2 and +3.   She’s not really attracted to SMV +0, and is never attracted to SMV -1 and below.  

Consider a female 6.   She is very attracted to male 9s. She is attracted to male 8s, and a lot of 7s. She could muster up a little attraction to male 6s.   But she will never, ever be attracted to male 5s or below. The female attraction floor is SMV+0. It reaches a very hard limit here for women. And here’s where it gets tricky.  

The attraction floor is set, but that doesn’t mean a particular woman won’t go below “the floor” to seek men if those men have other things a woman wants at a particular time.   A woman will go below “the floor” if and only if the man has other things the woman wants, most notably resources and commitment.  Depending on multiple factors such as age, past sexual and relational experience, desire for children and status, and culture and familial pressures, many women will compromise attraction in order to secure resources and commitment.  

Want, Willing, Don’t Want

Women take a much less binary and more spectral, sliding scale approach to sex.   For women, sex is “want”, “willing”, and “don’t want”.  Our hypothetical female 6 wants sex with male 7s, and she really wants sex with male 8s and 9s.   She is willing to have sex with male 6s and maybe a few male 5s, if and only if those men have other things she wants like resources, money, stability, and are willing to offer commitment.   She does not want sex with male 4s and below (unless he is Donald Trump or Bill Gates, in which case she can muster up some “willing” when she grits her teeth, lies back, and thinks of England).

This is all quite familiar when you think about it.   A female 6 really wants sex with a male 8; and that’s why the male 8 doesn’t have to bring anything else to the table to get sex with her.   The male 6, though, has to bring something else, just to get to “willing”.   And the male 5 and below must bring resources and commitment; but she will never, ever “want” sex with him.

As one rises, the other falls.   The higher the male SMV is, the fewer resources and commitment he needs to bring to get a relationship started and keep it going. The lower his SMV is, the more he has to bring just to reach “willing”.   He will work, invest and commit; but she will never be attracted to him despite his commitment.   You can negotiate for commitment; but you cannot negotiate for attraction or desire.  

How This All Shakes Out

For men, it’s quite simple.   Most men settle for women who are less attractive than they would want to have sex with or marry.  But, nearly all those men are still satisfied, because those men are having sex with and marrying women who are still attractive to them. (Keep in mind — we’re talking about sexual attraction here — women these men want to have sex with; because men will not have sex with or marry women who are unattractive to them.)   A man moves down the female SMV scale and finds one willing to LTR/marry him, while still trying to optimize.   If he has to, he will move further and further down the scale until he hits his “floor”.   He will have sex with, even LTR and marry, women at the “floor”. But in no event will he go below the floor and sex up or offer commitment to the few women below the floor, even if that means doing without.  A woman at the floor or above it has sex appeal– the one thing the man wants from the SMP/MMP.  By contrast, a woman below his floor has nothing he wants, and that’s why going below the floor isn’t an option.  

Men who cannot have sex with or marry women they are attracted to, women who are at or above “the floor” — what happens to them?   These men either do without or resort to pornography. This last option of porn or nothing is not optimal or even all that desirable. But men will engage in the cost-benefit analysis, and opt for it if no other options are available.

For women, it doesn’t work out well at all.   There are enough attractive men to go around to all the women who want them for sex. But it’s quite a different story when LTRs and marriage are considered. There aren’t nearly enough male 8s, 9s and 10s to go to all the female 5s through 8s who want them for marriage.  Most attractive men are either (1) married or (2) avoid marriage because they don’t have to marry to partake of the sexual smorgasbord.   As a consequence, the vast majority of women cannot marry men they are attracted to.   Or, more to the point, most women certainly cannot marry the most attractive men they can get for sex. 

All of these women increasingly compromise, moving down the male SMV scale until they get the best they can.   A lot of women have to move down that scale a lot more than they want to or thought they would have to, particularly after having had sexual relationships of varying intensity and duration with more attractive men.  

A woman will move down the male SMV scale, even below her attraction floor.  Men below her floor are not attractive to her, but they still have things she desperately wants.  (But, note that her wanting those things does NOT translate to attraction.  Her offering sexual access for the express purpose of bargaining for those things does NOT translate to attraction.   Again, this is about sexual attraction.   Her wanting commitment from a less attractive man, even her having sex with that man, does NOT mean she “wants” sex; it only means she might be “willing” to have sex with him.  It’s imperative that men understand this key point.)   

Her willingness to bargain and negotiate, in conjunction with her intense desire for status and validation as she ages, will cause her to compromise sexual attraction and lead her into the realm of men she is only “willing” to have sex with.   She will compromise sexual attraction in exchange for commitment and resources.  

She deals with her “willingness” differently than she deals with “want”. A man she “wants” to have sex with only needs to continue being attractive, being “himself”.    The man she’s “willing” to have sex with doesn’t have the benefit of her attraction. She isn’t attracted to him.   She is only “willing” to have sex with him, and that willingness exists only because he has other things she wants, usually money, commitment, and status.  She offers sex; he offers everything else he has. This unfortunate man must bring his commitment and resources, and must continue bringing them for the entire life of the relationship.  

From her perspective, she has already settled, because she didn’t get to marry an attractive man, a man she “wanted” for sex.   She had to reach down into men she is meh about, men she is only “willing” to have sex with. For her to remain even willing to have sex, he must continue bringing what she bargained and settled for.   If he fails to do that for any reason, even for reasons attributable to HER, the marriage is doomed.

The key difference is that men do not do this. Men do not settle for women they are not attracted to, full stop. Men don’t have sex with women they don’t WANT to have sex with. Men don’t commit time, money, or resources to women they don’t want to have sex with.   Men don’t marry women they don’t want to have sex with.   Men will use their resources, will show provider bona fides, but only for women they want to have sex with.   Men have no concept of being merely “willing” to have sex with a woman even for sexual release.   If a man makes a decision to have sex with a woman, it is because he wants to, not because he is merely willing to.   A man will not do anything with, to or for a woman he isn’t attracted to.   Men do not pay attention to, do not talk to, do not spend money on, and certainly do not date or marry, women they aren’t attracted to.  

When it comes to sexual attraction, women do not settle and do not compromise, ever.   If a woman is in it for the sex (and most are until some Momentous Event occurs in their lives), she will find the most attractive men she can, and address only them. She will pay attention to them, talk to them and have sex with them.   She will have sex with SMV +2 and +3 no problem, because they are attractive to her.  She will have sex with SMV +1, because still attractive.   SMV +0 and below get nothing from her – neither sex, nor dates, nor even the time of day, because those men are not attractive to her.

(Now, we’re told that women do want commitment from these men, and perhaps they do.  But if actions are to be considered, it’s clear that commitment and relationships are a distant afterthought.   It also occurs to me that this is what the “never settle” meme among women really means.   They’re really saying that they’ll hold out and wait wait wait until an attractive man offers commitment. Pity, really – waiting for the alpha provider who never shows up.)

But when it comes to relationships, women settle all the time for men they aren’t attracted to, or men they are less attracted to than men they used to sleep with.   Most women do this because they have no choice.  Nearly all of them don’t get to marry one of the attractive men they slept with. She can accept a man she’s “willing” to have sex with, but only if he has other things she wants.  She and others then rationalize that she must be “attracted” to the man she married. “Why, she must be attracted to him! She married him, didn’t she?! They have kids together, don’t they (and we all know what THAT means, wink wink nudge nudge)?   They have a nice looking family, don’t they?”  

“Willing” might have been OK for most men if we lived in a society which incentivized women to remain in their marriages and to live with the choices they make.  In fact, “willing” was enough when those incentives were in place.   Even before the Sex Rev, most women were married to men they were “willing” to have sex with. But, since we don’t live in such a society, “willing” isn’t sufficient to keep a marriage together.   “Willing” isn’t good enough for today’s man seeking an LTR or marriage, because “willing” isn’t enough by itself to keep her with him.  This is one of the prime reasons for frivorce – she doesn’t want to have sex with him anymore or never really did in the first place; and she has no incentive to stay and every reason to leave.   And for most men, an LTR or marriage won’t be in their futures because they aren’t attractive enough. They aren’t “wanted” sexually; women don’t “want” sex with them.  

Male settling doesn’t cause problems in the SMP and MMP, because although men settle all the time, they don’t settle for women they don’t want to have sex with.   Female settling causes all manner of problems, because American society is comprised of literally millions of women who are married to men they aren’t attracted to.

So what does this mean for men in today’s SMP and MMP?

 1.  This is why the most important question for men is “Does this woman want to have sex with me?” She has to be attracted to you. She has to want (not just “be willing”) to have sex with you.  

2.    If she is making you wait, she’s just “willing”. If she is resisting reasonable escalation, she’s just “willing”.   If she is responding to you with anything less than enthusiastic engagement, she’s just “willing”.   NEXT these women.  

3.     “Want” and “willing” can look really similar, because most women know very well how to use their bodies and sex as bargaining chips to get what they want.   Many women will shower sexual attention on men they aren’t really all that attracted to because those men have other things they want.

There are a lot of ways to suss out “want” from “willing” other than as set out above.   Look at the guys she used to date. If you’re not similar to them, if there’s been a radical change in the quality or character of the men she dates, it’s likely she’s just willing.   How old is she? If she’s coming up on 30 or past it, you’re probably a consolation prize.   If the sex, or her enthusiasm about sex, becomes inconsistent, then she’s probably just “willing”. If there’s been a recent change in her life, such as a new job, a new city, a move to a new place because she wants to “start over” or “get a fresh start”?   Willing.   If she’s preoccupied with her future or children, she’s probably just “willing”.

4.     The fact that she agreed to a date with you or even has sex with you does NOT necessarily mean that she is attracted to you.

The Bradley Effect in SMP Analysis

The Bradley effect?  What the heck is that?

The Bradley effect is a reference to African-American Tom Bradley, former mayor of Los Angeles, and 1982 California gubernatorial candidate.  Going into the final days of the election, most polls showed that Bradley had a significant lead.  Exit polls also showed Bradley as the winner, and one newspaper already had the next day’s edition with the headline “Bradley Win Projected”.

Bradley lost the election to his white opponent.  What happened?  Why were the polls so horribly wrong?  A substantial number of white voters essentially lied when answering the polls.  When asked, they answered they would vote for the black candidate, but when it came time to cast that vote, they did not, voting for the white candidate instead.

The Bradley effect is simply a more narrow example of a broader human tendency called social desirability bias.  From the Wikipedia entry:

Social desirability bias is a social science research term that describes the tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. It can take the form of over-reporting “good behavior” or under-reporting “bad”, or undesirable behavior. The tendency poses a serious problem with conducting research with self-reports, especially questionnaires. This bias interferes with the interpretation of average tendencies as well as individual differences.

 

It should be fairly obvious that given the contentious and controversial nature of human sexuality, that this bias is likely to be exerting a major influence in how both men and women answer questions related to sex, dating, and mating.

If I were to ask you to rank order your preference of the following fruits:  strawberry, apple, orange, and banana I feel pretty confident there would be no social desirability bias at work.  Society doesn’t send any broad messaging about “good” or “bad” fruit or engage in any type of shaming on which fruit you eat, or put you into a “good” person or “bad” person box because of which fruit you eat.

Now if I ask women what traits they find sexually attractive in a man (only the traits that make her want his dick in her pussy), or I ask men their preferred number of lifetime sexual partners, or top 2-3 sexual fantasies, there is most definitely going to be some influence from social desirability bias.  I would argue that it is going to be substantial when asking men because we live in a society where the feminine imperative is dominant, and thus preferred aspects of female sexuality are “normal” while preferred aspects of male sexuality are “deviant”.  Men who are ego-invested in being perceived as “good” guys (especially by women) or solicitous of female approval (ironically not “tingles”) will be heavily influenced by social desirability bias.

Some examples where this bias is likely to be in effect are questions such as:

1.  What are the top 2-3 traits that are sexually attractive (those that make you want to fuck him) in a man?

2.  What is your desired number of lifetime sexual partners (particularly for men)?

3.  What are your top 2-3 sexual fantasies (particularly for men)?

It isn’t difficult to find “analysis” polemics/rhetoric that essentially uses survey data most likely influenced by social desirability bias to draw sweeping authoritative conclusions to support a particular agenda.  Much of this falls into the GIGO box (garbage in garbage out).

To be clear, I am not saying various survey data is utterly meaningless, but one must be cognizant of the limitations, and look for discrepancies.  For example, if company XYZ reported that their new style of jeans are hot sellers across the country, and I go to 3 local retailers that have some out in the store at 50% markdown, and the clerk tells me they have boxes of the jeans in inventory, I am going to strongly consider the company is “stuffing the channel”.  Sure, it is possible the 3 stores are an anomalous sample, and they really are hot sellers in most other stores, but probably not.  Similarly, I am highly skeptical of survey results that are in complete opposition to most guys I’ve known in my life and revealed preferences.  For example, there have been experiments with women propositioning men for sex that are not consistent with survey results showing a large percentage of men have a preference for 1-3 lifetime partners.  Obviously, that has direct implications on whether (most) men are “hardwired” to be monogamous or polygamous.  Another example would be to compare pornography scenes to what men report as their “sexual fantasies”.  There are discrepancies there as well.

Social science isn’t hard science (physics, engineering), and only a fool would treat it like hard science  Full stop.  Survey data should certainly be considered but data from revealed preferences should take precedence when it is available.  Yes, one’s own personal experience is probably not a statistically valid sample, but when it is 180 degrees in opposition, it is sensible to be skeptical.  Lastly, be aware that anyone using survey data, particularly a single survey with a very limited number of respondents to arrive at authoritative conclusions probably has an agenda to push where establishing the truth of an issue is not part of that agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Open Thread: UVA Nonrape Controversy, Yes Means Yes in Action

The UVA rape nonrape story could be a hoax (H/T Jimmy):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-students-challenge-rolling-stone-account-of-attack/2014/12/10/ef345e42-7fcb-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html?postshare=211418253285046

Or, maybe not (H/T Morpheus):

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/m/blog/on-sexual-assault-letters-from-the-community/2014/12/a-letter-from-a-friend-jackies-story-is-not-a-hoax

An embattled Rolling Stone partially retracts its previous partial retraction:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/a-note-to-our-readers-20141205

Yes Means Yes thinking at work: Elderly man, former Iowa State rep, accused of raping his wife, suffering Alzheimer’s dementia. His stepdaughters say he raped their mom, then recant.  Investigators lie to him, he unwisely talks.  He will soon stand trial for criminal sexual assault (H/T Buena Vista):

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-09/rape-case-asks-if-wife-with-dementia-can-say-yes-to-her-husband.html

Read, review, discuss. Jibber jabber to your heart’s content.

Quick note: site access issues

Quick note: several folks reported not being able to access J4G last night, and as of this morning it seems to be intermittent. I have a ticket open with our host, but so far everything looks good on their end and the issue seems to be a “name resolution” problem on the ‘net.

For now, try to hit the page a few times if you get stuck. Our provider is still looking into it.

Thanks

The One Answer You Need Before You Commit to a Woman

“Does this woman want to have sex with me?”

You need to know the answer to this before you invest or commit anything to a woman. And the answer needs to be an unqualified “Yes”. The current state of relationships is such that the only ones which really seem to thrive and succeed are those in which the woman is very sexually attracted to the man.

Let’s break this down.

1. “Does this woman”

Obviously, we’re talking about this particular woman’s attraction level to you. We are not talking about your overall attractiveness to women in general. The distinction is important, because most men aren’t attractive to most women. Thus, it’s likely that you aren’t attractive to most women; but there is a subset of women who will be attracted to you. So the inquiry has to be specific to a particular woman.

2. “Want to have sex”

This is about sexual attraction from her to you. This is an essential ingredient. Sexual attraction MUST be present. She must WANT to have sex with you. She cannot simply be “willing” to have sex with you. It has to be a want. She must desire you sexually.

It’s not sufficient that she believes you’ll be a good dad to her kids or a good provider for her. It’s not nearly enough that she likes you personally, or thinks you’re interesting, or enjoys hanging out with you. It isn’t sufficient even that she is willing to have sex with you in exchange for your exclusivity.

There are many different reasons a woman offers sex, only one of which is pure desire. Others include validation, attention, bragging rights, rebounding, and husband/commitment seeking from men to whom she otherwise wouldn’t give any attention. What is required is her sexual desire for you. And you cannot negotiate for that desire.   And you cannot create it from nothing.  She either desires you, or she doesn’t.  You either arouse her sexual desires, or you don’t.      

And it isn’t sufficient that she wants a relationship with you, wants to be your girlfriend, or likes your company. It isn’t sufficient that she selected you to “couple” with. What is missing here is the sexual component, and if it is absent, then you must withhold commitment and investment.

3. “With me”

If you personally are not the object of her sexual desire, then it won’t work. Don’t offer commitment if she simply wants sex (there are a few women like this). Commitment won’t work if she is with you only because you’re a substitute for a man she cannot have. Commitment won’t work if she sees you as merely the catalyst for something else, be it her personal validation, her penance for past decisions, or her dreams of marriage and stay-at-home motherhood.

Her desire must be directed toward you as an individual. Don’t commit if you’re just a toy. Cut her loose if you’re a consolation prize. And get out as fast as you can if it’s clear you’re only a vehicle to realize her goals and plans, instead of your goals and plans.

Keep these in mind as you venture forth.

Alpha/Beta Defined and Clarified

Background

“Alpha male” and “beta male” are terms widely used both within and outside the manosphere. Nevertheless, there is considerable variation as to what the terms actually mean. Here, I will provide a definition based on simple definition based on evolutionary first principles that explicates the term as it is commonly used in the manosphere. But first, a quick history.

The terms “alpha male” and “beta male” have their origins in mostly discredited observations of wolves. The terms “alpha”, “beta”, and “omega” continue to be used to refer to the position of animals in the social hierarchy. While wolf hierarchies may be more fluid than observed, other animals do have rigid hierarchies for which such terms are suitable. As they related to humans in mainstream culture, the terms “alpha male” and “beta male” have come to refer to character archetypes of the assertive masculine go-getter male and the supportive emotionally expressive sensitive male, respectively. These mainstream terms have been adapted by the manosphere to describe men and their place in the sexual, rather than social, hierarchy.

Alpha and Beta Traits

A man’s alphaness is his level of intrinsic sexual market value. Intrinsic sexual market value is the innate sex appeal. Alpha traits tend to be signs of reproductively successful genetics i.e. either healthy genes or sexy genes. Alpha traits include: Physically fit. High-T face. Tall. High shoulder-waist ratio. Dark triad. Assertive. Good with poetic language. Musical ability. Preselection (i.e. fame/popularity and/or demonstrated ability to bed attractive women, whether through relationships or ONSs).

A man’s betaness is his level of extrinsic sexual market value (especially on the long term relationship and marriage markets). Extrinsic value is that which the man brings to the table for relationships. Beta traits tend to be signs of good parenting or provisioning ability. Beta traits include: Rich. Stable job. Faithful and monogamous. Caring. Good with kids. Strong enough to protect his wife and kids. Emotionally supportive. Good social status (i.e. doctor, lawyer, or upper class person). Resourceful.

Alpha Male and Beta Male

On average, women have far more intrinsic sexual value than men. This is because sperm is cheap whereas eggs and wombs are not. Thus, an “alpha male” is a man who has intrinsic sexual value (i.e. alpha traits) comparable to that of an average woman. Such a man can thus have sex with women with ease without having to put in significant in courtship, because the intrinsic values of both parties are comparable.

In addition, an “apex alpha male” is someone who has intrinsic sexual value higher than that of an average woman. Such an apex alpha may “flip the script” and find himself being pursued by girls and have girls do favors for him in exchange for sex. In general, especially in the modern post-sex-rev environment, alphas and apex alphas tend to not bother to cultivate their beta traits (because they don’t need to), although there is nothing stopping them from having both alpha and beta traits. Indeed, a man who has an abundance of both alpha and beta traits is the ideal unicorn for women.

In contrast, a “beta male” is someone who does not have that much intrinsic sexual value (i.e. alpha traits), but has significant extrinsic relationship value which he advertises to obtain partners. Thus, he can obtain partners for relationships using his “beta bucks” to improve his sexual market value for an LTR so that it is comparable to that of an average woman.

Finally, an “omega male” is someone whose total sexual market value (intrinsic + extrinsic) is extremely low. Generally, he lacks both alpha and beta traits, and tends to be locked out of the sexual marketplace altogether.

Value Judgement

It must be pointed out that there is nothing inherently pejorative about being “beta”. Indeed, civilization was built by beta males, and any functioning society must value beta males.

However, the post-sexual-revolution society implicitly treats beta males pejoratively. It makes them wait around while young women sleep with alphas and then expects the beta males to be grateful that these women want relationships with them after wasting their youth and virginity with alpha males. Such beta males must often resign themselves to largely sexless marriages and the possibility of getting divorced by a wife who feels unfulfilled by the marriage.

How to Spot Fake Online Meme Videos

BY NOW, MANY READERS HAVE SEEN the “Drunk Girl on Hollywood Blvd.” video. It was put out ostensibly as a follow up to “New York Hollaback”, in which a shapely, attractive woman dressed specifically to provoke male interest in snug, asset-showcasing jeans and a tight t-shirt, paraded through the Big Apple’s boroughs with a hidden camera several feet in front of her. Typical responses were captured, including a number of men attempting to talk with the woman and otherwise beclowning themselves.

“Drunk Girl” depicted a young, pretty woman in a sundress and three-inch heels, staggering and stumbling along a busy, people-packed California street, carrying a paper bag-covered bottle.   During the video, at least four men are seen ostensibly trying to “pick up” the young “lush” and “help” her back to their abodes, where they would (allegedly) attempt to sexually assault her. Each time it appeared one of the men might succeed in luring her off the street and whisking her away to privacy, “Drunk Girl” would suddenly sober up and saunter away, leaving a trail of apparently frustrated, bewildered and irritated men in her wake.

As we all know, “Drunk Girl” was a faked-up prank, a hoax. But some were taken in and clung irrationally to the notion that the video just HAD to be real. They insisted this video really did show ordinary men trying to rape a vulnerable woman.

Here’s how you, the average reader, can tell if you’re looking at a hoax video.

1. When two of the men depicted in the video come forward and publicly say it’s a hoax.     One of the men outright said the video’s producers had asked him to appear as an “actor” in the video. Another man disclosed a Facebook private message from Seth Leach, one of the video’s producers, saying the “actor” could disclose his involvement, confirming the video was a put-on, and promising more work with Leach’s production company.

2. The “offending” men’s faces are shown and are not obscured.   In “Hollaback”, the men’s faces were pixellated to conceal their identities.   There are legalities here – “Hollaback” depicted men engaging in unsavory, antisocial conduct bordering on assault.   Identifying the men publicly by face would likely have caused some to recognize them, potentially exposing the filmmakers to liability for either (a) defamation; or (b) appropriation of likeness and voice without permission.

Not so in “Drunk Girl”. These men are shown touching the girl, talking with her, goading her into returning to their homes. Their faces and identities are not obscured. All this suggests that the men had given at least tacit approval to their appearances. It doesn’t look like the “Drunk Girl” filmmakers had any concerns about liability to the men they were ostensibly depicting as dirty criminals and low down, no good sexual opportunists. Everyone was in on the joke — including the men themselves.

3. The “Drunk Girl” audio and video are of very good quality.   The audio and video are too clear and too sharp to be “hidden”.     This suggests staging.   Most hidden camera exposes have difficult camera angles and muffled audio. You can’t always see everything, and you can hear almost nothing, because the camera operator has to be concealed, and because the people involved do not know they’re being surveilled.  The camera in “Drunk Girl” was out in the open.  At some points in the filming, the actors are mere feet away from the camera.  They walk past the camera, which easily follows them as they walk.  The camera operator was plainly on the street and filming in full view of everyone.   It’s clear the ‘drunk girl’ actress was wired with a body microphone.  At times, “drunk girl” is yards away from the camera.  The only way to pick up audio that clear and distinct is with a shotgun microphone (unlikely because it’s nearly impossible to conceal) or with a body microphone.   All this is telltale evidence that everyone involved knew they were being filmed.

4. The entire video has a look and feel of contrivance, coaching, and self-awareness.    In the span of a couple of hours, at least 4 men attempt the exact same maneuvers – run “day Game” at various skill levels; make physical contact, and attempt to get her to go back to the man’s home/apartment. After each man is “rebuffed” and “rejected”, each is shown displaying the same facial expressions and reactions, in more or less the same sequence: bewilderment, then frustration, then irritation, then laughing it all off and returning to his prior activities.

Another contrived exchange happens toward the end of the clip, where one man is “helping” Drunk Girl, and without warning, another, taller man “cuts in” as would be the practice in a ballroom dance. The man who was cut in on simply walks away in a huff. It’s unnatural and looks overly rehearsed.

What’s more, it’s all done through “mugging”. The reactions are exaggerated and displayed for effect so the audience will clearly see them and understand what just transpired. All of those reactions just so happened to be sent right toward the “hidden” camera, so the full force of the men’s facial expressions and reactions would be captured and put on display.

The character of “Drunk Girl” herself is a bit of an oddity as well. She’s not presenting as a friendly sexual target. She’s a nuisance and an embarrassment. She’s an object of pity, not allure or sexuality. And think about this, you major city dwellers: seriously, have you ever seen a very attractive looking young woman, dressed in a pretty print sundress and heels, with assiduous and perfect makeup and hair, not disheveled in any way, yet absolutely hammered and plastered in the middle of the day, staggering alone down a busy street teeming with all sorts of people?  And how many attractive, high-SMV young women do you know who drink like Skid Row winos, toting paper-bag covered bottles?

Contrived. Rehearsed. Try-hard.

Don’t be fooled by fake videos depicting “male sexual entitlement”. Rape and sexual assault are NOT around every corner. It’s not the case that women are being abducted off street corners, pulled into lairs, and sexually assaulted in every hamlet and metropolis in America.

It’s a jungle out there, but it’s not THAT bad.

Crossed Wires

Advice to young man of 16:

“Just be nice, be yourself. Women are sexually attracted to kindness, goodness, patience, fidelity, industriousness and helpfulness. Give a woman what she wants. When you go on a date with a woman, you must do what she wants to do. You must never do anything sexual with a woman without asking permission first.”

Man implements advice as follows:

He is nice and acts like “himself”. He treats all people with kindness and patience, even to his own detriment. On the rare dates he actually gets, he does whatever she wants to do, gives her whatever she wants. Showers her with gifts, meals, drinks and entertainment. He asks permission for everything; fails miserably.

Advice to young woman of 16 or so:

“Just hang back and let things happen. Men will just come to you. You don’t have to worry about getting married. That will take care of itself. You don’t need to actually DO anything, or evaluate men, or seek out good ones, or anything like that. The exact right man will come along, sweep you off your feet, drop to a knee and pledge his undying love to you. You just need to make sure you have a career to fall back on, so you need to plan on college. Despite the advice I just gave you, you really can’t count on the right man to do all those things I just told you they would do. And if you’re a Christian woman, you need to be content in your singleness and wait on God’s timing to bring the right man to you.”

Woman implements advice as follows:

Party down. Let the good times roll. Find and have sex with the most attractive men she can find for as long as possible while following the “script” of college > work > grad school > work some more/ travel/ accumulate stuff.   Enjoys good sex with attractive men and relationships of varying durations until something happens to cause her to “change lanes”.