“Sexual deception, the difficulties of attracting viable marriage partners, intimate partner violence, infidelity, mate poaching, divorce, and post-breakup stalking—these diverse phenomena are all connected by a common causal element: an unrelenting shortage of valuable mates. The dearth of desirable mates is something we should worry about, for it lies behind much human treachery and brutality.”
-David Buss, “The Mating Wars”
Right before the Christmas break, I stumbled across a surprisingly interesting discussion elsewhere online as I was checking my email accounts and keeping a watchful eye over the shop here at J4G; the discussion, followed a post that was clearly designed to generate much more heat than light. I don’t usually discuss discussions taking place elsewhere online because, one, I often have too much to say myself about things I’m interested in, and, two, because I have found that much of what passes for “discussion” on the Internet these days is woefully bereft of anything thoughtful or compelling – and, to be frank, had it not been for the following comment I saw, I would have written off the discussion to which I am referring. As it is however, it stood out as a notable exception.
The ostensible topic, a supposedly erudite “takedown” of Game on the basis that a number of “Nice Guys(TM)” apparently have attempted to make use of certain of its methods in failed bids to woo Women in online dating venues – most notably OKCupid – offered little in the way of insight or illumination. Indeed, it merely came off to this reader at least, as little more than yet another Mean Girls-style harangue – proof, if there ever was any, that “meaness” is most certainly NOT the sole preserve of the Menfolk. I was immediately reminded of yet another incident that made quite a splash on the Internet roughly a year or so ago, and was named interestingly enough, “The Nice Guys of OKCupid” fiasco – something that, I would be seriously remiss not to point out, that the Good Men Project’s Johanna Schroeder spoke directly and poignantly to, calling her fellow sisters out on the carpet for what she rightly saw as their meanspiritedness and foul play.
Sadly, it seems, that she remains among the relative few “Good Women” outchea on these Internets-streets.
At any rate, the discussion nevertheless yielded a diamond in buried in the dung heap – a Gentleman Commenter, who offered a provocative proposition as to how and why we are seeing such a plethora of “Nice Guys(TM”) in our time; I paraphrase:
The reason why we are seeing this entire Nice Guy phenomenon is due to irregularities in the modern day American mating market place; and that a possible corrective to such a state of affairs, is to fully legalize, decriminalize and destigmatize prostitution and related sex worker services.
Of the nearly dozen or so commenters who “responded” to this gentleman’s argument, only ONE even tried to actually respond to what was presented; this lone commenter – perhaps not surprisingly, one of of the male ones – made a reference to the book SuperFreakonomics, which discusses at some length the economics of Harlotry. Since another commenter mentioned a blog that is an apparent “hit” with many in the Manosphere, and since its author just so happens to have reviewed SuperFreakonomics herself, I have decided to contact Ms. Maggie McNeill, who runs the blog The Honest Courtesan, and have invited her to participate in the current discussion so that she may offer her commentary and insights.
It should come as no surprise that virtually none of the comments in response to the gentleman’s dealt with what he said, and indeed if there ever a textbook course in rhetorical fallacies, this thread was it:
“Are you jealous of these attractive men or something? You come across as so butt-hurt over the fact that some men are very attractive to women and capitalize on it.” (Ad Hominem)
“I’m pretty sure that most nice guys want more than to stick their penis in vagina. They usually want a relationship too.” (Red Herring)
“Wrong correlation.Getting your balls empty in a human doll doesn’t solve the problem of not being attractive to other women. Check in countries were prostitution is legal and see if men opt out of dating for real.” (Red Herring)
“Ah, quantity! That’s the problem, is it? Can’t help you there, this blog is about monogamous relationships.” (Straw Man)
“Men compete for women and always have. That is your business, not ours!” (Straw Man)
“Complaining, aka whining, is always unattractive. A man who is a complainer can expect zero female interest. Women want men who are do-ers.” (Ad Hominem)
“Ya know, the phrase “increase the quality of prostitutes” bothers me. Prostitution strikes me a job that only the most troubled, poorest or least able would do. I find it difficult to promote the idea of funneling more women into what I’m sure is a horrid life. I understand that you want to have sex, but I think you should consider how that affects the life of another person.” (Appeal to Fear)
You get the idea.
So, with all of the bread and circuses out of the way, let us examine this gentleman’s actual argument, because it does indeed merit the careful consideration it desersves.
The gentleman has argued that the prevelance of “Nice Guys” in our time is a manifestation of irregularities in the mating marketplace, and, that he further suggests that a legalization of sex worker services would at least in theory, address this irregularity. Is there something to be said for this gentleman’s argument?
The answer, of course, is YES – in just about every study or survey conducted, where porn and prostitution were both freely available, afforadable and legal, all manner of “problems” – starting most notably with rape and sexual assaults of varying stripe on/against Women – goes down. Way, way down.
Moreover, per the gentleman’s argument above, his proposed solution to the irregularities of the mating marketplace, would at least in theory come as a welcome relief to Women, like the founder of the Nice Guy Feast above, because it would be Assortative Mating to the Max - those Men using sex worker services, would be more likely to use them anyway, thereby freeing up all the Women who don’t want to be bothered by aforementioned “Nice Guys” and the like, and clearing the lane only for those kinds of suitors said ladies prefer. It’s a win-win all the way around – right? I mean, what’s not to like – especially if you’re of the bent that Humanity is largely composed of two distinct types of folk – those who seek monogamous relationships only, and those who seek short term mating only – right?
Right?
The problem here, should be obvious. If prostitution and related sex worker services were indeed fully legalized/decriminalized/destigmatized in American life, it would pose a problem of serious strategic interference to those Women who would rather mate in the preferred manner of most Women – longterm, monogamous, and where the Man commits himself emotionally, and by extension, in terms of long term provisioning of resources. Putting into place a de jure US Dept. of Tricks & Hos seriously threatens to upset the apple cart upon which mating takes place in American life – which has always been, that Men court, and Women either accept, or reject – a decided and radical departure from Old World Europe, where marriages were frequently arranged. As it currently stands in the United States, such sex worker services do not have the legal force of protection, overshight and legitimacy that, say, Abortion, or IVF treatments do – and as a result, since there are many Men who not want to risk possible embarassment, imprisonment or worse, none of the ladies who were raining down shoals of scorn on our gentleman commenter can say, with any degree of certainty, that the Men they were interested in, might not avail themselves of said fully legally and socially sanctioned services, rather than to hope against hope that their old time courting would do the proverbial trick - just as any Woman in our time would go get an abortion or an IVF treatment to have a baby on her own.
And Women, by and large, want to keep it that way.
This explains, if one were able to actually read the comments thread to which I refer, one will see all manner of diversions onto discourse about “Men making themselves attractive” and so forth – something that the gentleman commenter never even brought up in his initial and even subsequent statements(!). Moreover, if one could see this discussion thread for themselves, the sheer ferocity of their responses really do speak for themselves – all this, to a simple statement that attempted to shed light on a phenomenon that the owner of this forum herself introduced(!) – which again, only raises suspicion as to said owner’s own motivations in doing all this in the first place; was it to enlighten; or to mock; and what does it have to do with said owner’s own mission to foster monogamy?
The current “conversation” along Sexual Politics lines would have everyone believe that, for Millennia, Men have controlled Women’s sexuality. The thing about this line of argument is that there is a goodly bit of truth in it – however, it is incomplete. As the gentleman commenter’s statements to which I refer clearly shows, the door swings both ways, and Women have just as much a vested interested in attempting to control and/or influence Male Sexuality, as the other way around. Given the centrality of Marriage in American life – which, even at this late date in the life of our Republic, far outstrips any other country in the European Union - is it really any surprise that the USA is arguably the last holdout on fully, legally and socially sanctioning prostitution?
Hmm?
Please feel free to discuss all of this in the comments.
Now adjourn your arses…
The Obsidian
Nobody likes competition.
Politics – The policy of promoting & protecting one’s self-interests.
Widely available & low-price legal sexually charged available services, undermines women’s (0-8, beauty scale 1-10) self interests.
More men need to peep game.
8 years and running. Still pushing ahead.
TLDR: Women are subconsciously aware of the SMP and thus have visceral emotion reactions to things that might threaten their marketplace position.
I’ve been in favor of legalized prostitution for a long time (the US is one of the only major industrialized countries that bans it wholesale, outside of Nevada). But that’s been mostly from a freedom/ live and let live kind of perspective. This is an interesting take.
I’ve never understood what a man gets from a prostitute that he can’t get by masturbating, with considerably less cost and risk. Obviously I’m missing something, since prostitution has been a thriving business throughout human history.
Re “Nice Guys (TM)/Game”,
Many women will argue/make the point that “Nice guys feel entitled to sex. Firstly, and most importantly I think this is false. One thing I’ve learned as a result of my time discussing/debating mating/dating issues with women on the Internet is to always have the default presumption that some type of projection is taking place. Any accusation against men in general is usually the result of some parallel thing they feel. In this case, I think it is probably true that many women feel entitled to a relationship because it feels right.
I highly doubt more than a very small percentage of men feel entitled to sex. Going back to my late teens/early twenties even when I was at my most frustrated still being a virgin I NEVER felt entitled to sex. Frustrated. Check. Depressed. Check. Entitled. Never.
Now most men except for the small percentage who are homosexual/asexual WANT to have sex with women. Men being goal-oriented will pursue the path they think will allow them to achieve the goal. The issue with “Nice Guys” and by that I mean men who leans towards supplicating, overly pleasant, overly agreeable, too eager, pedestalizing, etc. is that somewhere along the lines they got the message or were taught that was the behavior/attitude to get women to like them and eventually want to have sex with them. Many women for whatever reason misconstrue that that behavior is intended to manipulate them into having sex.
“Nice Guys” are simply operating from a false paradigm and thus understandably often get frustrated and even resentful that what they think they are supposed to do isn’t getting them the goal of having sex which is a perfectly normal male drive. The cognitive dissonance kicks in when they see women having sex with men who do NOT fit “Nice” behavior. For the purposes of many women, it fits to try and recast many “Nice” guys as actually bad guys (I’m sure some are). I can only think the purpose of doing so is to reframe and distract from the basically decent guys who simply have zero understanding in to the type of behavior that most women actually find sexually attractive.
Last point would be that guys acting “Nice” is really a projection on their part of how most men would like women to act in terms of being attractive and likable.
I raised these points in Susan’s recent thread on cringe worthy “Pick Up Artists.”
I made the point that the rise of PUA itself, and of the “nice guy” phenomenon, was significantly a result of the mating game in modern society being absurdly skewed in women’s favor when women are in their prime (ages 15 to 30.)
I further speculated that perhaps we would see less need for PUA, and less “nice guy” behavior, if a male tactic of merely paying for it wasn’t forbidden. I said this not because I think men can find lasting satisfaction by visiting prostitutes, but that legal, accepted and cheap prostitution gives men the option of easy/cheap sex, an option which therefore must reduce for men the power that non-prostitute women can wield using merely their sexuality. Perhaps the “nice guy” wouldn’t lament pathetically that chicks dig jerks…he’d just go pay for it and not think about the issue anymore, and having that option would make him less of a “nice guy.” Every woman who glances at him would not be, as it were, his last chance (as “nice guys” tend to think.)
The women in that thread wouldn’t have it. Susan ended up using her mod powers to limit my replies.
The women in that thread wouldn’t have it. Susan ended up using her mod powers to limit my replies.
You don’t say. I’m shocked…LOL
I made the point that the rise of PUA itself, and of the “nice guy” phenomenon, was significantly a result of the mating game in modern society being absurdly skewed in women’s favor when women are in their prime (ages 15 to 30.)
Well…the interesting thing there and I made this point in my SMV post was that the graphs were normalized relative values, not absolute values…I’m still not sure some could grasp that point. But yes, women in their late teens/twenties especially attractive ones have ENORMOUS sexual power/value.
I further speculated that perhaps we would see less need for PUA, and less “nice guy” behavior, if a male tactic of merely paying for it wasn’t forbidden. I said this not because I think men can find lasting satisfaction by visiting prostitutes, but that legal, accepted and cheap prostitution gives men the option of easy/cheap sex, an option which therefore must reduce for men the power that non-prostitute women can wield using merely their sexuality. Perhaps the “nice guy” wouldn’t lament pathetically that chicks dig jerks…he’d just go pay for it and not think about the issue anymore, and having that option would make him less of a “nice guy.” Every woman who glances at him would not be, as it were, his last chance (as “nice guys” tend to think.)
Good questions. For me personally, easy availability of legal prostitution wouldn’t be that satisfying, something on the order of eating Spam if I was ravenously hungry or drinking someone else’s urine if I was completely dehyrated. Awhile back, Bastiat put up a paradigm…I think it was validation sex versus transactional sex. I’m guessing that men differ significantly on the relative value they place between the two. Prostitution would be a near perfect substitute for a guy who doesn’t value validation sex much more than transactional sex. I place a pretty high value on validation sex (probably could have a bit of a psychological field day maybe why that is) and looking back my strongest, most pleasurable memories come from the validation aspect. It has occurred to me this is probably more like a woman’s sexuality. But at least for me prostitution would be a poor substitute for getting out there and “getting a girl” that wants/sexually desires me as opposed to a transaction.
The appeal to fear dude is not making the rhetorical fallacy of appeal to fear, but of equivocation: using the same name for two different things. Prostitution in a place where it is illegal is a very different thing to prostitution in a place where it is not.
Hey Gurney,
“I further speculated that perhaps we would see less need for PUA, and less “nice guy” behavior, if a male tactic of merely paying for it wasn’t forbidden.”
I understand your thinking here, but I don’t think it would work out that way. To almost all men, but especially to beta-type men, a woman having sex with them is an enormous validation of their personality and their behavior – that’s the nature of the covert contract so many Nice Guys are playing with. Paying for a woman to have sex under an overt contract destroys the impression of that bargain, that they are getting a woman wet because they are so good/nice/charming/respectful/etc. IOW, they are not just seeking the sexual release, but want the validation and approval that comes with it.
“The women in that thread wouldn’t have it. Susan ended up using her mod powers to limit my replies.”
LOL, not even going to touch this one.
Further thoughts: Now I’m not going to lie, I get a big kick out of being a good lover (part of that obviously is having a compatible partner so, like game, it’s not a magic trick I can use on any woman). If I don’t think the girl has enjoyed it, I feel a little bad. I don’t get down in the dumps about it but if she came to my place and participated willingly in the whole exercise I want to do what I can to make sure she’s had a good time.
Roosh, a guy I really respect, says it doesn’t matter if the woman gets off, you should just enjoy yourself and blow your load and roll over. I don’t agree, I think the sexual experience is enhanced if you make some effort for her to enjoy it as well, I believe this is just common decency among most guys. I doubt most guys want to be or are indifferent to being bad lovers.
Feminists, in their quest to make everything a pathology, have sometimes cast men trying to get their women off as “controlling” or “fragile-ego behavior,” including attacking men who try to get them over the hump to an orgasm, “why don’t they just stop bothering us with all that thrusting.”
LOZL – a guy wanting to please a woman in bed is somehow controlling her, by what – getting her hooked on his cock? Morpheus’ principle of projection definitely going on there, women using sex to control men think men play the same game when most guys just want to get it wet, have some fun together and slap together a sandwich.
“The ostensible topic, a supposedly erudite “takedown” of Game on the basis that a number of “Nice Guys(TM)” apparently have attempted to make use of certain of its methods in failed bids to woo Women in online dating venues”
I haven’t read the thread but I’ve heard chatter about it. This sounds like another instance of what we’ve noticed around these parts to be a largely female tendency towards “proof by example/counter-example” – an inductive extrapolation (some would say projection or solipsism) or some singular fact into a rhetorical counterweight to a generalized observation which itself threatens their mindset. I can line up some classics right now straight from memory:
“Some low-SMV creeper negged me at closing time so game is bullshit.” (the topic at hand)
“All the girls I talk to say they want beta dads so this alpha-chasing meme is a myth.”
“I love my husband’s skinny arms so it’s false to say that women like muscles.”
As for game itself, (a) you’ll never get women in the live-fire SMP to admit that game and (b) in any case, ham-fisted, poorly-executed game shouldn’t be used as a guide to game’s effectiveness any more than undercooking your cake should be used to evaluate whether the Duncan Hines box directions are any good.
Spotlighting those examples is just a rhetorical way of saying “you’ll never get any better with women than Just Being Yourself, so don’t try to improve so you don’t embarrass yourself.” Everyone is going to make mistakes learning new skills, these critics want you to feel toxic shame and embarrassment over a single failed approach and crawl back into your beta foxhole.
As an aside, I’m starting to see on women’s online dating profiles warnings to “don’t message me if you are going ot neg me” and game-referencing things like this. I think this exploded after a writer from the Frisky got a message where a guy told her that feminism was over and she called it “negging” because she claimed he was trying to injure her self-esteem; this again seemed like a female thing of taking logical repartee’ as personal injury. I give it no heed, good game practitioners are going to stay several steps ahead of whatever is seeping out of the male locker room.
Badger:
“Paying for a woman to have sex under an overt contract destroys the impression of that bargain, that they are getting a woman wet because they are so good/nice/charming/respectful/etc. IOW, they are not just seeking the sexual release, but want the validation and approval that comes with it.”
I think you have a good point there. By all accounts, the highest-status men should be the least likely to use prostitutes, and yet they are usually the ones who use them most. Partly because they can afford it. But also because they don’t need the validation from yet another girl. Instead, what they’re usually after is a very specific experience (fantasies, fetishes, etc), and/or sex on the exact timetable and the exact terms they want. It’s often just a matter of convenience for some of these guys (working 100 hours a week, etc).
Top post.
From a Scandanavian study on prostitution use:
“Those who bought sex were…more often in the age group 30–39…They had more often studied for 13–15 years, were currently entrepreneurs, and were currently in the highest income quartile than men who had never bought sex.”
Roughly a little less than 50% were married.
Women couldn’t care less if omegas or gammas used prostitutes, if that was the case they’d be all for it.
What prostitution represents is intrasexual competition for ‘available’ or sexually desirable males.
Interestingly previous studies showed lower status males more often used prostitutes, maybe feminism has reached a tipping point in Scandanavia and higher value men are reverting to prostitution. Certainly makes sense given the recent proliferation of anti prostitution laws in Western Europe.
I tried to get the most recent Australian study but it cost $13,000, I wonder why?
My bad the Australian report was for internal use only and funded by an NGO.
The research:
Birch P, 2010, It’s a women’s world: The male clients of female sex workers, Internal Report for an NGO.
Interestingly the same researcher did research on prostitution for the London Home Office not long before payments for sexual services was made illegal:
Wilcox A; Christmann K; Rogerson M; Birch P, 2009, Tackling the Demand in Prostitution, Home Office, London.
My guess is that there is currently a trend of high value men using prostitution and it is upsetting the apple cart.
“I’m pretty sure that most nice guys want more than to stick their penis in vagina. They usually want a relationship too.”
“Getting your balls empty in a human doll doesn’t solve the problem of not being attractive to other women.”
I’d say these are technically true, but they are also beside the point. The ‘sphere was correct to point out that, for example, hiring a prostitute wouldn’t have stopped George Sodini from going on a rampage. It wasn’t the lack of sex that was driving him, it was his sense of complete physical and emotional rejection by all women.
One thing to keep in mind about this issue is that the costumers of prostitution have always predominantly been married men, especially older and high-earning ones. (Single men normally either cannot afford the prostitutes they desire or they are content to use internet porn etc.) Most American women apparently cannot get it through their heads that this phenomenon isn’t a real threat to the marriages in question, i.e. it doesn’t impede the Feminine Imperative, so they are vehemently against prostitution. You don’t see this attitude in, say, Italy or France, where it’s common for higher-status men to have mistresses and hire prostitutes, and no one seems to be much bothered by it.
Re: 13
Yes, that’s a good point.
“The current “conversation” along Sexual Politics lines would have everyone believe that, for Millennia, Men have controlled Women’s sexuality. The thing about this line of argument is that there is a goodly bit of truth in it – however, it is incomplete”
I’d say it’s wrong, not simply incomplete. It’s other women who have traditionally controlled female sexuality, not men. Any male control of such nature could only be exerted with the approval of other women, first and foremost the wife and mother of the man in question, plus the respected women of his closer community. In other words, such control was indirect and conditional.
First post, after months of lurking. This is something that hit home for me, and I wanted to share my perspective.
Background: I’m 35 now, but I couldn’t get rid of my virginity until after I turned 25. (More on my personality later) That I have to say it that way is telling, but let’s quickly summarize some key events:
Ages 14-17: Parents sex-shamed me, so early corruption thanks to some TradCon bullshit.
Age 17: I’ll never forget a visit to a prospective college where I shared a room with 3 other visiting guys. The one night we were in there, ALL of them were bragging about various experiences. They turned to me and at that moment I just wanted to die. “Sorry, I have nothing”. There was a slight sigh, but a couple of them said, “oh, sorry man”.
Age 19: I’m back home for summer break and my mom has the nerve to ask me, in a sort of demeaning manner, “Why don’t you have a GF?!” So, after the folks threatened to disown me if I thought about sex, my mom had the gall to question why things were the way they were.
Age 20: If I let it slip I was a virgin, guys and girls let me have it, and it was polarizing. Guys would range from, “Oh, well, can’t help you”, to “You’re a loser, you can’t get laid!” Meanwhile, maybe a handful of girls would say, “You should hang on to it, I wish I had mine back” but most reacted even worse: “WHAT? What’s wrong with you?!?!”
By 21, I’m starting to piece together a huge cognitive dissonance in my experiences. A mixture of shame, guilt, and the feeling of being cheated started to spin like a tornado, and by 23 I had a major chip on my shoulder. I had one defining experience at 22 where I should have gotten deflowered by a 20 year old slut, but because I hadn’t been there, I didn’t know how to take it there. Since I was ill-prepared, she went back to her on/off ex, and I got to read all about it on a forum where we all belonged.
Thanks to the manosphere and especially discussions by the esteemed who frequent the comments, I believe I possess a much better understanding of why I went through what I did. Looking back, what was unknown to me, all the way back to age 17, was that I was being held in a somewhat high esteem by my peers. On one hand, guys and girls thought enough of me that they expected some experience. Since I failed to meet that expectation, things began to get sour, and all the while I started acting more beta. But as I got into my 20’s, I think enough guys viewed me as a threat, hence the put-downs, and girls were telling me, more or less, that I either had no business talking to them, or, I’d fall for their tricks into friendship.
As time wore on from 23 to 25, I was one unhappy camper, and the monkey on my back was turning into the elephant in the room. I felt like everyone knew it and it was embarrassing, as I had myself a great job (same one I have had 13+ years) and I was scared that any girl I liked would find out.
Getting back to present day – as it would turn out, I’d become a stubborn introvert – INTJ. Looking back, I actually pissed away genuine alpha abilities. In high school, I was like a straight-A kid who still got detention; I even had near unrestricted access to a car for 11th/12th grade! My personality traits essentially are that lone wolf, but like every stereotypical guy who’s failed a lot, I bought into nice guy BS. No wonder this didn’t work! A) I hate excessive talking and B) I should have kept to myself, instead of being what I’m not.
What I also learned was that as I got through my 20’s, I had a different kind of problem. I can’t believe it took so long to figure out, but what’s crippled me is the Tom Brady effect. Rather, I have a personality like Wolverine, which rubs people the wrong way, since, rather unfortunately, I don’t look like Hugh Jackman. I wasn’t dealt a great deck as far as outwardly masculine features (only 5’8″, small body frame, look really young, can’t grow a mustache or beard) so, I have some work to do to improve my body. Additionally, I have to work on embracing my INTJ-ness. I’ve wasted too much effort trying to placate others by talking and trying to be more personable.
That last part was a little off-topic, but relevant nonetheless.
TL;DR version: For someone like me, stigma-free prostitution would have had many positive benefits. For starters, no need to reconcile pride if there’s no stigma. I could’ve legitimately claimed experiencea to make rivals worry enough, or at least not doubt me, and I would have received the “know how” to be able to escalate with women. I could have taken care of this at age 19 and saved myself years of grief. Years that I’ll never get back.
I’ll leave a passage from a person much more wise than I am.
1 Corinthians 6: 12-20
The Body Is the Lord’s
All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.” But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
In their zeal the paint all men as bad actors, such nasty women categorize ALL unsuccessful men as Nice Guys, the ones who intentionally *falsify* friendship, and then angrily denounce the women when rejected sexually.
No doubt such “enitiled” men do exist – but I strongly believe they are rare compared to honest men, with good intentions, who are open to relationships, but are just confused about direct to be. (Guys likes Cooper, remember him?) Due to selection bias, it just seems like lots of men are like that. Either that, or there’s some other reason… I won’t get into it, but Rollo would.
If it is intentional, then why the fuck would any man continue to use such a horrible strategy that never works? They don’t.
For a so-afflicted man, the solution is simple: flirt with women from the very beginning, and never let anything be purely platonic. You may not want to date her now, but it gives you the option for attraction to GROW without it looking like some nefarious bait-and-switch.
Hm…I’m not sure decriminalizing prostitution would change much, really. It’s practically legal now under the title ‘escourt services’ straight to your room, order online. No one has to slum it in the streets unless they are short of cash, and…well, you get what you pay for. In tijuana they’re so cheap it you tip a couple of bucks it’ll impact the economy. Doesn’t really make for a “better” environment for anyone though.
I know a few people who have used high-end tail prostitutes in Vegas, and it ran around a thousand dollars an hour. I toured the Bunny Ranch once out of curiosity and the prices were ridiculous (I can’t remember exactly how much anymore).
Wait…not the bunny ranch, the Chicken ranch!
Just to add, it’s kind of an interesting juxtaposition between Pahrump and Las Vegas. It’s less than 60 miles away, but there are far more prostitutes in Vegas (where it’s technically illegal) than Pahrump where it is legal. Mustn’t be much of a barrier for the market.
Prostitutes sell an experience that most women can’t/won’t provide outside of a healthy monogamous long term relationship, and certainly won’t be providing for nice guy beta.
In addition to sex a good prostitute provides:
An opportunity for conversation where the man can speak and the women listens without interruption.
An experience that is all about the man.
No pressure to perform.
A lot of feminine pampering.
The opportunity to just be with no fear of rejection.
An escape from reality for those who don’t/can’t get this experience the “normal” way.
Discretion, which sadly seems to only be an option with pros.
And, for those with little experience, practical instruction and a glimpse of what winning the game can look like.
It’s obvious why this is a threat to the etablished order. Imagine if prostitution were decriminalized in an environment with a growing MGTOW population.
Prostitutes sell an experience that most women can’t/won’t provide outside of a healthy monogamous long term relationship, and certainly won’t be providing for nice guy beta.
In addition to sex a good prostitute provides:
An opportunity for conversation where the man can speak and the women listens without interruption.
An experience that is all about the man.
No pressure to perform.
A lot of feminine pampering.
The opportunity to just be with no fear of rejection.
An escape from reality for those who don’t/can’t get this experience the “normal” way.
Discretion, which sadly seems to only be an option with pros.
And, for those with little experience, practical instruction and a glimpse of what winning the game can look like.
It’s obvious why this is a threat to the etablished order. Imagine if prostitution were decriminalized in an environment with a growing MGTOW population.
Outstanding post, Obsidian.
Lowbrass (tuba? euphonium? trombone?):
“For someone like me, stigma-free prostitution would have had many positive benefits. For starters, no need to reconcile pride if there’s no stigma. I could’ve legitimately claimed experiencea to make rivals worry enough, or at least not doubt me, and I would have received the “know how” to be able to escalate with women.”
Yeah, the main benefit of using prostitutes for men in your position would have been simply to get some experience under your belt, and the resulting confidence. You’d have had a good idea of your own sexual response and what you like. Stories abound of friends taking their less experienced buddies (and even fathers taking their sons) to hookers to get the V-card taken care of.
But beyond that, prostitution would have little benefit other than sexual release and “getting off”. That’s not going to be enough for most men, especially not the denizens of J4G. Most self-actualized men aren’t interested in spending money on prostitutes because it’s little more than masturbation into a vagina. To put it bluntly, a typical man gets into an LTR and a marriage because he’s met someone he likes banging and he wants to keep banging her.
Prostitution is supply elastic which suggests not terribly high barriers to entry.
Nice Guy discussions are quite useful. They indicate exactly who you need to dismiss or at least vet heavily. On another political forum I frequent, gender issues occasionally pop up, and we had a discussion re: Nice Guys. The critics were your general left-y loons who essentially say all gender is a social construct and we need to make separate bathrooms for trans-gendered folk. They are now in a massive discussion regarding racism, which is now devolving into personal attacks after bashing a white cop who grew up in the poor areas of Louisiana as a man who knows nothing about black people at all.
Good times.
The place you are referencing is a place you need to vet extremely heavily to get good knowledge. The statistical philosophy has been summed up as “it either rises to statistical significance or it doesn’t.” The underlying messages are extraordinarily dangerous to inexperienced Blue Pill men who straight-up will not understand ambiguous lines between things like “confident” and “arrogant” or “jerky” and “teasing.”
Especially when the blog outright forbids discussions of things like “sexual escalation” because it is “creepy,” even though it is acknowledge in the friendship=lovers post that sexual escalation is key…just at the right time. When is the right time? Who knows, you are supposed to figure it out. If you had Inner Game, you would know.
If you have Inner Game, you will instantly know everything. For example, some guy goes to Saudi Arabia, first time there, and draws a picture of Muhammad. Then he gets executed. He didn’t have Inner Game. If he had Inner Game, he would have known that visual depictions of Muhammad are forbidden in Islam. Inner Game tells you everything you need to know about everything.
Did you know that in conversations between people in Britain, it is not infrequent to not have any physical contact at all? In the various romantic cultures, touching can occur 100 times an hour. That’s because British people have no Inner Game. If you just learned Inner Game you would know girls like Kino, because that’s what I like, and therefore you need more Inner Game. Unless you are a Greek guy going to Britain, and then you are a creep for touching people, also because you don’t have enough Inner Game.
Do you know why Germany failed in the Soviet Union. Inner Game again. Hitler was supremely unconfident and micro-managed operations. He stalled the offensive on Moscow to attack Leningrad instead. If he just had more Inner Game and confidence he would have won. Stalin had lots of Inner Game. He was hiding in the shadows, running the whole state. That’s serious Inner Game. Those purges? Lack of Inner Game. If he just had more confidence, he never would have done those purges. But he learned Inner Game during WWII and that’s what let the USSR win.
And don’t even get me started on FDR’s Inner Game.
If you had Inner Game, you would just understand. I shouldn’t have to explain it. You should just get it. Inner Game means whatever I want, you give me, whenever I want, unless I am shit-testing you, and then you better have enough Inner Game to pass it, and you better have enough Inner Game to know when to hit on me.
It’s a girl blog, not a guy blog, why are you surprised when they come up with the own nonsense?
Why do I mention all this stuff? Because the way you need to interact with girls is entirely at odds with your need to act in other ways of life. If I try to use kino or cocky-funny with my female boss, I run SERIOUS risk of getting fired. Hell, even flirting with a girl in the office could get me an official reprimand, which I do not want.
Yet, it’s pretty much required with the fiance.
When we enter puberty, we have been socialized to act in a deferential, non-assertive, in many cases supplicating manner, for 14-15 years. And even entering puberty, we are still expected to maintain this demeanor everywhere else, except with women, where we are expected to perfectly balance arrogant vs. jerky, with every single girl, instantaneously, with no experience and no calibration.
Nice Guys have been socialized in Victorian England their entire lives and then dropped into hyper-sexualized Sodom and Gomorra. And then they are told to use Inner Game to solve all their problems.
But the girls there just don’t care. Men should just get it.
Morpheus, 6:
Agree that NiceGuys don’t feel entitled to sex. It’s more frustration, confusion and resentment than anything else. The NiceGuy gets to the point of anger and resentment because he is simply doing what everyone around him has told him to do and it’s not working. When he confronts his “instructors” (parents, pastors, teachers, Scout leaders, etc.) about this, he’s told to double down on the nice and that he’s obviously not being nice enough. So he goes back and increases the nice, and when he continues to fail; he continues in the same downward spiral.
The traditional conservative response is to “man up and get married, and if you can’t make that work, well, it’s obviously YOUR fault. Figure it out, you’re on your own.”
But more to this point, the feminist response, and the one which appeared in threads like the one Obsidian summarized, is “well, you should have figured it out. You shouldn’t have listened to the authority figures in your life. How come you guys can’t just figure out that what you were doing wasn’t working? You just need to be more attractive. We’re not going to tell you what to do or how to be more attractive; you’re on your own on that. Oh well, too bad so sad.”
This sort of “not my problem” shrugging off of the problems of men in the SMP will not bode well, and will continue to be a problem for decades to come. Female bloggers aren’t going to solve it. They understand there’s a problem and they know what the problem is, but they don’t care. Tradcons, churchians and others like them aren’t going to solve it. Some of them know there’s a problem; but they don’t understand what the problem is. Most of them don’t even know there’s a problem.
I posted last week that I had started reading Robert Glover’s No More Mr Nice Guy: http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/started-reading-no-more-mr-nice-guy/
For my money, it’s astounding in its poignant, direct and correct description of the Nice Guy personality affliction. In his definition, Nice Guys are men who have been conditioned by their upbringing to seek female approval, to hide their faults (impostor syndrome though he doesn’t use that term), and to use a subconscious script that if they act nice and please people those people will reward them with validation, sex, and
He could have gone more direct and said that NGs are men with highly female social habits, because when you stop to think about any female-run holiday party or social event, that’s exactly what it sounds like, women kissing each other’s asses and desperately trying to avoid being criticized or baring any faults.
Glover does a great job the pathology and its origins without getting political. He makes a compelling case that postwar social changes that have progressively dissociated men from elder male influence and masculine pride (dad goes to work at a amorphous office, education is mostly women, divorce creates female-headed households, feminism blasts maleness directly). However he doesn’t address the causes as social issues with political questions behind them, he simply presents them as they are and moves forward with helping individual men break out of their failures.
He describes how adult men fail to get what they want and get taken advantage of with their faulty mental scripts, but he doesn’t waste any time pinning moral responsibility on the others in a man’s life so he doesn’t allow the reader to feel like a victim.
It’s a great example of staying on-point with a personal-change message – give guys what they need to understand how they got where they are, but don’t distract them by focusing on things they can’t control. IOW it’s a good light touch of a competent therapist.
Lowbrass:
One key lesson I learned in discussion of game around the Internet and especially with women is that subconsciously, women accord value to a man who is sexually successful, and take away value from a man who is not – often harshly so. A dude who is a virgin past say early college is going to make her hindbrain scream “WTF?” (I know a dude who’s a mid-20’s virgin, he’s coming along so it won’t be a problem forever but I advise him to never tell a woman he’s a virgin. Not a woman he’s seeing for sure, and not any platonic female friends because they’ll subconsciously mark him down, not refer him to their friends, and probably blab it around town.)
This is predictable from the game principle of _preselection_, that women use other women’s sexual behavior as a cue to their own attraction. If a dude “can’t get laid” her mind starts looking for reasons he must be a loser. Meanwhile at the same time, her rational mind will bitch and cry in public about how bad the “sex-obsessed jerks” are and how she wants a warm relationship guy. But she and her girlfriends have curled their lips up at the dude who tries to be the “relationship guy” and asks for “enthusiastic consent” for each step of the escalation, because “he’s nice but I just don’t feel the thhhspark,” and they get hot and bothered for the dude at Seacrets who grabbed her and kissed her after they all took tequila shots. It’s like there’s a cognitive dissonance going on where she can’t really admit to herself how she likes the sexual escalation process to work. I’ve found this to be an almost universal female thought process.
As ADBG already alluded to, it’s a “Just Get It” kind of self-reflective loop. Thus you’ll see women on the Internet scream bloody murder about a game writer who suggests – in the context of a passionate makeout in private quarters – putting her hand on your cock to give her the opportunity to escalate, meanwhile the same people wax lovingly about the time when a guy they weren’t dating at all who forcefully spat wine into her mouth. Chicks will go to Take Back The Night rallies and then race to the store to buy a book that’s bondage porn.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the Feminine Imperative and marketing strategy is like a meta-social shit test, and to be successful with women you have to have the kernel of knowledge that it’s fundamentally dissonant. You have to read it with verisimilitude rather than literal fact. It’s been fairly conclusively established – by our collective experience and also most recently by a research book called “What Do Women Want” – that most everything culture teaches us about female sexuality is wrong, dreadfully so. So all these super-romanticized frames are absurdly incorrect. We’ll all get a good laugh out of this: http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/561877622.html, but I don’t think most women can really admit the truth to themselves, let alone vocalize it to others, esp not to men who are in their minds their adversaries in the SMP.
I heard a lot of myself in your comment, I believed a bunch of romanticized horseshit about sex and then was shocked when women wanted a good rut instead of that, and that when I didn’t take that sliver of a window of opportunity most of them slammed the door. It’s actually shocking I had ANY success pre-game at all, I realize I was with some very patient women and/or I must have had attractive powers that outweighed the sexual betatude so they stuck around waiting for the iron to strike.
@26 / deti: Baritone Horn / Euphonium back in the late 90’s. Didn’t try Trombone until 2009, I think, when I briefly played in a local funk band.
“Stories abound of friends taking their less experienced buddies (and even fathers taking their sons) to hookers to get the V-card taken care of.”
I ultimately wanted a LTR, too. Seemed like more than enough people had them already. When I came back from school, I think after 1998, I got back in touch with some of my more experienced friends and tried to get their help. Not to expect them to do everything for me, but with their more outgoing manner, I hoped they’d grease the process a little, probably not much different from how a wingman helps. I dunno, maybe put in a good word for me (as they had huge social circles). What would happen? It was more like the TV show “Survivorman” or “Dude, you’re screwed!”.
=====
“But beyond that, prostitution would have little benefit other than sexual release and “getting off”. That’s not going to be enough for most men, especially not the denizens of J4G. Most self-actualized men aren’t interested in spending money on prostitutes because it’s little more than masturbation into a vagina. To put it bluntly, a typical man gets into an LTR and a marriage because he’s met someone he likes banging and he wants to keep banging her.”
I disagree a little with your take on the benefits here. I counter that IF this was a movement that, say, started in the early 90’s, I believe it really would have equalized the markets in a favorable manner, for most of the reasons that @25/badpainter mentioned. It’d be like putting a tariff on the currently imbalanced trade between women and men while simultaneously busting price-fixing.
I think it would have been profound enough because there’s a huge difference between a “simulator” and actually flying the plane with real people and/or cargo. Profound enough of an experience that, if it happened enough, this site may not have come to be; the denizens would have other matters to contend with. Perhaps, maybe it might have become, “Just a couple dudes shootin’ the shit about stuff”.
I say it’s plausible as I pay a good deal per month for very high speed internet, TV, and phone. One could say porn is freely available, and if I indulge in it, I’m really paying for it in a roundabout manner. That’s easy enough for most people to tolerate and accept, so I think the stigma-free prostitution could succeed in the same fashion.
I’d otherwise agree that the sex in this scenario ought to be treated as a spice to one’s life as opposed to the main course. (Haha, perhaps NAMALT) But, hey, at least *I* think getting off with a real human > getting off with one’s hand > getting off with a robot if a LTR never materializes.
“I ultimately wanted a LTR, too”
I tweeted recently that most of my failures with women in my younger days stemmed from the fact that I wanted to be loved. Had I dispensed with that aim, and simply gone for fun and sex, ironically I probably would have gotten the love I was looking for. One of the things I’ve learned on the Internet and in life experience is that women want to have complete control of the pace of emotional investment in the relationship – if a dude gets too emotionally deep too fast “creepy” or “clingy.” Women seem very superficial on this point, male emotional systems are just foils and mirrors for their own, a man is not really allowed to have emotional needs with compromising her attraction to him. To corollary to this is that you always want to be investing a little less than her emotionally, and holding back a bit so it takes her some time to mine it out of you. (I personally am very emotional but also very under control, so I can work this angle of the game pretty well and it can be very effective.)
So – how are things going in your life now? Are you involved with women/a woman? Are you digesting the Red Pill? How have you moved forward in resolving some of your concerns?
“I personally am very emotional but also very under control,”
That seems to be the key for emotional men, or men who feel deeply and who want emotional connection. He simply doesn’t talk to her about that need. A man must simply go about getting it met without talking about the fact that the need exists or that she is satisfying it.
“He simply doesn’t talk to her about that need. A man must simply go about getting it met without talking about the fact that the need exists or that she is satisfying it”
The harshest RedPill reality. If you want any chance of getting that need met you have to lie as to its existance. You can never express your emotions, never tell her you love as often as you want, and to keep her you have to act in a way you actually believe is cruel. The only way to give is to take, but you must accommodate the reality that you may never receive.
Dude awesome blog post, thanks for the link to PUA Lingo
@Badger/30: Yes. Thanks to places like this, I gained an understanding of the hows and whys with regard to why these things occurred the way they did. (Funny, you said Seacrets; though I haven’t been, I’m aware of such a place in OCMD).
“I heard a lot of myself in your comment, I believed a bunch of romanticized horseshit about sex and then was shocked when women wanted a good rut instead of that, and that when I didn’t take that sliver of a window of opportunity most of them slammed the door. It’s actually shocking I had ANY success pre-game at all, I realize I was with some very patient women and/or I must have had attractive powers that outweighed the sexual betatude so they stuck around waiting for the iron to strike.”
Your last line definitely resonates. Since I was tired and trying not to re-write “Of Mice and Men” in my first post, I neglected to mention how that got me. While victories I got were the moral kind: i.e. I managed to hold the attention of a few attractive girls, briefly, despite my issues, this caused harm later because I’d always rationalize that I could get rid of the v-card on my own terms, with only the best. In a way, I was like the MGOTW clergy; I wasn’t getting any, but I sure as hell wasn’t going to give it away to someone lesser than my SMV. And, I did pass a few opportunities, but those largely came in the late teens, when the toxic shame was like a nuke disaster.
As painful as some of the realities were stretched in “40-Year Old Virgin”, or as embarrassing it was for Greeks to see, “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”, or as painfully true to a Mexican stereotype as George Lopez’s stand-up used to be about – you all are right. One does have to just get it. If virginity is a factor, it implies more sacrifice the longer it remains.
Ultimately, that is what occurred when I finally got rid of the monkey. She was the antithesis of everything I wanted; 12 years older, smoker, biker-chick appearance… coworker. (How all that transpired is for some other time). The overall benefit – it proved to me that I was capable of doing something I always knew I was capable of, despite all of my rejections.
Just as pre-selection killed me, I also contributed to the problem at large – by taking a lower SMV woman. This shouldn’t have been a surprise to me, but reality was, most guys heavily exaggerated their experiences. They really weren’t doing THAT much better. They were like the bus driver and I needed to have a frame like Billy Madison when he got on the bus.
It’s a tired cliche. But, like many cliches it has the virtue of being true: a man is going to pay for it one way or another. (I’d guess that the primary benefit of a legal sex trade in the USA might be the public health side, but on the other hand, hookers probably have fewer STDs than your average sex-positive Vassar grad.)
Somebody like me struggles with this concept because he might be or have been totally indoctrinated in the literature of gender equivalence, as well as the myth of the heroic, domesticated provider; you can’t work 100 hours a week, and do scary stuff, if the real reason is: “My wife will split unless she thinks we’re going to have an eight-figure net worth.” A more saccharine, much more dishonest premise works better, if one must get the drafthorse charging forward at 5 a.m. For example: “the little, vulnerable woman and I are a team, and we contribute equally to our material needs, and that really turns her on. So I am going to honor and sustain her, and be the Evolved Modern Man Auntie Jezebel recommends. For ever and ever.” Ya, you betcha.
No woman stays with a Nice Guy unless her options are fled. Especially not today: women price their options more efficiently than we do, and the market is both more liquid and more lucrative. (Really the same thing.) Social status is achieved by women who leave their men, while their men think they are climbing a Judeo-Christian pyramid of moral qualification. Someone in that picture is mistaken about how the world works; that would be the guy with the dick.
Back to paying for it. Of course, no stripper takes you in the back room for some banter and happy extras, either, if she hasn’t first done the wallet biopsy. (Likewise, no McKinsey consultant or Goldman partner is taking you to Nobu unless he decides there’s a $million project down the road.) It’s just the game. Don’t want to play the game? Don’t. Want to talk to and touch women? Carry hundreds. (I recommend a little spot in ***********, South Dakota.)
In the dating sphere, the only women who will bother with a Nice Guy are the recently separated or divorced; any woman who’s been single for more than a year or two is doing one of two things: a) maximizing her billable date-rate (i.e., the value that she can extract from a man in terms of experiences and favors, within the serial dating context of 3-6 month relationships); or b) flying an approach to a coupled landing, and do not think she has any intention of letting up until you are contractually obligated for life or through the next divorce.
Dating anecdote reflecting point a) above: Do you ever get annoyed reading about or hearing about average women declaiming on the ‘amazing’ number of country stamps in their passports? As in, Who the fuck cares? You know, because we have already been crammed into 18″ seats for 14 hours before transferring to Shithole Air for another eight, before going to work without a nap? So our idea of a great vacation is sitting by a lake with a pile of books, and sleeping eight hours a night. Well, they care. They expect you to take them to a few more tropical amusement parks. Before they post the pictures for their girlfriends to envy.
All women view us as walking wallets. Just get used to it. You want to get laid, it costs $300 on backpage.com, and it costs the same doing the third date rule with PhD’s wearing Manolo’s and wafting Chanel 5. You’re going to wear protection in either event, though there might be more kissing with the amateur. How many men here have ever heard a woman say, on the second or third date, “I really like you and I’m not letting you pay tonight because it’s not fair and we’re going to be friends and partners …” Ha-ha. But good luck getting the second date if you allow her to pay for her half on the first. Footnote: if three dates is too long, have a rotation producing staggered ‘maturities'; or, date two digits down in SMV, they’ll jump you after two Manhattans and some spring rolls.
BB’s mentioning of the “Sovereign Man” earlier in the week was quite provocative for me, and I spent some time this week enumerating what I concluded were the Sovereign Man’s 10 principal features (and benefits), of the truly Sovereign Man. Well, one of them is Freedom from Farce. It’s really no criticism of so-called good, straight girls, as far as I’m concerned, that they will not get wet for a guy who doesn’t not purchase their attention and affection; it’s better considered as a good reason to enjoy happily the *bad girls* who at least have the honesty to admit what they’re doing and why. (The latter also laugh more.) The Most Interesting Man in the World (and I’m not he, Richard, no worries, I’m much too pretty and young) doesn’t waste a moment wondering why he’s paying good money to have his young beauties draped across his arms; the MIMITW just shrugs and notes, “They’re girls, moron. That’s what they do.”
Note: I have known one woman who refused to let me bankroll all of our time together. That quality is completely established in my filter, if indeed I do meet her on my next visit to the Silk Road, and as I told my date last night, “It’s amazing how little women know about what men want, because if they studied it for a week … it would be shocking for them to realize their new power.” This Ph.D., mission officer (right: “public affairs” …) at a recently famous north African locale. No dummy. So well trained she evinced the humanity of the professional autistic: a total information processing machine. She let me pay, after ordering food for herself while I watched.
Great kisser, though. Wanted to go out again this afternoon. (I’m going to the range instead.) You can’t make this stuff up.
Welcome, Lowbrass, as a half-time euphonium man (and lapsed E-flat tuba enthusiast), I dig your tastes. Though I will say, nothing satisfied like my timpani and vibes. (Sometimes more fun to just hit stuff.)
@Lowbrass 18
Thanks for sharing.
@ADBG 26
Good comments and analogies.
@deti 27
Good description of what’s going on. With the whole cultural apparatus arrayed to tell men BS, it’s no wonder that the “good beta followers” get so messed up. Thank goodness for the internet where (at least, so far) people can gather and share their experiences and learn from others and know they’re not the only one. Just learning that really helps diminish the cognitive dissonance felt by many who do what society says, fail, then double down and fail even more.
@Badger/32: “… most of my failures with women in my younger days stemmed from the fact that I wanted to be loved. Had I dispensed with that aim, and simply gone for fun and sex, ironically I probably would have gotten the love I was looking for… if a dude gets too emotionally deep too fast “creepy” or “clingy.” Women seem very superficial on this point, male emotional systems are just foils and mirrors for their own, a man is not really allowed to have emotional needs with compromising her attraction to him.”
Yep; I think you nailed it, man. From my first kiss and endemic through my 20’s, it went like that. Problem was, with my disjointed experiences, I never learned how to join them in a progression. So in the early 20’s and from 28-30, I frequently would end up with just getting two dates and a sudden reversal at the third. I’m not sure what was worse, that this happened a lot, or the red herrings these women would throw out as the reason why it couldn’t work. All I observed with others, is that the women with the bad-boys just had a bigger gas gauge when it came to tolerance of emotional outburst. For others, not a thimble of tolerance.
“So – how are things going in your life now? Are you involved with women/a woman? Are you digesting the Red Pill? How have you moved forward in resolving some of your concerns?”
I actually never, ever completed the cycle of meet –> date –> sex –> (x)TR until last year. Now, though this ended not so well, it was a big step forward, as I was 34 and she was 23. I actually met her on my birthday at a restaurant I’d go to on occasion. Bartenders changed shift and she actually wanted to talk to me, not like the usual phony work chatter or pointless, dead-end talk.
Tying this to red-pill: I found out about this after seeing Dr. Helen Smith on TV once. I was like, “no fucking way! And a woman is saying this?!? This is almost exactly how I feel”. After all, while I was being rejected (yeah, that’s in addition to the failed dates) 1) I could not believe how much women were giving away to crap guys, and 2) I had actually gotten really sick and tired of the not-so-subtle pokes from family, some friends, and even those in the workplace.
It was exactly the same shit. Just man up. You need to find someone. How do you have all this but no woman? Until now, I never had a good retort to all of this. I can finally tell them in no uncertain terms how little incentive I truly have, to do any of that! Where, other than the ‘sphere, is the crowd yelling at the non-NAWALT women to make better choices and to stop not-choosing us?
It turns out, I was somewhat naturally going my own way, by 31, as a means to avoid hearing all that nonsense. Also, as I grew older, I started having a 50 year old’s mindset with respect to work, finances and truly important stuff, and adopted a dog. I grew impatient with the idiotic behavior I saw out in public. By and large, it’s clear to me that many women just want entertainment, and I’m no jester. Also, where I live, it’s liberal / progressive central, and it only strengthens my faith in libertarian / conservative political concepts that much more.
Unlike most people in the area I live, I bought my own single-family house at 30, I put money into retirement and actively manage it. My hobby is my career and it’s quite rewarding to help smart people solve problems. I also managed to do this without a college degree. I actually HATE the “Beta Bucks” term, because there just isn’t much room for true “beta” when management relies on me to solve problems and trusts me on my own do get the work done.
Currently, I only have an infrequent FWB. She’s also older, so not a high priority, and at least when I see her, I’m also getting paid quite well on a side job that I do for her workplace. These days, I have been adopting a mindset more along, “If I like you, and you like me, then like me. Otherwise the rest is wasted time and nonsense”.
Overall, I’ve made steps towards MGOTW, and though I want to check out, it’s still like Hotel California, so I have a few more social experiments to conduct. After all, I’m not dead yet, and it will only benefit me to work on looking good naked to capitalize on these peak years.
At the very least, from my odd perspective, I can lead others off the wrong path by saying, “don’t do much of what I did 18-30″ and compare notes on successes with others. What I learn, in return, will only help me in the long run.
BV, I’m very interested in your elaboration on the Sovereign Man concept…
Re: Prostitution. It should be legalized, IMHO. Pushing an activity like this underground just makes it more dangerous, gives more control to criminal syndicates, and creates incentives for extra-judicial incentives and punishments to be used whenever there are disputes.
In a more conceptual sense, anyone who mates in order to receive “provisioning” and who wishes to maintain a high resource/sex conversion price in order to effect such exchange is already essentially advocating that sex be traded for money—they are just doing in an emotive and obfuscatory way that distorts the market, possibly fools the romantic, and ultimately removes a mechanism for efficient price-discovery. I think that men should learn that sex is almost never truly “free”—the trick is to accurately determine its true price in that context and decide if that makes sense for you.
Ideally, a man’s current sexual payoffs are the result of past CAPEX investments that he made in himself and that are now coming to fruition vis-a-vis increased pricing power in the SMP. This may be as close to “free sex” as a man can normally get.
Re: the “rotation with staggered maturities”. Absolutely true. This is an adroit, hard-hitting, precise turn-of-phrase.
Women may not realize that the “respectful guy” who is not that concerned about rapid sexual escalation may be the biggest player of them all—he’s running the SMP equivalent of a bond ladder or maturities rainbow, and so of course he is going to be very relaxed about any new pursuit that shows up on his Cock Weapons System HUD.
“rotation with staggered maturities”
Just as BB says, I’ve found that dating multiple girls really lowers my anxiety/concern about how many dates until I have sex with a particular girl. That’s another thing we used to warn girls about at HUS when they would hem and haw about “holding out” – if a dude has a “take all the time you need” kind of attitude about getting to the bang, he’s either a beta/Nice Guy who is loath to articulate his needs (and she’ll soon tire of his lack of leadership) OR he is a player who is getting it elsewhere so it’s no skin off his nose if you wait an extra couple dates because he’ll get three or four other bangs in that time.
If you’re attracted to him, he’s probably the latter.
Reflecting on my own personal experience and hearing from other guys, the dudes who are most hardcore/butthurt about not getting to sex quickly are thirsty guys who are worried the bang will slip away, not seasoned players. Girls have this all mixed up in their heads, they think that players get to high notch counts by fast-talking and manipulating/coercing women into sex. It’s like they have to rationalize there’s no way so many women would all be swimming in the same spermatic pool.
I mean this “rotation with staggered maturities” is just an erudite way of saying “spin plates.”
“I think that men should learn that sex is almost never truly “free”—the trick is to accurately determine its true price in that context and decide if that makes sense for you.”
http://introvertedplayboy.com/2013/12/want-choice-with-women-everybody-has-to-work-for-it/
“one of Mystery’s students, having just seen what happened, said “It was so easy for him! We have to learn all these theories and routines to pickup girls, but he just walks in here and gets the women!” To which Mystery replied: “Yeah it was easy for the rock star… he just had to make a platinum record, that’s all.” “
ADBG 26:
Nice Guys have been socialized in Victorian England their entire lives and then dropped into hyper-sexualized Sodom and Gomorra. And then they are told to use Inner Game to solve all their problems.
Someone, possibly Albert Ellis, once wrote (paraphrasing from memory): “We raise our daughters in convents and then marry them off to pirates.”
He wrote this many decades ago. There seems to have been a cultural reversal since then.
ADBG,
I long ago got sick of the “inner game” mantra. It’s methodologically useless. To women and game haters, “inner game” is a magic intuition that will give you the right answer at all times. As I see it (and as game coaches preached it), “inner game” is simply the habituation of good game behaviors to the point they become unconscious and you have empirical confidence that they work.
Unsurprisingly, women (who are by their nature uncomfortable with the idea of a guy “learning” to be more attractive and thus fooling her supposedly finely-tuned authenticity sensors) have latched on to “inner game” as an “acceptable” form of game teaching, but in reality it’s just a new form of JBY, in the idea that women are attracted to some kind of intuitive constitutional quality in men rather than turned on or off by specific behaviors that can be learned and/or mitigated. They also conflate “inner game” with simply having high intrinsic value (via build, fitness, wardrobe and social status) which gives you leeway to have less developed logistical/tactical “outer game.”
The parts of “inner game” I do think are worth talking about are state control and frame maintenance. But those alone don’t get you anywhere unless they are paired with meeting, opening and escalating with women.
Related to stuff we talk about a lot: Asian woman is put off by guys who dig Asian women (“yellow fever” is the epithet of choice) and explains why it’s different than kinks or “personal preferences.” TLDR: It’s different because solipsism, it makes her feel “objectified” and not valued for her other traits. In fact the same line of argument of women complaining “men are so shallow, they should be attracted to me because of my accomplishments.”
http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/3180-why-yellow-fever-is-different-than-having-a-type-
Then you get a Nice Guy comment that’s very illustrative:
“Its funny cause it also causes me (a white guy) to actually think harder about dating an asian girl because it sucks to be perceived as one of ‘those guys’.”
One of the Nice Guy traits is a personal pride in being “different” than other men. I admit I’ve had this before, I’ve hesitated to approach because I didn’t want a woman I’d never met and most likely would never see again thinking of me as “just another creepy guy hitting on me.” I’ve washed most of that out, but it’s a typical fear among more beta dudes, we don’t want to be perceived like landsharks.
@Badger 44
That’s a terrible story about that whore of a wife who flirted with the NBA champion right in front of her husband and then stuck around to F him. Hope he divorced her right away.
#48: I’ll take the words of an anonymous PR guy who claims “no woman is off-limits for (insert anyone)” with a heaping cup full of salt.
Sounds like he surrounds himself with some very toxic people, and is probably pretty toxic too. See celebrity children. People who work at the nut house quite often go nutty.
Re: 46
In their vocabulary, “inner game” actually means Game 2.0. As Whiskey has noted a long time ago (he’s an excellent observer of the sexual marketplace btw), women’s sexual strategies always serve one interest only: to separate the real alphas from betas, gammas and counterfeit alphas. If you keep this in mind, you’ll understand while HUS and other agents of the Feminine Imperative are pushing this “inner game” nonsense.
Relevant link: Current issue of Cato Unbound is about prostitution:
http://www.cato-unbound.org/
Note how weak the two anti-decriminalization essays are. Ronald Weitzer on the other hand makes a good case for decriminalization.
I’m seeing a mistake the women on the HUS thread kept making getting reproduced here — the suggestion that prostitution is practically legal because of escort services advertised on the web. This misses that the goal of the legal prohibition of prostitution is not the unrealistic aim of entirely stamping out prostitution but rather the mere discouragement of the business and its clients. That you can get around this discouragement on the web misses the obvious point that because of legal prohibition, services are more expensive, the quality of women is lower, there’s more of a psychic cost to seeking the services, the whole business is more tawdry, etc, all of it which indeed is discouraging. On the other hand, decriminalization would considerably expand the pool of women willing to enter the trade, and consequently lower prices and make it less of a taboo (though the taboo will never abate entirely) to make use of those services.
I keep up with feminist rhetoric and blogs and noticed over the past few years a rise in rhetoric regarding “sex trafficking.” I suspect that there is some pressure to decriminalize sex work because of the logic of personal sexual freedom that continues to become more entrenched everyday as we see in the changed attitudes toward homosexuals and increasing legal acceptance of homosexual union. The logical case makes itself: If we can legally accept and protect homosexuality, why can’t we likewise do so for the ancient practice of prostitution which consists of willing partners exchanging in a trade? Some people have sensed this obvious consequence of the push for more personal sexual freedom. I don’t know what proportion of feminists are stridently anti-prostitution, but I do know this: They’ve teamed up with social conservatives to ignite a new moral panic about prostitution. Here’s Ronald Weitzer’s paper on this:
http://tinyurl.com/n263smx
One of the tactics this feminist/SoCon coalition has taken is to keep using the phrase “sex trafficking” to refer to prostitution. This is an ambiguous term that, from what I can tell, conflates these things: Human smuggling, pimping, women migrating with the intention of becoming prostitutes, regular prostitution, child prostitution, etc. All these things are lumped together under the umbrella of “sex trafficking,” and then the term is stridently applied to cases of regular prostitution. Why are they doing this? Because in modern culture it’s unpopular to tell people what to do and not to do in their personal sexual lives (hence why homosexuals are tolerated/accepted) and both feminists and social conservatives feel this pressure when they want to make their case against giving men the freedom to purchase sex. Hence they resort to distorting and demonizing regular prostitution as some form of enslavement and then making a case against that.
I think the issue of safe and legal prostitution matters when it comes to mgtows and, especially, to the “nice guys” feminists deride so much. Maybe Nice Guy Tim would not keep acting like such a Nice Guy to rank 6 Michelle if on Tuesday night he experienced the rank 6 Sarah for 45 minutes for $90 and knows he can experience other women of similar or higher rank for a price in that order.
Badger,
I think you hit it up exactly here:
And here:
From here, it looks like women split male aspects into whether a guy is actively hitting on a girl or just dressing up to make himself look better. For them the distinction is active vs. passive which is NOT the same as Inner Game vs. Outer Game. You describe Inner Game well as state control. Dressing up for the environment is not Inner Game and is not “self-improvement,” it’s playing dress-up like a school-girl. Which, hey, might work, but it’s not Inner Game.
They like the idea of passive game with a little bit of active, because to them it implies a man who will not pressure them. He will push just enough to lead and get the ball rolling, so she doesn’t really have to do anything, but he will not push boundaries. This is a ridiculous idea of how most men operate, but whatever.
Women are loathe to do anything to lead in most cases, which you can see in there Tit for Tat post, but whatevs.
Active men are associated with testing and demolishing boundaries.
It’s the difference between dominant and prestigious men in their eyes, another post they had recently. Funny how they are only compared to each other and not to the faceless mass of men…
That’s how they perceive things.
One military analogy and one pop culture reference.
Military analogy. Many women frown upon mass violence. My brother-in-law recently assembled an AR-15. I want one. The fiance doesn’t even like the idea of single-barrel match-lock musket. So in terms of battle, let’s compare two approaches: either I can fly an A-10 in at 300 feet and pump out thousands of 30mm depleted uranium rounds and wreck a T-72 brigade in a few minutes, OR hypothetically I fly in some sort of super EF-111 that magically jams all their communications and makes their stuff stop running.
It’s active (A-10 kill-power) vs. passive (EF-111 jamming). This is how they view market dynamics. You can understand why they prefer the EF-111 approach to an A-10 approach. If Girl-Many decides to attack America and can be assured that no one will ever rake them with AP Cluster Bombs and Maverick missiles and DU rounds, so much the better! There are mild consequences at best.
That’s a huge, huge difference to THIS guy, and by the way didn’t Susan show her daughter a picture of Roosh and say “STAY AWAY FROM THIS MAN”?
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-rise-of-the-renegade-alpha/
This passive vs. active approach is not inner game. Inner Game is Andrew Jackson standing on the front-line even as his army breaks. They don’t call him “Stonewall” for nothing. When women say “Inner Game,” they don’t mean Stonewall Jackson, they mean “set your phasers on FABULOUS!”
Okay, pop culture reference. Who here has seen the Secret Life of Walter Mitty? Go see it if you haven’t, it’s fantastic from a pop culture view. Ben Stiller isn’t even a cubicle warrior, he’s a back-office Beta Bitch, who sets up an EHarmony profile, and NO ONE messages him…and he can’t even message other people because his life is so boring that EHarmony thinks he didn’t complete his profile.
He fantasizes about having an awesome life, jumping into buildings, knowing Latin, climbing mountains, etc.
But then he embarks on this great adventure! He gets into a helicopter with a drunken man (great message there), jumps into the freezing North Atlantic (another great message!), and then fights a shark. He almost gets killed in volcanic explosion and…
Well, when he relays all the stories, his EHarmony profile lights up: He is the most popular man EVER.
Did he have Inner Game?
Fuck.
No.
He is a whiny Beta Bitch that got canned from his job. Because he wants to be “cool,” he throws himself in danger he is ill-prepared for and nearly gets himself killed multiple times. Ultimately his adventure is entirely pointless: he had what he was searching for the whole time, if only he wasn’t a dumbass.
Final message of the movie? The photographer he was trying to find who had taken the best, most fantastic picture of ALL TIME? It was just a picture of Ben Stiller, doing his unglamorous job.
Inner Game would have been being confident with his unglamorous job that he really liked and was really good at, and pursuing some other interests in his free time. As most of us are consigned to do.
Inner Game is not jumping into the North Atlantic to fight a shark because you are afraid you are not cool.
Fun story, the original short story is more about a man escaping into fantasy because his wife is a shrill bitch.
But that angle got missed because American culture lacks insight. This is why you cannot trust typical American women or typical American men talking about Inner Game or confidence or anything else. They lack the insight to properly criticize their culture and improve themselves accordingly.
Re: 46
“The parts of “inner game” I do think are worth talking about are state control and frame maintenance. But those alone don’t get you anywhere unless they are paired with meeting, opening and escalating with women.”
…and having sex with them.
Re: 51
You’re absolutely right. The actual extent and frequency of female sexual slavery – i.e. young women getting abducted, or lured abroad through false promises of employment, and then getting turned into sex slaves through drugs, threats and physical abuse – is minuscule compared to the extent and frequency of what one might call voluntary sex trafficking i.e. young women from impoverished areas moving abroad with the sole aim of doing sex work (stripping, prostitution and so on). The tradcon-feminist co-belligerence against “sex trafficking” is nothing but an attempt to protect Western women from the ruthless competition that a global sexual marketplace would entail.
“Maybe Nice Guy Tim would not keep acting like such a Nice Guy to rank 6 Michelle if on Tuesday night he experienced the rank 6 Sarah for 45 minutes for $90 and knows he can experience other women of similar or higher rank for a price in that order.”
Or maybe rank 6 Michelle comes to realize the nice guys have stopped/reduced showering her with uncompensated attention and that the possibility of her pussy alone won’t keep Betas in orbit any more than it giving free to Alphas does to gain commitment.
Or maybe not.
#51: “I’m seeing a mistake the women on the HUS thread kept making getting reproduced here — the suggestion that prostitution is practically legal because of escort services advertised on the web. This misses that the goal of the legal prohibition of prostitution is not the unrealistic aim of entirely stamping out prostitution but rather the mere discouragement of the business and its clients. That you can get around this discouragement on the web misses the obvious point that because of legal prohibition, services are more expensive, the quality of women is lower, there’s more of a psychic cost to seeking the services, the whole business is more tawdry, etc, all of it which indeed is discouraging. On the other hand, decriminalization would considerably expand the pool of women willing to enter the trade, and consequently lower prices and make it less of a taboo (though the taboo will never abate entirely) to make use of those services.
I keep up with feminist rhetoric and blogs and noticed over the past few years a rise in rhetoric regarding “sex trafficking.” I suspect that there is some pressure to decriminalize sex work because of the logic of personal sexual freedom that continues to become more entrenched everyday as we see in the changed attitudes toward homosexuals and increasing legal acceptance of homosexual union. The logical case makes itself: If we can legally accept and protect homosexuality, why can’t we likewise do so for the ancient practice of prostitution which consists of willing partners exchanging in a trade?”
Hm…as far as I know I’m the only one who brought that up, so this must be refering to me. No one else has mentioned they’ve been in a brothel either, so it would be a very strange thing if I were simultaneously anti-prostitution and touring a facility (though I guess it might be along the lines of buying rock music to play it backwards again and again to hear the word ‘satan rulz’ or something…?).
These are state and local laws, not federal law (with a few exceptions). Makes it easier to change and they vary by the area you live in. At one point, according to Steinbeck, the US was covered in whorehouses. That was around the late 1800s, early 1900s if his description is accurate. If enough people in your area want a whorehouse (or casino, or tattoo shack or liquor store open on Sundays) they can vote to make it legal. One state has. However, the state which made it legal still forbids legal prostitution in it’s largest two cities. There might be a reason for that.
“However, the state which made it legal still forbids legal prostitution in it’s largest two cities. There might be a reason for that”
The reason is stigma and it’s potential impact on the convention and trade show business.
I don’t think so, Badpainter. If this were true, there would be no convention and trade show businesses in Las Vegas.
ADBG,
I have a mental construct I’m riffing on a post for I call “the paradox” – the paradox is that women are generally turned off by the idea that a man is “trying” or making a positive effort to be attractive to women. Even if he’s doing things that make him more attractive, if they sense he’s doing it to get chicks, it no longer counts as a positive. (A variant of this happens in marriages where the man gets no credit for something done at his wife’s behest, he has to “want to do it himself.”) Thus as part of their gane, men need to hide from women any motivation for self-improvement that centers around being better with women.
“and by the way didn’t Susan show her daughter a picture of Roosh and say “STAY AWAY FROM THIS MAN”?”
Haha, yes, she mentioned that anecdote several times – Vox eventually printed the rebuttal that if women were such astute perceivers of men’s inner souls (a key plank of the inner game people is this idea that women can acutely sense if you’re faking it), why would it be necessary to warn them off from accomplished gamesters who are allegedly such fakes? The fact is really that women put a lot of weight on a sense of “congruence,” but that congruence and “authenticity” can be very effectively faked.
“This passive vs. active approach is not inner game. Inner Game is Andrew Jackson standing on the front-line even as his army breaks. They don’t call him “Stonewall” for nothing. When women say “Inner Game,” they don’t mean Stonewall Jackson, they mean “set your phasers on FABULOUS!””
Quibble from a war buff: Andrew Jackson was an antebellum president, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson was a general in the Confederacy.
“#48: I’ll take the words of an anonymous PR guy who claims “no woman is off-limits for (insert anyone)” with a heaping cup full of salt.
Sounds like he surrounds himself with some very toxic people, and is probably pretty toxic too. See celebrity children. People who work at the nut house quite often go nutty.”
It’s been shown to be a very bad assumption to make the FAE that only “bad people” do certain things. It’s especially dangerous because it promotes a false sense of “invincibility” among the self-appointed “good people,” putting them in the way of risks that were they more humble about how malleable we really are as a species, they would know better not to take.
A great anecdote is that supposedly Billy Graham never allowed himself to be alone with a woman who wasn’t his wife.
Liz,
If we start with the reality as it exists today and tomorrow Vegas and Reno decriminalized prostitution the pressures groups would attack those cities and potential clients like sharks in frenzy. Especially going by after the client business and organizations and their oh so sensitive PR campaigns.
The existance of laws prohibiting prostitution gives politcal and social cover. The law enforcement agencies need only make few high publicity arrests/ stings each year to maintain the illusion of serious enforcement, and can claim limited resources as the reason why they can’t stamp out the scourge of consensual commercial sex.
As an alternative please name a city with a thriving convention/tradeshow business that doesn’t have any equally thriving underground sex trade.
As another historical quibble Andrew Jackson was a Major General in the war of 1812, and apparently quite a badass. His forces didn’t crumble at the Battle of New Orleans, in fact they ate Ed Packenham’s army for breakfast, an army that had previously been victorious fighting at a disadvantage against Napolean and several time larger than the defending American forces.
I messed up the first name of Stonewall Jackson. #feelsbadbro
“As it currently stands in the United States, such sex worker services do not have the legal force of protection, oversight and legitimacy that, say, Abortion, or IVF treatments do…”
Really?
Please review (para) “The Foreign Spouses Act”, in toto, including prerequisites, offenses, and all the “recourse” provisions. Please “vet” it’s actual writers, and legislative endorsements..
Wow great article by “O” and lots of good discussion. I will chime in with a little descent. I do believe there is some “entitlement” felt by many if not most NGs. They were sold a false bill of goods; if you do this and this and this and this, then you will get want you want. Essentially, act in the right ways and you will get what you deserve. This is how civilized societies have always worked; there are checks and balances and enticements for proper behavior and penalties (jail) for doing the wrong things. Yes, these NGs are betas and yes they end up marrying, having kids, white picket fences and the whole 9 yards. The problem in their minds is THEY are doing what is required of them, but women (usually their wives) are not. It causes major discordance in their lives.
It boils down to this: they are doing what they are told is required and the outcome (they get regular sex) is denied them.
The whole Red Pill genre is about waking up and learning that what “society” has told you is a complete an utter lie. If you want sex, DO NOT BEHAVE IN THE WAY THEY TELL YOU.
And the MGTOW movement is about waiting for the collapse because the “rules” that govern male/female relations are so screwed up they are NOT sustainable. When you penalize men, sometimes extremely HARSHLY such as Family Court, for doing the right thing and reward men who do the WRONG things, it is a situation that cannot last. And will crumble. As a man going MGTOW and seeing Escorts for occasional sex relief I can only stand aside and was the walls crumble and burn around the very women who created them. OK, I guess that’s not really fair. Only women have the power to change the current status quo. And it is women who have created the current situation. Until enough women realize that they will never marry, never have kids, and will be scorned by the very men they WANT to be with … decide to turn on the Herd and demand changes … there will be no changes. In other words, women will have to go against their Herd mentality and confront feminism. In my opinion women cannot or will not confront the Herd; 99% will do what the Herd says. Even if is wrong. Even if it is ruining her own life. In other words, we are in a spiral towards collapse and their is nothing going to stop it unless women grow up and start acting rationally. Good luck with that.
Thanks O and some great discussion here.
@Badger 59:
“Haha, yes, she mentioned that anecdote several times – Vox eventually printed the rebuttal that if women were such astute perceivers of men’s inner souls (a key plank of the inner game people is this idea that women can acutely sense if you’re faking it), why would it be necessary to warn them off from accomplished gamesters who are allegedly such fakes? The fact is really that women put a lot of weight on a sense of “congruence,” but that congruence and “authenticity” can be very effectively faked.”
O: “Anything that can perceive, can be deceived.”
-David Buss
Deception isn’t just a fact of life throughout all forms of animal life, BOTH sexes engage in it to advance their specific mating goals and aims.
Nothing will stop this.
O.
@R 65:
Indeed; the book “A Billion Wicked Thoughts” explains how and why, from a scientific perspective, Women enmasse are not likely to go against the Herd.
Thanks for stopping by, and by all means, don’t be a stranger!
O.
@Capt.DMO 64:
I fail to see your point; please explain? Thanks!
O.
Badger: “It’s been shown to be a very bad assumption to make the FAE that only “bad people” do certain things. It’s especially dangerous because it promotes a false sense of “invincibility” among the self-appointed “good people,” putting them in the way of risks that were they more humble about how malleable we really are as a species, they would know better not to take.”
Badger, I don’t know what the acronym FAE means. I agree that sometimes good people do bad things. Most often, people are actually defined by what they do, so if they do bad things they are bad people. Bad people sometimes do good things…Stalin and Mao might have been nice to kittens, or something. The deciding factor would be context. I’m not sure what context would bring to light any extenuating circumstances in the aforementioned case. The wife was both a “bad person”, and also a retarded person, and the NBA player was likewise a bad person.
I’ve been a participant in the manosphere for several months, but not years. Before I tour these forums I participated in political discussion quite often on political debate sites, and the subject of prostitution legalization came up quite often. I’ve found the opinions on the matter vary very much and aren’t determined by whether or not one is a feminist. In point of fact, one of the staunchest feminists I’ve ever encountered online acknowledged that she was a callgirl, and had been in the business a few years. She seemed to hate men so much I’m not sure how she was able to go through with it let alone give them any enjoyment, but it’s not my concern.
Badpainter: “If we start with the reality as it exists today and tomorrow Vegas and Reno decriminalized prostitution the pressures groups would attack those cities and potential clients like sharks in frenzy. Especially going by after the client business and organizations and their oh so sensitive PR campaigns.”
Badpainter, many…perhaps most people are already under the impression that prostitution is legal in Vegas. People who visit (even those who visit frequently) are often under the same impression. With a motto like, “what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” it’s not a place people with qualms about sexual morality go to. Nor is it a place where moral busybodies have much if any influence whatsoever.
@Gurney Halleck:
Glad to see you here! I was hoping that you might possibly get wind of this discussion; I didn’t want to name any specific names in the discussion I was referring to in my post for what I trust you will understand reasons that shouldn’t have to be spelled out.
I also think your theory as to the rise of Pickup/Game along these lines is an interesting one; in any event, no matter how one may slice it, it is difficult to deny that there have been major “shocks” and changes to the American mating marketplace. What remains, is, of course, what, if anything, can or should be done about it.
Here’s hoping to you not being a stranger!
O.
@Lowbrass:
Welcome to J4G, and thanks so much for sharing your story. Powerful reading! Please stick around, and by all means, don’t be a stranger.
O.
@Badpainter:
I’m inclined to agree with your arguments over Ms. Liz, though her observations are quite interesting to read. I think the evidence, such as we have it, pretty much speaks for itself; there IS a “sexual protectionism” afoot here, which brings me to another point…
That it is not solely one in which Women would benefit from a prohibition on prostitution; *Men* would benefit as well. Buss discusses this in his book “The Evolution of Desire”, about how “Appeals to Morality” are really attempts to get others to cosign the preferred mating strategies of those arguing it.
O.
@Introverted Playboy:
Glad to see you back.
Wow, I thought you were done with JFG in general, and moi in particular.
O.
@Vince Lin 34:
The pleasure is all mine! Thanks for putting together such a comprehensive source of Game knowledge and information. Much appreciated!
O.
There was an interesting discussion a few months ago on an Escort board I frequent. Some of the ladies were complaining about prices being paid (and their rates going down; which they were not happy about). And a guy chimed in and claimed they should be glad that prostitution wasn’t legal because if it was they’d be making 1/2 of what they currently do. A couple of the most “experienced” providers agreed and the discussion abruptly ended.
The truth is most women would have sex with strange men; if they could get paid for it, be guaranteed it was safe and nobody would find out. Like hypergamy; its part of the ugly truth about female sexuality.
And I think its one of the reasons women hate Escorts so much. They secretly WANT to do it but don’t have the guts to and therefore resent any female who does.
@R 75:
Proof of your assertion can be easily found in a tome called “My Secret Life: The Diary of a Victorian Gentleman”. Google it.
Nuff said…
O.
Welp, it appears that the discussion which informs the current one is still ongoing! Here’s what the founder of the feast recently said:
“Unless legalizing prostitution can be demonstrated to improve the formation and sustenance of committed relationships, it’s irrelevant to HUS at best.
I couldn’t care less where men get sex outside LTRs.”
This, from one who made the pose about a discussion that had nothing in the least with this lady’s “mission”.
You just can’t make this stuff up…
O.
@Badger 3:
“TLDR: Women are subconsciously aware of the SMP and thus have visceral emotion reactions to things that might threaten their marketplace position.”
O: Boom. Please refer to my previous writings on what is known as the Effective Sex Ratios. Both sexes are keenly sensitive to this; in the current discussion, Women are keenly sensitive to sex ratios where there are more Women employing a mating strategy different from their own.
For example: say there is a venue where there are roughly 100 Women, and about 85 Men. Right off the bat, the fewer Men available means that, potentially, 15 Women go without a mate.
Now, consider the possibiliy that at least 20 of the 100 Women are willing to put out early, in exchange for resources immediately extracted. The other 80 Women are now under tremendous pressure to “lower the price” of their own sex in order to compete with the 20 Women who are employing a short term mating strategy in the venue. It becomes very easy to see how and why such Women would not be welcome sights for the rest of the Women.
O.
Liz,
When ACME Inc. goes to a trade show in Vegas to debut this years line of rocket skates and tornado pills they are not going of face the wrath of organized moral outrage. If the fig leaf of prostitution laws were lifted then NOW, The Christian Coalition, and other like minded groups would be protesting and organizing boycotts not against Vegas but against the firms that do business in that city. The fact of the man on the street having a misunderstanding about the laws of Las Vegas is not enough to prevent legitimate commerce or excite outrage. Even the cities hedonistic motto is arguably tongue in cheek, and given the fig leaf of law, not enough to get the necessary coalition of SoCon religious groups to ally with the feminist outrage groups. Plausible deniability is the operating model.
Obsidian,
I think you’re right about men benefiting from the suppression of prostitution but those benefits have evaporated entirely in the current climate. What exactly are men being protected from in this day and age? The only possible downside that I can see was neatly explained above by Earl.
Obsidian 73:
Lol. You’re one of a kind Obsidian, I’ll give you that. Been busy mostly, lurking on and off. Honestly I think we’re good as long as you and I don’t start debating about stuff.
R 75:
As for the pricing issue, I’m not entirely sure what to think. On the one hand, we have supply and demand–more prostitutes implies lower prices. But on the other hand, the average “woman in the street” (no pun intended) probably values her vagina quite highly, pushing prices up. It’s not even about sex at that point, because she doesn’t desire the guy. From her perspective, it’s just “how much money do I want to do something I don’t want to do.” It’s like, how much would you want for me to break your finger?
Everyone has a price, it’s just that professional hookers have a much lower and more affordable price than everyone else.
FWIW, there’s a porn site called “Money Talks” or something where they ask random hot girls to do sexual things for cash on the spot. No doubt at least some of it is staged. But a girl might negotiate, say $300 just for a quick boob flash.
@Badpainter:
Consider the fact that Men in our time can be staunch allies of Women who do not wish to promote things like Game, legalized prostitution and the like; those Men could, at least in theory, directly benefit in terms of increased mating opportunities. Please refer to my link in the post above to an article by Prof. Hugo Schwyzer, for example – by his own admission, he has indeed benefitted by taking the line he has.
There are other examples.
O.
Re: 59
It’s rather simple, isn’t it? What has traditionally been the worst fear of the average woman? Getting duped or forced into delivering the child (or children) of a lowly man. In her eyes, a counterfeit alpha counts as a lowly man – and if a man successfully and consciously changes himself with the aim of improving his chances with women, he counts as a counterfeit alpha.
As far as Walsh’s daughter is concerned, it’s all a farce. She practically pimped her daughter on Obsidian’s old blog. She called her a “10+” and “an independent American woman”. I’m honestly not making this up – she actually used those words. And yet she warned her to stay away from Roissy and explicitly warned one of her male readers to not even get into the vicinity of her daughter. If she’s such an Amazonian heroine of female ambition and self-actualization, why is anyone concerned that she might fall for the “bullshit” (i.e. Game) of nasty, sleazy, lowly males such as, you know, Roissy and Roosh? Shouldn’t such a superwoman be expected to sniff out such creepy, bitter, misogynist losers from 100 feet?
@IP:
This is a very easy issue to suss out; Prohibition wrt alcohol explains it. Legalization paves the way toward lowering prices and increasing quality.
Simple.
O.
Re: 75
I don’t think it’s technologically possible these days to ensure that nobody finds out. It’s like becoming a porn actress and then expecting that your relatives and friends never find out. It may have worked in 1987 but nowadays? An escort has to advertise online, even if on a website with restricted access. If she has a Facebook page, how does she keep her real profession a secret? And if she doesn’t have one, isn’t that a bit suspicious? It’s now commonly expected of all young women to have Facebook pages.
Obsidian 83:
In general that’s a good rule of thumb. But R referred to average women selling sex too. Even if prostitution was legalized, there would still be women saying “I’m worth $10,000″ and there would be some guy willing to pay that. Even if the going rate in a big city market was much lower. Economic theory doesn’t do very well with real-world individual idiosyncracies. No economist could have predicted the pet rock.
Obsidian,
Gotcha, I was thinking of a benefit for all men, not some sort of macro-mate guarding for a chosen few.
I suppose there’s an Alpha protection strategy at work as well. If the non-alphas had access to regular, relatively inexpensive, rejection free sex with minimally attractive women then the pride of accomplished, and status that goes with notch count would be in jeopardy. Everyman would have equal opportunity to access. Such would necessitate the PUAs to post bigger numbers, qualified by attractiveness of the women, as the numbers become increasingly irrelevant. The mystique of being successful with women would be compromised.
#79: Badpainter, we’ll just have to disagree. For that matter, I can’t even imagine believing that NOW and The Christian Coalition are “like minded groups” in any respect. That’s about like asserting the Department of Defense and Reverend Phelps are strategically aligned in their ideas. But I truly don’t wish to be argumentative.
I should have mentioned before I’ve lived in Las Vegas…twice over the course of four years (the longest I’ve lived anywhere in the last 20 years). Very seedy place. Bad for raising children and crime rates through the roof. This, IMO, is why prostitution is illegal in Vegas. It’s close association with crime. They tried to make the downtown a more family friendly, less seedy environment. They succeeded to an extent (everything is relative).
Even in Amsterdam, a third of the Red Light district was closed in 2006 because of rampant criminal activities including money laundering, unregulated drug use and human trafficking. Everything is related. If prostitution were decriminalized, it would still have to be regulated (disease, and the seedy criminal element, preventing exploitation et al). With regulations there’s government intervention and then a bureaucratic under-layer forms and that has its own set of problems. I’ve lived in so many places, grass-is-greener effect always applies. I’d say the best places are the least prone to crime where you can raise kids and your property value is intact. Just sayin’. Those places don’t usually have a lot of prostitution (and I truly couldn’t care less what anyone does in private for fun or profit).
Fair enough Liz, I’ll take that deal.
But consider this about alliances, in WW2 the USA and the USSR were on the same side.
I can’t disagree with your observations about Vegas generally. However, I have yet to find a community that doesn’t suffer some sort corruption, usually it’s just the scale and visibility that differ.
@ 56, 57
The grammar Nazi in me just died a little…
Sadly most of you have fallen for the woman and church propaganda that prostitution is something bad and that prostitutes are mendally unstable creatures , which it isnt.
Prostitution removes the only power women have over men which is sex(church tries to do the same with sins and contemt for sex). She plays hard to get , she asks for returns , she threatens you wont have sex for so long if you wont comply … who gives a fuck pay 20 euros even 30 and fuck a girl in the ass just like that.
whats womans power afterwards … none , zero. Prostitution a tool for modern men.
I can go on for sometime but i dont see any negatives from prostitution for the male population and rest assure men that go with prostututes arent betas or poor or anything like that , they come in all categories
Also prostitutes are just fine , they can take it they even like it most of the times and with that money they wont have to beg and they can support their children or them selfs.
And fyi esp in u.s u guys pay women all the time indirectly , in fact a prostitutes cost you way cheaper than a girlfriend or a wife
#89: “The grammar Nazi in me just died a little…”
I live for it. (bwahahaha!)
Extending a Pedantic Peckerwood award. (now shut the F* Up…I kid!)
Sir Nemisis,
iPad auto corrects its to it’s. If you know how to disable that one case I’m all ears.
“These are state and local laws, not federal law (with a few exceptions). Makes it easier to change and they vary by the area you live in. At one point, according to Steinbeck, the US was covered in whorehouses. That was around the late 1800s, early 1900s if his description is accurate. If enough people in your area want a whorehouse (or casino, or tattoo shack or liquor store open on Sundays) they can vote to make it legal. One state has. However, the state which made it legal still forbids legal prostitution in it’s largest two cities. There might be a reason for that.”
Not sure what the point of this is. Women as a class have an incentive to keep prostitution prohibited. Women have elected this preference into law, and the disappearance of brothels were concurrent with 1st wave feminism.
This is how the government would ideally approach prostitution: Let women entertain whomever they want in their homes/establishments, let men “solicit” as they see fit, but allow communities to prohibit street walkers/congregations of prostitutes seeking business in public spaces. Mandate licenses and tests for brothels (perhaps defined by the number of sex workers operating out of an establishment, say, > 4 = brothel) but only for the purpose of protecting public health (rather than mandating onerous requirements and tests with the surreptitious purpose of discouraging brothel formation).
It’s worth repeating: All of this wouldn’t be a replacement for traditional relationships, but merely a comfort to mgtows, “nice guys,” men having a long dry spell, men in sexless marriages, etc. Prohibition took power and options away from men in women’s favor, and undoing it would restore the balance, even if paying for it is decidedly inferior to getting enthusiast consent inspired by gina tingles.
Badger 47:
“One of the Nice Guy traits is a personal pride in being “different” than other men. I admit I’ve had this before, I’ve hesitated to approach because I didn’t want a woman I’d never met and most likely would never see again thinking of me as “just another creepy guy hitting on me.” I’ve washed most of that out, but it’s a typical fear among more beta dudes, we don’t want to be perceived like landsharks.”
A prime reason for not wanting to be “perceived like landsharks” is that beta men are conditioned to subordinate themselves to others. The beta’s tendency to subordinate his own self-interests, even when satisfying those self-interests would harm no one, is a hallmark of the NiceGuy. The NiceGuy either ignores or never realizes that identifying and pursuing his own rational self-interests is not in and of itself not antisocial, or detrimental, or selfish.
Again, it’s my thesis that the rise of “human trafficking” panic is driven significantly by the fact that policing people’s sexuality is not popular in today’s America.
This is from the FBI’s main page for prostitution:
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/march_2011/human_sex_trafficking
It’s about fighting “human trafficking,” defined as: modern slavery, child prostitution, pimps forcing women to have sex, etc. No mention is made of the fair, simple, consensual trade of resources — money for sex — and why that should be illegal. This is because that argument cannot be made in modern post-Sexual Revolution America, however, the desire of women as a class to prohibit prostitution is still quite potent and expresses itself in the laws that are kept in the books and still enforced.
The place you are referencing is a place you need to vet extremely heavily to get good knowledge. The statistical philosophy has been summed up as “it either rises to statistical significance or it doesn’t.” The underlying messages are extraordinarily dangerous to inexperienced Blue Pill men who straight-up will not understand ambiguous lines between things like “confident” and “arrogant” or “jerky” and “teasing.”
And the thing is if someone is going to tell a guy “be confident” but don’t be arrogant or “playful teasing” is fund but being “jerky” is not, then you have to be prepared to follow up with crystal clear specific examples of both. It is complete crock of shit to say just “develop your Inner Game” and work on ambiguous “self-development” without even a shred of specificity and pretend everything is just going to fall into place. I recently read a comment that a guy who is NOT a “Natural” shouldn’t even try to tease or neg since he will inevitably fail. What horrendous advice. As someone else noted, it is basically just another way of saying “Just be Yourself” and cross your fingers and hope you get lucky. I think a guy has to realize if he tries some new behavioral and communication tactics, he’ll have some flame-outs and crash landings that hopefully can be learning opportunities to do better next time. But we cannot possibly have a single woman feel uncomfortable out there for even a split second.
Especially when the blog outright forbids discussions of things like “sexual escalation” because it is “creepy,” even though it is acknowledge in the friendship=lovers post that sexual escalation is key…just at the right time. When is the right time? Who knows, you are supposed to figure it out. If you had Inner Game, you would know.
Ha. I followed this discussion because I was curious how it would progress. Ramble tried to push for specificity as much as he could without also getting the boot, and what followed was a masterful job of bobbing and weaving with no clear answers on what constitutes proper sexual escalation on the guy’s part except some magical it should all just flow exactly right with no instructions needed. As someone else pointed out on another thread, its funny that the same person can consider X “assault” while Spitting wine in your mouth is apparently a perfectly timed proper sexual escalation. The level of cognitive dissonance and hamsterbation on some of these issues is just mind-boggling.
But the girls there just don’t care. Men should just get it.
Rollo has a good post on that. Whether they care or don’t care, ultimately some of them are operating from such warped views that it won’t surprise me if some end up as spinsters. They’ll just end up rationalizing they “don’t need a man” to be happy. But it would be ironic if the supposed “mission” doesn’t appear to materialize into an outcome for some of the most active participants. One thing about a lot of the “Sphere” advice is you end up with a lot of “success” stories in that guys who wanted relationships get girlfriends or wives, guys who just want to get laid, end up getting laid. There are a few woman who come to mind who do A LOT of talking/writing, and I’d absolutely love to know 1. How many guys have approached you, 2. How many dates have you been on, 3. Any boyfriends. My sense is for many women the real mission is about group socializing than actually better results with men.
@93: Gurney Halleck
“Women as a class have an incentive to keep prostitution prohibited. Women have elected this preference into law, and the disappearance of brothels were concurrent with 1st wave feminism.”
Holy crap !!!
I read and read and read and read some more on the internet to try and figure out what’s going on and every once in awhile you get a “Holy crap !” moment.
Because this is exactly right: The 1st wave of Feminism … the Woman’s Suffrage movement resulted in the elimination of the competition. Brothels. Not only did they get the right to vote, they took away a man’s ability to get sex outside of marriage. Not that it killed Brothels completely but it was the beginning; the beginning of the War on Men. I thought it had begun in the 1950s/60s. I had no idea that it went so far back.
@BuenaVista/37: I was a crappy trumpet player. Couldn’t sustain any notes at the top of the treble clef. Moving up in mouthpiece size opened up another world. It was also neat, because I got to sometimes play rhythm, sometimes melody. So I give my thanks to Holst, for his generous Euphonium passages. Also envious that you had E-Flat Tuba, as I never learned anything more than B-Flat stuff. I think percussion is cool, but I’m still more of a bass fan than anything. Truthfully, I’m really not that great at it, but I enjoyed it enough that I bought a few instruments that I plan on keeping for the rest of my life.
Getting slightly back to topic:
“Do you ever get annoyed reading about or hearing about average women declaiming on the ‘amazing’ number of country stamps in their passports? As in, Who the fuck cares?”
Yep; I work somewhat close to DC and the desirable-looking women in my age group behave just like that. I’ve been called “boring” for not having the same experiences, and as you said about billable rates, they think people like me aren’t sophisticated enough to get them. I propose a new trademark: Strong Independent Sophisticated(tm) woman.
Never mind someone like me, without a degree, who did more with less. Never mind that I stand shoulder to shoulder with Master’s and PhDs, taking home close to the same pay. There’s just no way I could possibly understand, or keep up, with one of them. But, damn, if I had that Master’s (and that debt, and that low pay, and those roommates, and spent my earnings on business attire) I’d be in!
And, hey, in the current climate, why save $$? Just travel all over the place. Eventually they’ll ca$h in.
@Han Solo/38 and Obsidian/71: You started it! Kidding aside, I get a vibe here that makes me think of the ideal bar I’d love to frequent. You know, where I can fire up a Camacho Triple-Maduro, sip on some scotch or enjoy some Guinness Extra Stout, and maybe even get a slice of pizza pie.
Now, Obsidian, you’re in Philly, no? That’s really amusing to me, as you’re a founding father here, and in a way, we, the denizens, are helping draft the ‘Articles of Confederation’ after many intolerable acts have forced us to declare independence. Ben Franklin wrote about going “a whoring”, right?
My sister’s in Philly, so maybe one day our paths will cross.
@R/75: “And a guy chimed in and claimed they should be glad that prostitution wasn’t legal because if it was they’d be making 1/2 of what they currently do.”
This is parallel to the war on drugs. I’ve generally held a low opinion about them and their users, but if the free market decided on it, drug lords would be marginalized, and public service might truly focus on “safety”. This type of crime wouldn’t pay anymore, and though even if people like me may grumble about it, everyone but the criminals would win.
It’s hard for me to fathom that right now, as with the Nanny state, I get the impression that people would try to do all the drugs in the world and simultaneously think they can abdicate responsibility for their actions, much like… dare I say, the hypergamous and solipsistic.
To me, there’s another parallel: The abortion proponents. The usual leftist propaganda argues for abortion to “save the mother” or some other exceptionally low-percentage outcome when the reality is that they want guilt-free convenience and avoidance of responsibility. Real rape is the true definition of “unwanted pregnancy”… The libertarian drug user argues that people are responsible for what they put into their bodies, but I think they forget how their impairments infringe upon the life, liberty, and property of others. So, the “responsible” users get their drugs, but the rest act stupid and society pays for it.
I say, don’t tell me how it’s your body and your choice, keep out of my bedroom, when you’re demanding MY tax dollars to fund it. Talk about legalized plunder to the level of absurdity.
Getting to what @Liz/87 got to:
“Even in Amsterdam, a third of the Red Light district was closed in 2006 because of rampant criminal activities including money laundering, unregulated drug use and human trafficking.”
Yeah; for better or worse, the free market inspires innovation, and the criminal element will try to push back. Perhaps the mistake over there was the thinking that, “Oh, well, legalizing it will solve everything!” and they probably dropped their guard. I’d like to think that the US would just reassign DEA and Police, maybe FDA, even, to help deal with that. After all, the coffers should be stuffed with the extra taxable income.
Places like Seattle and Denver are dealing with more pot than they can stomach, so it’s interesting to see how those experiments will turn out.
@st3roids/93: “…they come in all categories”
They do, indeed.
@deti/94: “A prime reason for not wanting to be “perceived like landsharks” is that beta men are conditioned to subordinate themselves to others. The beta’s tendency to subordinate his own self-interests, even when satisfying those self-interests would harm no one, is a hallmark of the NiceGuy. The NiceGuy either ignores or never realizes that identifying and pursuing his own rational self-interests is not in and of itself not antisocial, or detrimental, or selfish.”
What a perfect boiler plate for me to use. Remember the commercials for “Hair Club for Men?” Change that to Introvert’s Club for Men. I’m not only the president, but I’m also a client!
A prime reason for not wanting to be “perceived as shy/loser” is that introvert men are conditioned to subordinate themselves to others. The introvert’s tendency to subordinate his own self-interests, even when satisfying those self-interests would harm no one, is a hallmark of the NiceGuy. The NiceGuy either ignores or never realizes that identifying and pursuing his own rational self-interests is not in and of itself not antisocial, or detrimental, or selfish.
One of the paradoxes that I hope Badger decides to write about, is that one necessarily must be extroverted or outgoing to succeed with women, despite the fact that doing so is supplication on the part of the introvert. The PUA community, the hypergamous, and the NG/betas alike, all have romanticized extroversion. Not that it’s bad. But if we’re talking real “inner game” and we know that introvert validation and energy comes from within, it should follow that they, therefore, have had the strongest frame. WE are the ones having the energy taken from us, while extroversion depends on others. Ironically, they say that the guy should do 20% of the talking… Well, that’s kinda how we want to do it, but EVERYBODY thinks otherwise. And, guess what? Force us to talk more, and we predictably crash and burn.
And… I hope people don’t suggest that I didn’t try or that I’m trying to be lazy. I hate to admit that I took up photography and music to appease the majority. Oh, and before that, I paid $$$ to get help from The Juggler’s charisma outfit back in 2006. Needless to say, that was really rough being judged both by an instructor and the women, most of whom I failed with.
I took away a few positives, but that chunk of change would’ve been better spent on escorts, honestly.
Which brings me back to:
@Liz/49: “#48: I’ll take the words of an anonymous PR guy who claims “no woman is off-limits for (insert anyone)” with a heaping cup full of salt.”
This is the lesson I learned.
The joke’s on me for spending the $$, but when I got to meet Juggler, it’s no surprise he had successes. I’m barely 5’8″ and he’s like 6’2″. If the choices were down to the two of us, and none of us uttered a word, he’d get picked 99% of the time.
Alright, that’ll be enough for now. I had nothing better to do, since all of my sports teams suck ass (Detroit Pistons / Lions) and I’m disillusioned.
“My sense is for many women the real mission is about group socializing than actually better results with men.”
Yep. To be fair, some sphere blogs do skew towards this too, but they at least have a kernel of useful truth behind it.
I wonder how the Old Ladies’ sons will do? Will they do as well as their high-N fathers? Somehow I suspect not. Which probably suits *them* just fine… raise your boys to be be perfect, compliant beta, who always act in women’s best interests, rather than their own?
Build the perfect beta, indeed.
Would have love to seen Ramble’s arguing. Was he banned?
Yep. To be fair, some sphere blogs do skew towards this too, but they at least have a kernel of useful truth behind it.
True.
I wonder how the Old Ladies’ sons will do? Will they do as well as their high-N fathers? Somehow I suspect not.
Well, to my understanding the son of Old Lady 1 is in his late 20s and with his first and only girlfriend from high school. Way, way back Old Lady 1 posted a comment about this that implied son had some slight reservations about never experiencing anyone else but she reassured him all was good. Maybe it is. I’m admittedly speculating here, but my best guess is son probably operates from a huge scarcity mindset, and there is no way he is letting go of the girl he got “lucky” to get. To be clear, I see nothing inherently wrong with getting, staying, and marrying the first girl you get serious with/have sex with. I think ADBG is following that path, but ADBG is a rare cat IMO. He is doing so without any scarcity mindset, and a full understanding of the necessary dynamics. For the record, my FIRST marriage was to my first serious girlfriend, and the girl I lost my virginity to. There was A LOT going on in that relationship but no doubt my decision to marry her was partially driven by two very bad reasons, one a still strong scarcity mindset, and two a sense that I “owed” her for “using up” many of her “best” years. As a side point, I’ll note that I find it surreally absurdly ironic that a woman will refer to her 20s as her “best” years when it suits her purposes, but apparently now over at the echo chamber it is verboten for a man to speak of a woman having given her “best” (years) to another guy is she happens to be a chubby 35 year old who previously was a 20-something fit body. Anyways, hopefully Old Guy is looking out for son, because my sense is he probably takes a backseat to making sure the life script of the Princess plays out perfectly which includes optimizing her hypergamy to the perfect Alpha Status/Prestige/Beta Provider male.
The sons of Old Lady 2 of alphabetic prowess/originality I suspect may not fare as well. By her own admission she is a bit of an oddball so hopefully they got Old Guy 2’s personality traits. Based on what I could piece together from numerous comments and sort of reading in between the lines, my sense was that those sons had minimal dating experience with women and the Old Lady 2 was basically clueless. I recognize the pattern because it was similar to me. I had little to no experience with women in my late teens through 20-21, and I didn’t discuss it with my Mom. I knew she couldn’t be of any help so there was no point talking about it. But if someone asked her, I have no doubt she would have replied as alphabet Old Lady basically does, “He is a good guy, smart, fairly good looking, has friends, etc., he’ll be just fine with the ladies”, completely and utterly oblivious to my utter lack of success at that age, and the massive amount of internal frustration and angst that I VERY EFFECTIVELY HID from her at that age.
Would have love to seen Ramble’s arguing. Was he banned?
Not sure, I don’t think so. He was very adept at knowing how to push right up against the line and then pull back. I kind of wondered what he was trying to accomplish once it became clear to me at least that any countervailing male POV on any issue was unwelcome and not even going to be given consideration.
@98: Lowbrass
“The PUA community, the hypergamous, and the NG/betas alike, all have romanticized extroversion. Not that it’s bad. But if we’re talking real “inner game” and we know that introvert validation and energy comes from within, it should follow that they, therefore, have had the strongest frame. WE are the ones having the energy taken from us, while extroversion depends on others. Ironically, they say that the guy should do 20% of the talking… Well, that’s kinda how we want to do it, but EVERYBODY thinks otherwise. And, guess what? Force us to talk more, and we predictably crash and burn.”
I’ve thought about this a lot and haven’t been able to put it into words and yours come close. Lets see if I can elaborate. I am an introvert. I’m in IT and have been for years. Growing up, my social skills were not bad but not great either. Going into IT in college and staying there for 20+ years has hurt a ton. And I have been very successful in my career; don’t get that wrong. When you do something and do it well and are very well rewarded … you continue to do it. Positive re-enforcement and all that. Now introduce being raped in divorce after being married for many, many years. With the adjustment of how the world and the social scene has changed (Dating) you can imagine my shock. So research, research, research that’s what IT guys do. Welcome to the Red Pill !!!
I went thru the NG phase first and then the Red Pill before settling on MGTOW. Why?
Just like joining a gym, taking supplements, and devoting my life to health, nutrition, and fitness is NEVER going to make my 5-10 frame grow to be 6-3, the same can be said for my social skills. I think that perhaps in some earlier phase in my life (like my teens) I could have been converted to being an Extrovert, if I had the right influences. But not now. Not after 30 years as an adult and having a career and skills as an Introvert. It does not matter how many PUA techniques I try to learn. How many much I work on “inner game” or any of that crap. I am not a bullshitter, comedian, and don’t know how to flirt. Could I learn ? Maybe. Do I want to? No. And I can’t imagine me EVER being good at it. Unless of course I quit my job and flush my career down the toilet. And dedicate my life to being “social”. This reminds me of something someone said to me at one time: “Its like attractive girls have PLEASE LIE TO ME tattooed on their foreheads and the guy who lies to them the best gets to sleep with them.”. So what it comes down to is that I am not a liar, not a social butterfly like women demand, and I don’t want to be. If I try to be social and engaging and entertaining in attempt to woo them, it all comes crashing down. The only variable is how long it takes.
R
Lowbrass 98 and R 101:
You’re right that attractiveness has been conflated with extraversion in much of the pickup community (which is ironic because most of those guys–Mystery, Tyler Durden, others–are introverts). But more and more people are realizing that’s incorrect.
One of my main contentions in life is that you can be an attractive man without acting in a way that is unnatural for you. You can be social without being a social butterfly. There is the set of qualities that make a man attractive, and then there is the introvert/ extrovert dichotomy, and those are two different sets of things. In fact, introverts have certain natural strengths that extroverts lack when dealing with women (including a lot of the mindset stuff aforementioned). And lying has nothing to do with attraction (unless you want a specific kind of girl).
If game and dating isn’t for you, that’s cool. But I’m just saying it’s possible for an introvert to be successful and still be true to himself.
Two great examples of introverts who are still really attractive to women are Jon Matrix with daygame.com and James Marshall. Check out their videos on Youtube.
“I can’t imagine me EVER being good at it. Unless of course I quit my job and flush my career down the toilet. And dedicate my life to being ‘social’.”
This a thousand times this!
I have only limited amount of time on earth and frankly I have better things to do than dedicate my life to than the alchemy of gina tingles. But then I’m bitter and cynical so there you have it. The whole male self improvement thing I get, but the amount of time and effort to chase tail and the lack of any sort of guaranteed payoff makes the entire notion seem a fools errand. Had I learned of all this stuff 10-15 years ago I’d likely feel differently. Now I’m thinking I’d actually rather have platonic female friends, and simply pay for the sex.
BP/R: if you’ve decided a priori that you will fail, then you surely will, and your mindset has NOT shifted yet. I’m as introverted as they come, but never needed to “dedicate my life” to any such things. IP nailed it, you can be a social introvert, or enough to get by quite well.
@R/101: Damn, dude, you’re like a brother from another mother! Let’s get into the nitty gritty:
“I’ve thought about this a lot and haven’t been able to put it into words and yours come close.”
For real. Much of what I’ve shared on this site — is something that’s taken a very long time for me to put into words. When I was much younger, I felt like I had an idea of what was going on, but lacked the ability to put it to words. Hence, when I sought help, I didn’t know what to ask.
Much like you, R, I am in IT… though I like to classify myself as a “computer guru”. Perhaps my inclination to say this is a side effect of the programming I learned from the masses: IT isn’t fascinating enough (NERD ALERT!), you need to make it sound “not boring.”
Like yourself, it’s not as if I had a dearth of friends when I was younger. For me, it was almost as soon as I played my first Atari game – I knew I was gonna be into computers. My folks had a business and that ultimately became my springboard to success. Never stopped me from playing outside, or, getting into trouble.
“And I have been very successful in my career; don’t get that wrong. When you do something and do it well and are very well rewarded … you continue to do it. Positive re-enforcement and all that. ”
That’s one thing that you and I understand. It’s not merely the reward, but that earning success was a mostly linear progression. Unlike women, I’ve never had a customer, manager, or colleague, suddenly and unexpectedly become disappointed in how I worked with them. AND, when I had managers thinking I wasn’t doing the right thing, they considered the positive feedback from my colleagues and ultimately rewarded me with an increase.
“Now introduce being raped in divorce after being married for many, many years. With the adjustment of how the world and the social scene has changed (Dating) you can imagine my shock.”
Sorry to hear that, and I know it is harsh. I have respect for my elders around the office and one of them told me about how he, more or less, lost $100K in a divorce, and they didn’t even have children.
“Just like joining a gym, taking supplements, and devoting my life to health, nutrition, and fitness is NEVER going to make my 5-10 frame grow to be 6-3, the same can be said for my social skills.”
I have reason to believe that certain physical attributes can and do help. Meaning, the woman will become inquisitive. Also, I agree that social skills for an introvert won’t beget the same hypertrophy as taking steroids and building muscle. With us, that shit (growth) only happens on a good day… and, if you’re like me, that good day only happens when desirable women aren’t there to notice. Otherwise, if a potential moment for success materializes in front of you, you’ll be ill-prepared to handle it.
“I am not a bullshitter, comedian, and don’t know how to flirt. Could I learn ? Maybe. Do I want to? No. And I can’t imagine me EVER being good at it. Unless of course I quit my job and flush my career down the toilet. ”
BINGO! I have a similar disposition. I don’t talk about shit I didn’t accomplish. Like the movie “Liar, Liar,” I CAN’T LIE! I’ve often been irritated because I get accused of bragging or embellishing when I’m being truthful… and my failing is that I just didn’t present the truth in some manner that the masses found appealing. But, if you were “pre-selected”, women would overlook you smashing baby birds with an aluminum bat from a fucking tee.
The worst part? We get brushed aside and classified like the “Nice Guys” because prevailing social norms demand that we get thrown in that bucket. Whether we truly have a backbone or not.
I hear ya, and if I met you, I’d buy you a beer.
@Introverted Playboy/102: “One of my main contentions in life is that you can be an attractive man without acting in a way that is unnatural for you.”
YES. This is what I had odds with, with respect to the instructor at the charisma camp. I wasn’t able to put this concern into words, so he basically eviscerated me by saying I was being too dogmatic to accept the reality of what was “right.” Outside of this, I had pressure from friends and family to be just that – unnatural.
“If game and dating isn’t for you, that’s cool. But I’m just saying it’s possible for an introvert to be successful and still be true to himself.”
Even though I was bad at it, I have been “trumpeting” the latter. I think we wholeheartedly agree on that premise. Where others don’t agree with us is the execution. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and however that skinning is done, it doesn’t forbid us unlike-minded individuals from being on the same page.
We don’t necessarily want to “not game” or not date, but there has to be a fork in it (programming term) where it’s become obvious that one subset of behaviors or skills is easier for extroverts whereas another is easier for introverts. From my vantage point, it’s largely been “one size fits all” and the gold-standard has been that of extroversion.
I’ll definitely check out the people you mentioned, as it never hurts to learn more.
@Badpainter/103: “The whole male self improvement thing I get, but the amount of time and effort to chase tail and the lack of any sort of guaranteed payoff makes the entire notion seem a fools errand. ”
Yeah, a shitty side effect of getting older and wiser and having real responsibilities. That’s why I had to stop hanging out in the “music scene.” It was impractical to be out until 3AM on weekdays and have a good job.
BB and Bucky Badger: 42/43:
Assuming some masculine appeal, the women I know will a) absolutely invite you upstairs on the third date; or b) claw at your belt on the first date in the car, if they consider their SMV lower than yours.
The third date is the socially-acceptable, ‘I’m not a slut’, milestone. So women are zero-coupons with an extremely early maturity. Plates, spinning, are not zeroes. They’re just common equities; you liquidate at will, day-trade even.
I prefer the zero-coupon analogy because it’s a good way to approach women who have two things on their minds (sex, money; or, money, sex) and retain the ability to walk away without drama. I dislike drama.
So. Badger, I understand, I think, what you suggest in tying ‘staggered maturities’ to the PUA guys’ ‘spinning plates.’ But I disagree and assert a difference in meaning and purpose:
1. ‘Spinning Plates': this is the PUA’s description of his management of his soft harem. He’s a student of Game, and knows that any scarcity bias destroys his game. Thus it is imperative that he always have multiple plates spinning on his pointer, in order to avoid neediness. (N.B.: The real issue here is his neediness.) What he’s really doing, however, is managing his nervousness (existential terror) that he’ll never get any action again.
He’s *hedging*, in other words, not managing.
2. ‘Staggered Maturities': the Sovereign Man (SM) understands that women are Liabilities, and that the only way to *manage* them is with an option-adjusted set of assets. He understands, most importantly, that ALL WOMEN mature and desire redemption. All of them. Therefore, women are in *abundance*. So the SM is focused not on plate-spinning hedging, for he has no need to hedge, he’s already too busy fending off the pussy; he’s just trying to match maturities (match female desire with male assets). All women, if they consent to a first date kiss, and then a second date, desire redemption. No woman kisses you on the first date and agrees to the second unless she is contemplating sex and/or money. None. The SM who understands this is overwhelmed with sexual opportunity.
Perhaps it’s a distinction without a difference (distinction: plates v. staggered maturities) (difference: managing scarcity v. managing abundance). I don’t think so, though.
[On the other hand, I’ve been going out every day for the past three weeks, after several months of chaste reflection. I might be losing my mind.]
BB, in regard to your concept of the Sovereign Man (SM): these are the headline attributes I developed in my ruminations last week. I wouldn’t have thought about any of this absent your label, Sovereign Man. Therefore these investigations belong to you.
I tend to organize rule structures into groups of 3 or groups of 10. It’s a (I hope) charming, juvenile desire for order. The SM certainly requires at least 10. The following are not ranked by value or priority. They are simply the qualities I derived while drinking rye at Morton’s on Christmas Eve, with a fountain pen and a Moleskin.
Essentially, as I define the SM, he is FREE: free of deception, free of material constraint, free of fear, free of want:
1. Physically free: to be physically healthy, safe in most environments, and quite dangerous to malefactors.
2. Intellectually free: to be free of cultural bias and farce. (See above.) Thus able to be creative in production, outlook, while being unconcerned with social pressures that would crush agency and masculinity.
3. Financially free: to be accomplished, needed, and funded; to be frugal and modest, on demand if circumstances warrant. To be unchained from bourgeois status ambitions and hierarchical totems; to be free of debt, claims, liens; to be happy to dig ditches or patent new mathematics, equally.
4. Emotionally free: seek no approval; trade no action for approval; suffer no rejection; plead no scarcity; love without meter or measure; react never to inferiors; tremble before no superior.
5. Sexually free: experience as much or as little sexual activity as desired; to be admired sexually; to be superior; to be memorable; to be perpetually desired; to be immune to concerns of sexual scarcity.
6. Spiritually free: freedom from uncertainty; to possess faith in the real as well as the unseen; to be unafraid; to be unconstrained in conviction, no matter convention or the expectations of loved ones; to be beholden neither to popularity nor any private indulgence of shame; to understand one’s position in the cosmos.
7. Culturally free: to be free to walk the world; to witness all things absent the distortions of localism or parochial anecdote; to love freely one’s locale, while smiling at its limitations; to understand if not accept one’s cultural opponents; to create, if modestly, one’s own culture.
8. Cognitively free: to casually acquire insight as others acquire oxygen; to take action each day to protect and develop one’s cognitive health; to examine each thought rigorously, but without anxiety; to be smarter tomorrow than today; to acknowledge one’s cognitive superiors while studying them; to never surrender the virtue of superior intelligence; to make sense.
9. To be Free of Time: to live in awareness of life’s finitude; to create examples for one’s children and friends, each comprising elements of one’s legacy; to value legacy; to consume no woman’s, and no man’s, time — without permission; to move through time with respect, and wry awareness, of one’s imminent obliteration; to embrace the emptiness, and silence, of one’s inevitable termination.
10. To be Free of Pride: to recognize distraction, and delusion, for the sideshows that they are; to humbly recognize the End-State of all things; to love and embrace that End; to presume nothing and desire everything; to value achievement as small, and it’s process as large; to see the world with the heart, eye and aspect of a man with nothing other than a conscience and a strong back; to be the man that all men trust, when the sun goes dark.
I have an appointment with an Escort tonight. A new girl I’ve never seen. 5-2, 100lbs, long blonde hair, man-made boobies, and 10 years younger than me. She’s Hot ! And is a single Mom doing it to supplement her income; takes only select clients. Only reason I got in was because I come highly recommended from another Escort that she is friends with.
The other one I’ve seen many, many times and we get along great. Let see: I’m rich, I’m smart, I’m educated, I’m generous and have money to spend on her (donation) as long as she provides what I need (sex), I’m nice and treat her with respect. I’m always on time, dressed decently, and have good hygiene. Oh, I’m not half bad looking and can hold my own in the sack too. These are qualities that used to make you prime husband material. Now it makes you a laughing stock and unable to get date. Not that I try much anymore.
This is the reason that MGTOW scares the crap out of women. And it should. When guys like me think its safer and a better investment to see a hooker than try to get a date, they should be very worried. They’d like you to think it was undesirable lows-lifes who resort to hookers; guys they wouldn’t be interested in anyway. In my experience its been just the opposite. Most are educated, decent, honest men who have the $$$ to get what they need and aren’t afraid to spend it. Most are already married and are subject sex-extortion/withholding at home. They don’t want to cheat but if their own wives won’t have sex with them; then they will get it elsewhere. There was one Escort I was seeing awhile back and the only clients she’d see were married men. Guys sometimes get hooked on the sex and turn into pests so her knowing they are married gave her leverage; as soon as a guy acted up or wanted more she’d just bring up with “wifey” to bring him back into line. Worked for her.
Tonight is gonna be the best $$$ I’ve spent in awhile. Cheers !
More on the prior comment. The lady would mention the wife’s name to the gent in PRIVATE during a session. So the guy was aware of the situation. Not that she actually contacted the man’s wife. The implied threat was good enough to keep the guys in line. Didn’t want to give the impression that it actually happened !
#108: The person I know who most recently hired escourts is a fighter pilot, and handsome, in great shape, in this late thirties…very, VERY good guy. He said it was the best money he’d ever spent. This after his divorce. It had been a long, long dryspell the last five years of his marriage, his wife was bipolar and crazy (but I repeat myself).
Introvert? “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.” Tons of people use that word incorrectly. Introversion/Extroversion only answers the following question: “Do you gain or expend energy in interacting with other people?”
An extrovert gains energy by being around and interacting with people. An introvert gains energy by being alone. Extroverts will actually start feeling tired and cranky when they’ve gone too long without being around and talking to other people. An introvert starts feeling tired and cranky when he has been around people for too long.
In the dating field, this has absolutely nothing to do with how social, charming, or attractive you are. NOTHING. Being shy or nervous around women has NOTHING to do with introversion. If you are saying “I can’t approach women because I’m an introvert”, you are lying to yourself and others. That’s called being shy, being too nervous, or having low self esteem. All of those can be fixed.
I am probably one of the biggest introverts you will ever meet; however, I have absolutely no problem walking up and starting a conversation with any woman, I don’t care how good looking she is. An extrovert can do this all day, and all night. I cannot. After a certain amount of time, no matter HOW successful/unsuccessful I am, I HAVE to withdraw, and spend some time alone. (Because I grew up in a huge family, that time is exceptionally long for me.)
Introverts can, by the way, learn to extend their “time ’till empty” by conditioning themselves to keep socializing after they “run dry”. Eventually, you build up a tolerance.
Anyway, my point is this:
Being charming, social, and interesting are SKILLS that you CAN learn if you work at it. I happened to learn it by growing up in a large family, with a very large extended family and friends, where it was (literally) impossible not to learn it. Introversion has NOTHING to do with that.
One last thing:
IF YOU ARE IN I.T. ***NEVER EVER EVER*** TELL A WOMAN YOU JUST MET WHAT YOU DO FOR A LIVING. Either lie, or evade the question in a playful manner (i.e., you are lying, but she knows immediately you are lying). For example, when asked what I do, I’ll sometimes respond with “I teach advanced hair-combing to high school students”, or “I’m a paper clip bender at the local factory”. (Trust me, if you deliver it right, either one of those two lines will garner a laugh from a chick). Wait until far into an actual date to tell her.
Women automatically have a stereotype of men who work in I.T., and it is NOT positive in any way, shape, or form. it has been my experience that it will knock 2-3 points off of your SMV. Tell your buds/wingmen that, no matter what, they are NOT to tell girls you are talking to what you do for an actual living. Trust me on this.
Great discussion all around.
Morpheus,
More or less got it right about me. I have never seriously dated anyone before this girl. Didn’t really see the point. Like a lot of guys, pre-game, I got some IOIs I was only semi-aware of, some girls I didn’t really feel comfortable escalating with, etc. Not much, but some.
No big issue either way. There’s no shame in N=1, with the 1 being your husband or wife. Something tells me people used to actually value that kind of character trait.
You are also right about the lack of scarcity mindset. Most guys I know operate in HUGE scarcity mindset. You said in the other thread you liked the anecdotes. My best friend knows a good deal of girls, hangs out in an unrestricted, club-every-weekend kind of crowd. Yet every single girl he meets and kind of likes, and there were four or five in 2013, he texts them nonstop, worries about them not texting him back, etc.
He’s a car guy, dropped 40 grand on his first guy, and he texted straight through Fast and Furious 6. COME ON DUDE!
But me? I don’t really have one. There are tons of girls out there. I like the one I am with a lot more than all the rest of them, but there are three or four 20-something temps in the next department over that average two or three double-takes a day. They aren’t super attractive, but like I mentioned in another thread, most guys are just looking for a 5-6 that wants to have sex with them, is really pleasant, and might like to watch Lord of the Rings. You can find those most places, normal guys just need to not shoot themselves in the foot and normal girls need to not be prissy, picky bitches. For instance, checking out the engaged guy at the office is probably not good for them, and I have pictures all over my desk of the fiancé, so it’s not like it’s a huge secret.
Re: personal histories. I try not to speculate too much. My point with the daughter comment was to show how women perceive active vs. passive game and why they might prefer guys look into passive game. It doesn’t test boundaries and is not aggressive. Really, Rollo hits it right with the Build a Better Beta post,
lowbrass.
“and my failing is that I just didn’t present the truth in some manner that the masses found appealing”
“WATCH OUT FOR THAT CAR COMING AT YOU!”
That’s one of the few things that must be said. Pretty much everything else is optional. And it doesn’t freaking matter how honest and truthful it is.
@R/108: I hope you have a good time. Like David Lee Roth said, “Tell us how you do!!”
@Sir_Chancealot/111: Careful there, your tone almost sounds like, “Just Man Up!”
“In the dating field, this has absolutely nothing to do with how social, charming, or attractive you are. NOTHING. Being shy or nervous around women has NOTHING to do with introversion. If you are saying “I can’t approach women because I’m an introvert”, you are lying to yourself and others. That’s called being shy, being too nervous, or having low self esteem. All of those can be fixed.”
I think your initial assertion isn’t true. Take out the “social” part, and then we’d agree. Furthermore, everyone suffers nervousness, but true shyness is another issue altogether. For those who aren’t truly shy, part of the problem is that when the extroverts call the introverts, “shy”, they levy it the same way someone calls another person racist. Anyone with self-esteem will lash out at that, but the damage is done. In that scene, you’re guilty until proven innocent, and the accuser, man or woman, has basically declared, “I’m better than you, because I’m not like that.” I believe this causes introverts to feel worse, and hence, “shy”.
But let’s get back to the social aspect. I contend:
Introverts should not waste so much effort on being “social”, like everyone says they should. In fact, no more than 20% of their effort, I postulate. They just have to show up. Attractiveness is 50% and Charm should be the remaining 30%. Introverts are the banks of social currency, so they should focus on charm and attractiveness such that IOI’s have no choice but to manifest themselves like ghosts in an energy field. That this doesn’t happen, I think, is a myth. Where it trips introverts up, is that the interest actually masquerades as a put-down. Like, “Why are you so quiet?”
None of this “Approach, approach, approach!!” mantra. If we’re already giving $$ away, why on earth must we demand that others take the currency? (Sounds like approval seeking)
Oddly, even though the introvert has the $$, when he has to ask others to take it, he’s playing with scared $$.
The attractiveness passively does the approaching, and the charm is needed to parlay the attention and IOI’s into something useful. Eye contact will require the most practice.
Being social is an expense. Put more assets into attractiveness and charm, and then the $$ works for you and you collect the dividends.
(No wonder why Mystery’s methods work so well for him!)
What happens when an introvert wastes too much time being “social”? Just watch this clip from “Gladiator” if you want to know how I felt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axnqu9vkqFQ
“IF YOU ARE IN I.T. ***NEVER EVER EVER*** TELL A WOMAN YOU JUST MET WHAT YOU DO FOR A LIVING. Either lie, or evade the question in a playful manner (i.e., you are lying, but she knows immediately you are lying).”
Personally, I haven’t perceived much slight. While I won’t share it, I work in a desirable agency. I can still truthfully say that my job is to solve problems for smart people. BUT I might have to be a hypocrite and lie, like you suggest… not about my job, but about my degree, or lack thereof. That’s nearly as bad as virginity around my area.
@ADBG/113: “… and normal girls need to not be prissy, picky bitches. ”
Amen. Many of us wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for that.
Lowbrass: ““IF YOU ARE IN I.T. ***NEVER EVER EVER*** TELL A WOMAN YOU JUST MET WHAT YOU DO FOR A LIVING. Either lie, or evade the question in a playful manner (i.e., you are lying, but she knows immediately you are lying).”
Personally, I haven’t perceived much slight. While I won’t share it, I work in a desirable agency. I can still truthfully say that my job is to solve problems for smart people. BUT I might have to be a hypocrite and lie, like you suggest… not about my job, but about my degree, or lack thereof. That’s nearly as bad as virginity around my area.”
I don’t think there’s any reason to lie (fwiw, probably not much but IT isn’t something that would be perceived as undesirable, IMO). But you might try something a bit more “playful” with the answer. I agree it’s better not to tell a woman what you do at first, whatever you do. People lie often, and she might not believe you anyway. If she asks, it’s most likely mainly to make conversation.
The funniest conversation I’ve ever seen went something like this (between a pilot and hot girl in a bar):
Wingmen around: “Aren’t you going to tell her what you do?”
Him: “No. She won’t believe me anyway”
Her: “What do you do?”
Him: “No. Seriously, it’s embarassing.”
Her: “Oh, come on…”
Him (sighing): “I’m a dolphin trainer.”
Her: “Really? I LOVE DOLPHINS!! Is it fun? How do you train them”
Him: “Well this is how I first get them to learn to jump…”
He proceeded to show her by placing the lemon in his mouth and making a dolphin sound. Christ, it was funny. It worked a little too well since she was stupid, he’d only intended to be humorous.
Obviously he was an extrovert.
I’ve seen them say they’re part of the blue man group, stuff like that. Something off the wall kind of lightens things and gets the conversation going at first. Unless she’s in IT too, saying you’re in IT might be a conversational dead-end.
BV #107: What an excellent post! Men should keep this in mind when navigating important life choices between high adventure and suburban oblivion.
Happy New Year, everyone! We are unified in spirit, even if our methods to achieving success are divergent. Also, here’s to an improved sexual marketplace in 2014. We men must do what we can to improve the economy. Even if the rich get richer, an improved economy still helps everyone else. Or, as the saying goes, a high tide lifts all boats. Cheers.
Happy New Year, Lowbrass.
Can’t believe it’s 2014. Where are my flying cars?
Happy new year!
Mmmh, flying cars ala Blade Runner!
Hey everyone,
Been a bit under the weather over the Holidays, but getting back into the swing of things.
Just wanted to point out, that if you checkout “My Secret Life: The Diary of a Victorian Gentleman”, you’ll see for yourself just how many Women who are not “professionals” can and will put out for cash and prizes, when they are reasonably sure no one will find out. As per usual, NAWALT, then or now; but the point is made – there is an undeniable truth, that Women – ALL Women – know and understand, that what they have between their thighs is in fact highly fungible, and that there can be times and instances where it would be to a particular Woman’s advantage to put out for cash and prizes.
I’m just sayin…
O.
Small dash of hope. Once upon a time I met a friend of a friend of a friend, at a local band concert…and I mean band in the middle school sense but with adults, not the Rock Band variety. Just to give you a hint of the Beta nice gayness of this social circle.
Skinny guy, nothing to him, no personality, nothing, married to a domineering overweight woman who brought some extremely hard and disgusting cookies.
Lucky for him, they divorced!
This past New Year’s Eve, saw him again. Pressed, fitted shirt, matching bold gold tie, little bit of stubble. The only single girl at the party was flirting with him all night long.
Small, small dash of hope.
On the other hand, my fiancé’s little brother is afraid of exacto knives. Not sure what we are going to do there….
@ Badpainter,
Legalizing prostitution removes women’s monopoly over poontang. And that changes the sexual landscape.
It would also decrease the number of student loans as many women would be able to pay their way through college without govt assistance.
After all, it’s her body, she should be able to do what she wants with it (sarcasm off).
@111. “Being shy or nervous around women has NOTHING to do with introversion.”
As a once very shy extrovert I wanted to agree with this. I still get nervous from male attention (when interested).
Legalizing prostitution? I don’t think it would have the effect many are saying it would. The men that have trouble obtaining the goods now would continue to have trouble.
Kema,
I guess that would depend on how you define “trouble” and “goods.”
“Can’t believe it’s 2014. Where are my flying cars?”
Hah’ Forget about it. You’re living in a matriarchy that is bound to become more and more stagnant, both in terms of technological progress and economic growth.
@HH2
Yeah, feminism is the death of reward for excellence, the rewarding of slacking. France is in the process of finding out what happens when you start taxing the fruits of success; people check out, leave, take it easy.
Harrison Bergeron shows a world were everyone is handicapped until all is equal. The feminist utopia.
ADBG.
Nice your friendofafriendetc escaped. But what is it with the freaking stubble?
Is it a veiled message that the guy is so alphaish that he gives not a shit for societal conventions and so he grooms himself like all the male models showing off shirts? Like, man, he’s a real rebel.
Is it supposed to imply his testosterone is off the charts, so much so that his facial hair can’t be held back by mere daily shaving?
Not being a woman, I can’t grok this. But to me it looks like the wannabe hippies of half a century ago, trying to be individualists like everybody else.
Richard,
Testosterone poisoning. Keep in mind the young lady folk aren’t used to a lot of it, and would shout down a lot of other testosterone-displays. But I think preference for facial hair would probably vary by region and by woman anyways.
Regardless, happy for him. One man at a time.
#129: (I suspect) A little stubble says, “I have a job, but I’m on vacation”. Too much and he’s either a professor or out of work. I love a man with scruff…but about two day’s worth is perfect. I’m assuming that’s what my hamster is telling me.
Liz, we don’t want to know what your hamster is telling you; we want to know what your Liz-ard brain is telling you. lol As in, the most primal part of the brain (or that’s the theory).
Liz-ard. I like it!
I think my Lizard brain is probably telling me the same! Man with scruff is between shaves…has lots of testosterone, but also a reason to shave. Notice the men who ‘strip’ for a living have costumes that indicate some type of employment…firefighter, soldier, ect. Not in their pajamas. Unlike women, who are all in negligee or outfits highly impractical for “honest” work.
Liz-ard?
I hope Nemesis shares my guilty feeling that this is basically collateral damage from our discussion elsewhere. Though I don’t remember draughting Han into the games. He alone needs to shoulder that shame.
(props though – not bad at all)
(p.s. draughting (as opposed to drafting) was deliberate)
Spawny, pffft, I’ve never taken a draught in my life.
Hollenhund,
“As far as Walsh’s daughter is concerned, it’s all a farce. She practically pimped her daughter on Obsidian’s old blog. She called her a “10+” and “an independent American woman””
This is a classic illustration of a social truth – parents will always rate their children as perfect catches. Confronting the idea that your progeny might not be the most deserving entries in the SMP is something most parents don’t want to do – especially in today’s sissified middle upper class environment. The last time I can recall a parent acknoweldging their children’s shortcomings wrt finding a mate was the father in “Pride and Prejudice.”
So it’s immaterial whether Little Miss HUS is a “10+” or not. Maybe she is, maybe not, maybe she’s above average with a busted trait somewhere – but her mother is going to say she is regardless of the truthiness.
I’ve corresponded with Morpheus offline about this, but we came to an enlightening speculation a while ago that the whole HUS blog enterprise is really about SW’s daughter. All of the invective, man-shaming, graphic sex talk, flip-flopping standards, can be understood in the context of trying to help her daughter get a mate she feels matches the family standards.
The irony there is that SW has dropped plenty of anecdotes on the blog (including some anecdotes thinly disguised to sound like they are about other women but there’s too much detail for them to have come from anybody but her daughter) that frame her daughter as entitled, immature and bratty, which of course would make it harder for a man to take her seriously were he to happen upon the blog. Susan has openly said so AAMOF Maybe Susan is just projecting her own “feistiness” onto her daughter via her writing style, but it wouldn’t be surprising if she had trained her into similar traits.
Of course, the contradiction of the “independent American woman” needing to be warned and protected from those awful snake PUAs is obvious to anybody except “independent American woman.”
flip-flopping standards,
Yeah, I noted the switch from the HOOOT buff, confident, alpha male to the HOOOT scrawny creative type. Now that you mention the dtr, maybe that’s her new squeeze.
Re: 136
White, upper-class college women are less and less able to form the serially monogamous heterosexual relationships they expect, and their mothers are stunned and clueless because they and their female ancestors never faced such a problem. At the end of the day, this is the one driving force behind the Man Up Campaign, the increasingly shrill complaints about “Peter Pans”, the whining about “where have all the good men gone”, the moral panic about porn addiction and tradcon-feminist man-bashing in general – basically all the outrage and hilarity that gives fodder to the Manosphere. If these women could follow the same script as their feminist, ambitious, well-to-do mothers could in the 1980s, none of this irritating stuff would appear in the media – and much of the Manosphere wouldn’t exist either, because there wouldn’t be stuff to react to.
And in about 20 years we’ll get to the point where white, upper-class college women are less and less able to even find the husbands they expect. Imagine the whining when we get there.
Canada’s supreme court recently struck down the country’s prostitution laws and the government has a year to come up with new ones.
I did a video on Youtube recently where I basically stated that social censure and bylaw rewriting and enforcement would be used to curtail prostitution while not inherently breaking a woman’s right to become one. It’s basically going to be another spin on ‘man bad, woman good’ in order to constrain supply in order to maintain demand.
@ hhkcalgary
Ah, the Swedish model.
[…] At any rate, the “moral” impetus for the latest Wily E. Coyote style attempt to “reign in Game”, issues from the notion that Tactical Game – that side of Game that focuses on, as its name above infers, on specific tactics, actions and mimicry of the mating behaviors of successful males – is inherently “unethical”. The reason exactly why, however, isn’t particularly explained, especially in the light of the facts I’ve laid out above. Therefore, the Outer Game opponents say, such a strategy is morally inferior to Inner Game – which is centered on “building real value” – like confidence from accomplishing various feats (getting an education, experiencing career success, self-improvement like losing weight/getting in shape, updating one’s wardrobe, etc.). The argument goes, that Inner Game sets the stage for building much better lasting success, not just with regard to sexual relationships with the ladies, but with life overall. Therefore, again, so sayeth the self-appointed Guardians of the Game Flame, Inner Game is the superior choice for any Man worth his salt; “for Men, when it comes to Game, go Inner, or go home”, exhorts one particularly perturbed lady blogger. […]
[…] A Discussion About “Nice Guys(TM)” – And An Object Lesson About Female Mating Stra… […]
[…] more proof? Look at the number of women that are against the legalization of prostitution. How could a woman be pro-choice, but against prostitution when it’s nothing more than a woman […]
[…] consistently made the butt of jokes and called out for their unattractiveness from all quarters, including by female bloggers in and around these parts. One wonders why it’s OK to hold up unattractive men to scrutiny (something we here at J4G […]