“We didn’t land on Plymouth Rock; Plymouth Rock, landed on us!”
-Malcolm X
Hello Evan,
OK, now that I’ve had a bit of time to sitdown and reflect on our exchange over the past few weeks, I feel I’m in a better place to share my thoughts. First, again, I want to thank you for taking the time out; I admit that I’m a persistent guy who can’t take “no” for an answer – but if I simply did what guys like you do, I’d never get anywhere or have anything in this world. For mere mortals like us, persistence pays.
The first thing I want to say is that I am deeply offended by your handling of me and more importantly, my site. J4G has gone out of its way to take your concerns seriously, addressing them numerous times. Moreover, I really do not appreciate the way in which you have repeatedly referred to the fellas over there in the most derisive terms – terms that are completely unfair and counterproductive. Indeed, many of the very same things you say about us, you claim to have been said about you(!). I can think of no bigger case study of Projection.
Two of the J4G team members, Ciaran and Morpheus, have gone out of their way to be fair and respectful on your own website – this, after both have been viciously personally attacked without nary a word from you to your regular readers not to do so or failing that, to at least tone it down. Yet they continued to engage your readers with grace and aplomb. I know this because I quietly read along the comments.
Not only that, but your characterization of them, and more broadly, J4G itself, was patently dishonest and unfair. Both Ciaran and Morpheus are happily married Men, and so are quite a few team members and regular contributors. For you to paint the whole of J4G out as a bunch of lonely bitter basement dwellers, is disingenuous, and I’ve had enough of it. I will not have you besmirch the website I cofounded and helped to build with my bare hands any longer. Measure for measure we are more fair and objective than your readers, and unlike you, I went out of my way to ensure that you were not personally attacked – I personally deleted some two dozen comments referring to you in a derisive manner, and that’s after I admonished everyone not to do so. I have upheld my word to you, Evan.
Moving to your “challenge”, there have been at least half a dozen lengthy and detailed responses from J4G readers, as to how your hypothetical 38 year old Woman could find love and kids – which, I might add, is far and away more helpful and constructive advice than I could find on your site from your readers, most of whom seem completely cool with dismissing the travails of Men out in the mating market in our time. A case in point is the short Men post you had up from some years back. Women on your site felt wholly justified in taking a “let him eat cake” stance, again, with nary a peep from you. I read a lot of what you write, Evan and I pay close attention to what your lady readers have to say. To say that I am disappointed, would be an understatement.
I also deeply resent your repeated attempts to compare and liken J4G to Jezebel, something no reasonable person would do. For one thing, we don’t allow derisive comments about Women to be said on the site – don’t take my word for it, go and do a bit of research, and see pointed comments to this effect by yours truly. We don’t allow gratuitous profanity, personal attacks or referring to Women wholesale in profane ways, and not ony have I, but other team members, have taken down comments from offenders along these lines as recently as a week ago(!). We are not bomb throwers and we seek to bring as much light as heat – we are nothing like Jezebel, and I resent, to the depths of my being, your repeated allegations in this regard. It is the height of disrespect, Evan. I want you to stop it.
Now, having said that: yes, as Morpheus has noted in your forum, there are indeed Men at J4G who are in a bad place, as a result of their dealings with Women. Some have said some harsh things along these lines. Neither I, nor Morpheus, Ciaran or any of the rest of the team, denies this fact.
On the other hand, and you can contact Dr. Jeremy Nicholson about this if you don’t believe me, as he would know firsthand. Shortly after our second exmail exchange was posted at J4G, Dr. Jeremy wanted to post a comment that turned out to be too lengthy. So, we decided to run his comment-turned-article on J4G, which was based on our exchanges. The result was a near 1K(!) comments-thread, where several J4G team members, including Morpheus, had gone on the record in defending Dr. Jeremy’s piece from the more cynical commenters, and admonished them to ratchet back their derision. Again, where is the Jezebel equivalent? I reject out of hand your repeated attempts toward comparision in this regard. There is none.
On top of all of this, not only have J4G readers addressed your concerns about your typical female client, I have done the same in my response to you, originally in email form and then in article form on J4G itself. I specifically said that it is not at all unusual to see Women in Black America who were older than your example having relationships and some even kids as a result. I told you about specific cases I knew of in this regard. I cited critically acclaimed research by nationally known scholars who have noted the same thing. And I have said that this was true in some of America’s poorest and racially-segregated sectors. Finally, I offered no comment one way or another about an older Woman looking for love and kids – but I’ll go on record right now. I have no problem in the least with it. In fact, I do not believe that simply because a Woman is older, that she is no longer worthy of getting a relationship, love, sex or kids. I never felt this way, don’t now, nor do I forsee it for the future.
What I DO have a concern along these lines however, and here I think I can speak for many of the J4G readership, is the manner in which many Women – not “all” but enough to make it a problem for guys like me – go about “switching lanes” in their mating choices. Many Women will, as a result of their no longer being able to appeal to more topshelf Men like you, then turn to guys like us – that’s the whole point of my essay “A Blue Collar Brotha Speaks”. We’re not the first, or even third choice – we’re their last stop on the way to Spinsterhood. A lot of the older gals we’re talking about, first tried their hands at landing themselves a Mr. Big, got burned badly, got rode hard and hung out wet, and now toward the end of their reproductive attractiveness, turn to us. Oh, joy.
Which brings me to another point: J4G in particular, and the Manosphere more generally, is about the only place Men in our time have, to be heard in their own voices. Men in our time have been either inculcated or cowed, cajoled or coerced into saying things that the Ladies Want To Hear(TM) – under threat of job firings and expulsion from polite society, as the recent Stephen A. Smith situation aptly proves. There is a huge incentive, quite a few actually, for Men of your stature to tow the party line, Evan. Sure, there are True Believers, and I think you’re one of them, but that fact doesn’t change what I’ve just pointed out, either. The Manosphere provides a vital service in giving Men who are disaffected, disabused and disrespected, a place to be heard, to vent, to let their feelings out and yes, to move toward solutions and becoming whole again – and I will not let those, who couldn’t be bothered to give a damn about the inner lives of Men, for decades, to suddenly come riding in on their high horses and fix their mouths to “tell” us “what we ought to be doing” – Bunk. That. As professional therapists of some decades like Dr. Tara and Dr. Helen, the former a regular contributor to A Voice For Men, the latter an author of a well known book and regular at PJ Media have gone on record in saying, counseling services for Men are, at this juncture in early 21st century life, paltry at best and downright demeaning to Men at worst – as the recent suicide of the late Robin Williams(!) makes clear. We STILL treat Male mental and emotional health issues like it was a cruel joke, the bodies of Men littered hither and yon, with nary a mumbling word from the Cathedral about it. Had Williams known about the Manosphere, he just might be alive today. It’s hard to see how he could have been worse.
And the same can be said on the dating and relationship front. It beggars belief how so many people like you can talk about the Pickup Artist community like a dog, but none of you gave a damn about Men in this regard, and still don’t – the vast majority of dating and relationship services are geared toward Women, and that’s true on both sides of the Color Line, to this day, in 2014 – fact. No one claims perfection with the Pickup community, I certainly don’t, but as someone who has lived cheek by jowl with them for several years, I can say without any fear of rebuke or reprisal that they are the ONLY ones out there who not only give a damn about the mating needs of Men, but who actually provide a system and network of services that actually WORK. Meanwhile, dating coaches like you abandon Men and leave them to their fates on the Freeway of Love, with nary a look back, justifying it with trite bromides about how “Men aren’t interested in really understanding Women” and so forth. The Pickup community has shown all of you up for the failures that you truly are, proving that millions of Men worldwide do indeed care deeply about connecting with Women, and have had nowhere to turn to in order to get it done. Many of you are deeply jealous of the Pickup Community’s massive success (Neil “Style” Strauss’ “The Game” has been a NYT bestseller, dwarfed only by the likes of Steve Harvey’s “Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man”) in an area of the Self-Help market that Forbes magazine itself has said is all but impossible to break into – and they’ve done it without the stamp of approval from what we in the ‘sphere refers to as the Cathedral – the complex of media, academia and credentialed “experts” and talking head pundits – that you and others of your ilk are a part and parcel of.
Don’t hate the Player, hate the Game, indeed.
No one is a bigger critic of the Manosphere than me, Evan, and I’ve got the papertrail to prove it. As one of the relatively few Black voices in that space online, I have much to say about how and where the Manosphere can and should improve.
But I can also say, that without the Manosphere, I honestly don’t know where I would be. Because it’s clear that I don’t even exist to the likes of people like you – for all intents and purposes, you are a social, economic and sexual One Percenter. Guys like me – Black, working class and blue collar – aren’t even addressed by the Cathedral, unless it’s time to “examine” what is “wrong with us” this time – or when BABY BOOMER(!!) upper class Women are finally “ready” to “settle down” and turn to one of us to get er done. I can think of no bigger insult, no deeper dis, than this, and I blame people like you for it. The Manosphere helped me find my voice, helped me to refine it in the form of tens of thousands of comments logged in after teaching myself how to type, use the Internet and computers, and how to write, and, by popular demand on the part of its denizens, gave me the encouragement to try my hand at blogging – something I didn’t even know existed before five years ago. It was the Manosphere who gave my thoughts, my experiences, my feelings, my inner life, the time of day, when people like you, and a whole mess of Women, couldn’t be bothered or care less. It was the Manosphere who gave me the chance to be heard, in the form of being published (and soon, being heard literally, in the form of radio – stay tuned), in just about every major venue of note and record – the Spearhead, A Voice For Men, the Good Men Project (back when Tom Matlack was still actually the head of it and wasn’t forced out by the Feminist Lobby’s Digital Mob), and other outlets like the Urban Politico. People like you don’t even recognize my existence, and when you do it’s for cheap yuks and finger wagging - just ask Charles Ramsey about all of that.
So I consider my critique of the Manosphere to be far and away more valid and useful, than anything you or anyone on your side of the aisle, could fix your mouths to say.
As for your book, etc: I have no problem in the least with it, nor your “mission” with the ladies. In fact, I know of no one in the Manosphere, who does. The ladies have every right to avail themselves of the services you and others like you provide, and I for one wish them all the best in their search for love and happiness. Moreover, I found your book to be very well presented and written, and yes, there is much truth within its pages. But then, I didn’t need to read your book to know that you try to engage the issues with a somewhat even hand – recall my citation of your “Curvy Women” post, for example. You were candid in a way that far too many in the Cathedral are not, and for that you are to be highly commended. It is in fact, one of the reasons why I chose to contact you in the first place.
But, and this is important to point out, when you say that me and mine are not being fair or “moderate” in our presentation of ideas at J4G, that we aren’t “caring enough” with regard to the ladies’ side of things, I have to respond with a look of incredulity – because, it has been my experience, that one, the whole of the culture in our time is inundated with the Concerns of Women(TM) – to the point that I for one, am drowning in it. Everywhere I turn, from the street level to TED talks online, the concerns, interests, aspirations, fears and anxieties of Women, are taken seriously, discussed at nauseating length openly, and we are all exhorted to do all we can to “care” – all the while, the very same people, and yes I am saying Women here, do all they can to silence me and mine – from smear campaigns at the first ever Men’s Issues conference, to making up wholecloth outright lies about the supposed involvement the late spree shooter Eilliot Rodger had with the Manosphere (hint: it was a LIE), to attempts to paint the whole of the Pickup Community as a “rape academy”, to firing sportscasters for having the gall to say openly what we all have been actually thinking for quite sometime (please note the roaring applause from the virtually all-female audience of “The View” when Ms. Whoopie Goldberg came out in defense of Stephen A. Smith!), to attempts to silence anyone who questions shibboleths like “street harassment” and so forth (please see my recent email exchange with Ms. Lindsey, of Cards Against Harassment, for starters) – the list goes on and on and on. What I’ve found, Evan, isn’t that guys on my side of the fence who are intemperate and extreme – but the other side, the ladies, and yes, their male allies, who want to silence me and mine, want to tar and feather us as deviants and want to run us out of the public square, by hook or by crook. It is them who do not want a full-throated, open debate, or even a conversation – you must buy, hook, line and sinker, what they’re selling, first, of you’re just a knuckledragging, foaming at the mouth woman hater not worth giving the time of day to.
You say that I, and by extension, the rest of J4G and even the Manosphere itself, is “angry”; that much of what is said on J4G is “misogynistic”. I defy you, Evan Marc Katz, to find me proof, that I, Obsidian, am an “angry, bitter misogynist” – quote back to me direct statements, written by my own hand, where this is the case? Quote me directly, the smoking gun evidence – or please cease and desist with these hateful and hurtful allegations, which serves no other purpose than to deflect the focus of my and my brothers’ arguments, and derail the discussion once again onto the Concerns of Women(TM), as if they haven’t had enough “focus, attention and caring” lo these many years already. Nor do I or anyone I know in the ‘sphere wants to see it altered or stopped in any way – we’re simply fighting for our own little corner of the world. And even that is now under threat, by those who claim to be so strong and independent, who proffer notions of Yo Go Grrlism, and “I don’t need no Man”ism, who are so fragile and weak that they can’t even handle a differing point of view. No, Men in our time must, in the words of Bill Maher, “make Women nod” in approving and understanding “empathy” – an emotionally manipulative ploy if there ever was one – where Men cannot speak in their own voices without fear of excommunication from the Cathedral.
And, in closing, I think this is why Fate has chosen me, of all people, to do what it is that I am doing – I am not now, nor have I ever been, a part and parcel of said Cathedral. I cannot, and will not, be silenced, because those who oppose me cannot do anything to me that hasn’t already been done. They cannot bludgeon me with shouts of “racist’, because I’m Black. They can’t tar and feather me with bromides of “elitistism” because I am on the bottom of the social and economic hierarchy of American life. And they can’t libel me with “misogynist” because some of my staunchest defenders have been and will continue to be, Women themselves – many of whom do not agree with me on a great many things, I might add. Not only that, but pouts of “patrirachy” is an utter joke when considering the fact that I hail from the most matriarchal sector of American life – the Black community – and has been thus for many decades running at this point. The Manosphere needed a voice that is hard to shutdown, Evan.
Now, they have one.
I, and J4G, have answered your questions, Evan – now it is your turn to answer mine. What has Feminism done for the Blue Collar Brotha? Why should he “court” in the manner of his father and grandfather, given the massive – and rapid – changes that have come down the pike in as many decades? What direct, tangible benefits accrue to him, for doing so? This last question is hugely important, both because of your total evasion of it when I first asked you, and because of the notion on the part of some of your readers, that for guys like me, “courting” is the “way to go” – I am here to tell you and to tell them, it is most assuredly NOT. All that will be done is wasting money and time, with precious little to show for it – either in terms of sex or relationships. Being “bright and decent” simply doesn’t count for a lot in the Black American mating market. Go back and reread the leadoff quote by “Tyrone” from Hill Harper’s book “The Conversation” (yet another NYT bestseller, and, yet another in the umpteen tomes that cater solely to Women, in this case Black) in my essay, “One of The Good Guys” - the Sistas, the same ones who bemoan “where all the good Black Men have gone?”, turn their noses up at him, and waste his time and money. Yet, if Tyrone says anything about his hurt, his pain, his disappointment, he is told, both by Black society and certain parts of the White one, to “Man Up” - which really means to Shut Up. No wonder so many Black Men die early deaths, from having to hold in all their thoughts, emotions and concerns. Well, I won’t be another statistic.
Since I have asked you in plain language what’s in it for me, to “court” (Black) Women in our time today, it’s only fair to answer the question, as to what’s in it for a (Black) Woman to be involved with me – and unlike you, I can be much more specific in my response:
1. I am fiercely loyal and faithful – something that any Black Woman in particular that’s worth her salt would recognize and appreciate. Even in the Age of Obamacare, trips to the doctor for treatment of STDs can be both expensive, time consuming and emotionally embarassing.
2. I am debt, disease, and Baby Mama Drama free – compare and contrast to so many Black Women in our time. No Black Woman ever went out of house and home because of me.
3. I have never raised my hand to hurt a (Black) Woman, and wouldn’t consider doing so either – something else that ought to be of concern to Black Women, given the extremely high levels of spousal and domestic violence in our time.
4. I believe in the values of education and hard work – they just don’t come in the form of high status/high visibility credentialed positions. Something Black Women are especially enamoured with.
And those are just for starters. In short, I can honestly say that I bring real value into a Black Woman’s life, measured in dollars and cents, among other things. But can the same be said in reverse?
Since so many Sistas have either refused to answer my questions along these lines outright, or have attempted to deflect them with abstract vaguaries, I bring them to you to answer. Perhaps you will have succeeded where they have failed?
You say that you need to see the glass as half full. This I can respect.
But, I also see that it is a luxury people like you can afford. As for me, I am an empiricist and a coldeyed realist, because where I come from there is precious little room for error. I’m as romantic as they come, but Life has taught me some harsh, but needed lessons, about how the real world works – and to see it for what it is, and not what I want it to be.
As a result of our conversations, more than 3K comments have been generated, from Men across the country and from all walks of life. Many were first time commenters who had been lurking since our inception on Jun 13, 2013. For anyone who claims to want to counsel Women on how and why Men think as they do when it comes to dating, sex and relationships, one would think that this would be a treasure trove for you, Evan.
But one thing is certain for sure – our conversation, and the intense response it generated, proves once and for all, that Men are deeply interested in relationships and mating – they’ve just never had anyone who cared to listen.
That’s what J4G is all about.
Obsidian
Follow JustFourGuys on Twitter: @j4guys
Follow Obsidian on Twitter: @ObsidianFiles
Yet another case of truth seeking vs advocacy.
Ditto to infinity. Post of the year for the sphere.
Tagging…
O.
Obsidian, you remind me of a militant friend from my younger days. You’re passionate about your mission. I remember reading your comments a few years ago on the VSB site ( My entertainment for the week). You had that site ‘The Obsidian Files’. From your site I found the links to my freedom. Thanks to brothas like yourself, Rollo, and a few others, I found information that filled in gaps in my understanding and help recovering from a devastating situation. Thanks again, and I hope for your continued success.
For you to paint the whole of J4G out as a bunch of lonely bitter basement dwellers, is disingenuous
There is much IQ, experience and wisdom over here.
We model reality, no matter how hard it bites.
I also deeply resent your repeated attempts to compare and liken J4G to Jezebel,
They are both websites and begin with J.
I defy you, Evan Marc Katz, to find me proof, that I, Obsidian, am an “angry, bitter misogynist”
Even if O was angry and bitter, why would that be an issue? People who are angry and bitter are perfectly capable of making legitimate points.
“But one thing is certain for sure – our conversation, and the intense response it generated, proves once and for all, that Men are deeply interested in relationships and mating – they’ve just never had anyone who cared to listen.”
Exactly why I visit. There isn’t an equivalent outlet for me in the real world. Over here, I can vent, I can learn, and people can relate. In life, I have to put up a front, make it look like nothing is wrong, and keep my mouth shut. Thanks for being here.
I posted this rant at Dalrock’s at the end of last year. I think it clearly explains my scepticism of Katz and his ilk, and my resistance to scorn, shame, insult, and patronizing advice.
—-
Ok, I’m a recovering nice guy beta currently going through the angry, cynical stage of readjustment. While I have to accept responsibility for all the decisions that got me here, I can’t help but note I am the product of lies.
I have been told my entire life that by virtue of being white, straight, and male that I am by default a racist, sexist, homophobic, oppressive, entitled, bigot, and potential rapist. I was told I don’t, can’t, and won’t be able to understand the plight of others because of my privilege, and unfair advantages. I was told repeatedly by teachers, clergy, politicians, and cultural elites the my life has no meaning unless it in service to others, the nation, the poor, a wife, my parents, my church, or my community, my employer. Never was it suggested my life was to be in service of myself, any suggestion that I would pursue personal goals not in service to someone or something else it was an indication of selfishness or greed. I was told that I am expendable, disposable, and infinitely replaceable. I am to provide service but never expect it returned to me.
I was taught that boys will be boys, and it would better if they were more like girls. Unless of course manual labor was needed than boys were barely good enough. I was taught to treat women with respect, not as sex objects. I was told not to expect, demand, manipulate, or ask even for sex. I have no right right of entitlement to sex, even from a wife. But should I marry the wife is my highest obligation, to feed, breed, make happy, care for, house, support financially, emotionally and materially. Being the idiot I am I believed it. I was taught women are my equals and deserve to be treated as such. But when I did this I was told they need to be treated as women. My confusion was something for me to work out by myself. Thus to women I am undesirable, unfashionable, too passive, too aggressive, inattentive, clingy, lacking intimacy, untrustworthy, dangerous, too safe, selfish, too generous and worst of all I just don’t get it. But they still value my friendship.
I am too well educated for crap work, to inexperienced for good work, and too old for entry level work. I also fail to meet any sort HR need for a diversity hire. At work I am expected to produce a product or a service. But usually the product I am expected to produce is good feelings amongst my coworkers, as well I am to tell the boss the approved versions of the truth. I must be likable, friendly, and sociable. The amount and quality of work I do is less important than my ability to talk about the work I do. The results are less important than the process. I am employed to serve the egos of bosses, and validate the feelings of my coworkers. I am paid as little as possible since production is not a metric. If I am lucky I will be presented with Certificate of Achievement to further dehumanize me. The economy doesn’t want me but it still values my spending.
If I fall on hard times the government tells me to man up. Since I’m neither woman nor child I am unworthy of assistance. But when I’m making good money the same government is there to collect its share. When I want to start a business the government demands a bribe, license, tax, fee, inspection, or approval of various drones who only exist to suck the life out of the ambitious and industrious. If I show ambition and chase the dollars I arouse the suspicion that I must be defrauding someone, stealing, or cheating. If am successful I am expected to give back, but there is never an explanation of what favor I am repaying.
My anger and cynicism is the result of too long giving sanction to the system that neither encourages me, nor rewards me. For some reason it believes I will continue to play this game. I won’t, the game offers me no reason to play.
What has Feminism done for the Blue Collar Brotha?
Marginalize him
My anger and cynicism is the result of too long giving sanction to the system that neither encourages me, nor rewards me. For some reason it believes I will continue to play this game. I won’t, the game offers me no reason to play.
I wonder if EMK’s 38 year old high-quality women could comprend that.
Or would it be so far out of her thought processes, that “loser guy” would be the knee jerk response
O has his Malcolm X glasses on today. Go get ‘em O. Speak the truth…
EMK is a product of a feminized school system. He’s a highly educated, highly paid SIMP
While EMK will continue to make a careeer out of pandering to his 38 year old high quality women, it won’t do much good. His 38 year old has elevated herself to a position where she has no equivilent.
Guys, if this is what the marketplace has to offer, let’s go fishing.
FuzzieWuzzie says:
“While EMK will continue to make a career out of pandering to his 38 year old high quality women, it won’t do much good. His 38 year old has elevated herself to a position where she has no equivalent.
Guys, if this is what the marketplace has to offer, let’s go fishing.”
We’ll wait 5 years and send Tyrone over to live with her and her cats… she’ll be ready by then
I believe in the values of education and hard work
You are only half right. Education is for women, hard work is for the man.
Obsidian,
Just so you know, the old expression is “rode hard and put away wet”. This has to do with horsemanship and , specifically, bad horsemanship. Horses, like people, perspire to cool themselves. In the cavalry, the last mile in would be taken at a walk to allow the horses to cool down and allow sweat to dry. Puting them away “wet” could set them up for all manner of respirary ailments.
I knew someone who would do this. Bad horsemanship.
I bring real value into a Black Woman’s life, measured in dollars and cents, among other things. But can the same be said in reverse?
Since so many Sistas have either refused to answer my questions along these lines outright, or have attempted to deflect them with abstract vaguaries
Well, women have been taught by feminism not to do/be any of the things that men value; so that only leaves one thing left.
And the modern woman doesn’t even do that so well (or often)
Badpainter, #9
JFG should make that into a post, what do you think Obsidian, Morpheus?
I feel for you bro. My same story till I hit 30 give or take with all that struggle and heartache.
I was a nice man in the body of a monster and the more nice I tried to be the more monstrous they made me feel. Stupid game, it should have been obvious. We’ve gotta make this obvious.
Yohami,
There is malevolence out there. Some of them truly do enjoy crushing a man’s spirit. That’s why Jessica Valenti’s sweatshirt says “I bathe in male tears”.
It’s not so far from real.
Some of them truly do enjoy crushing a man’s spirit. That’s why Jessica Valenti’s sweatshirt says “I bathe in male tears”.
It is odd that a leader of a group can get away with saying something so malevolent. Or is it?
Farm Boy,
What gets me is that there is no reason or pupose in it. It’s cruelty for its own sake.
@ 22
You’re taking about women, what’s there not to
understand?
What gets me is that there is no reason or pupose in it
But there is. It is to keep (almost) all men down in order to better be able to pick out and secure (at least in the short term) the hawt ones that they want.
Of course, there is a large price to be paid for having this luxury. A price paid by the economy, by men, and by children. But they will gladly have you pay that price.
Damn, preach!
O, while I read your post, in my mind, I saw you at the head of a podium, speaking out to a mass of disenfranchised men.
Sfcton and Farm Boy,
It takes a foundation of trust to build a relationship. No foundation, no structure.
Do you think that they may have trouble thinking this far ahead?
From the original article:
“Please don’t respond by issuing more false ad hominem attacks on me or my readers – who are LIKE ME, moderately attractive, IVY LEAGUE, six figure earners – not a bunch of losers as you would suggest. ” (Note: ALLCAPS added by me for emphasis).
Katz is a total tool. No one I know brags about being Ivy League educated (even by having it accidentally “slip” in to the conversation)? Sure if you ask them, they’ll tell you, but no one brags about it.
BTW, I just looked him up on LinkedIn and he never went to an Ivy League school (UCLA and Duke). Why bother misrepresenting this (i.e., lying)? What an idiot….
Gentlemen .. if I may ..
1st, top notch .. keep up the stellar work.
2nd, tho not divorced (or married) at 43 years old I have had a front row seat fron the 70’s on. I have watched my three youngers brothers marry have kids and get divorced. I have watched the “courts of equality” (not justice) chew them up and spit them out.
I went to college and witnessed the girls and how they behaved. I joined the US Navy and watched the watched the divorces crush grown men. I flew for a living at the airlines and corporate flight departments and received the same education as the navy.
These were smart men who thought they had made great choices in wives / family.
It caused me to avoid marriage and play the game. To which I play no more.
To think we care about 38 year old spinsters that could / would clean our clocks (i.e. cash and prizes) at anytime they choose is foolishness.
I have too much to lose.
O good retort. You sir I admire. I would have been less kind than you, considering how you have been treated.
I am very pleased with how you conducted yourselves.
It will be good to hear how E elucidates your posed questions.
And yes .. I am a first time poster long time lurker. Its been good to have a sane outlet for side of the story!!!
A modernized ELO song
NAWALT restrictions apply
You made a fool of men
But them bad days have got to end
Hey women, you got the blues
‘Cause you ain’t got no one else to use
Civilization is clearly in decline
And men have learned to ignore your incessant whine
There’s a hole in my wallet where the money falls out
Women! – That was what it was all about
Ha ha women, it’s a crying shame
But you ain’t got nobody else to blame
Evil women, evil women
Evil women, evil women
Showered with handfuls of rice
Sugar and spice and everything nice
‘Cause men and their children soon go separate ways
Make men dance like a rat in a maze
Ha ha woman what you gonna do
You destroyed all the virtues that the Lord gave you
It’s so good that you’re feeling pain
That you have become as incoherent as Plain Jane
Evil women, evil women
Evil women, you’re evil women, evil woman
Evil women, evil women
Evil women, you’re evil women, evil women
Evil women how you done us wrong
Now you’re tryin’ to wail a different song
I’m 38 and very high quality
You made the brew, now you drink the tea
We came running all your times in need
A white knight on his handsome steed
Ha ha, you fucked us all
We will enjoy it to see you fall
Evil women, evil women
Evil women, you’re evil women, evil women
Such evil women, evil women
You’re evil women, evil women
Such evil women, evil women
You’re evil women, evil women
I think this is what Farm Boy took for inspiration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6dcIJWqVQ4
Now, I have to find something loud and enervating to pull us out of this rut.
Fuzzie Bear,
Surely there is another cute bear video out there.
Thank you Obsidian and the rest of the crew here. Clearly the line of the Prophets lives on, ever speaking truth to power. Blessings upon thee and thy work.
Farm Boy,
This is far beyond cute bear videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JbLsYoL3ug
How do you know that the Cold War is over?
Fuzzie Bear,
I almost did not recognize Putin at 0:15 due to the fact that he had his shirt on.
Here’s something for Vladimir Putin to worry about. Angry Ukrainians!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCxiQf676ps
The song in the background is the Partisan Song from WW2.
“Four male students at North Carolina State University are attempting to put an end to date rape with their own hands. More accurately, they’re ending it with the hands of their friends, girlfriends and female supporters.
The guys — Ankesh Madan, Stephen Gray, Tyler Confrey-Maloney and Tasso Von Windheim — have invented a nail polish called Undercover Colors that changes shades when touched by date rape drugs.”
http://worldtruth.tv/college-students-create-nail-polish-that-changes-colors-when-exposed-to-date-rape-drugs/
The problem with EMK and any of the “man up” crowd is everything they’re selling is the same old crap I’ve heard all my life. Some version of “if you bend to her will in just the right way she’ll be happy.” Which never considers if I am happy, nor does such advice ever suggest the woman submitting.
The conclusion I have come to is that women don’t commit, they receive commitment. Women don’t obey they demand. Women don’t accept they complain. The burden is on man to mold to her needs, desires, and dreams. The implication is that this is beneficial to the man, as if the effort is it’s own reward.
The old saying you get out of it (a relationship) what you put into it seems to apply only to the man. The liars tarted up version of this: “this more blessed to give than to receive.” Both exhortations for good men to follow the rules, not ask questions, and hopefully due in trace before they figure out the con.
“we don’t allow derisive comments about Women to be said on the site”
This is a joke, right?
Yours is among the worst misogynist sites in the sphere. That you cannot see it is either astounding blindness or astounding lie — don’t know which is worse.
Not only you are awash in derisive comments about women every day on each thread (and don’t start with the “show me where!” challenge, because if you cannot see it, then, well, you cannot see it even when it’s pointed out to you), but you also blithely endorse such peaches of ideas like “rape is a feminist conspiracy” (Fuzzie Wuzzie came up with that doozy a month or so ago — yes, it is in your comments, do your own homework and find it for once yourself — it is on your own site and you approved it), or stop (very) short of endorsing rape for those unfortunate women who “deserve it,” as revealed in the recent discussion about whether you’d help a woman being assaulted or not (of course for the non-misogynist gents here the collective answer is NOT).
You also endorse violence against women in your comments (eg., Mr. Grey, or the famous Arevo — see below — not to mention regular violent posturing against women by your thug-in-residence, SfcTon, and a few others).
Ms. Lindsey’s description of your place as “the blog equivalent of a few guys (four, perhaps) angrily ejaculating into a shared slop bucket and then proudly applauding themselves for what they’ve contributed'” is entirely correct. You are the only ones who cannot see it, but that’s not a surprise.
BTW, I challenge you to post this comment, and without your editorial “assistance,” and then let it stand on its own. You are not only deeply misogynist and in complete denial about it, but you are (unsurprisingly) cowardly and thin-skinned, unable to deal with criticism in any rational manner (hint: shooting the messengers — censoring critical comments and/or deriding the critics, and denying the obvious are NOT rational responses to criticism).
You cannot seriously expect people who have a modicum of self-respect and concern for their personal and professional reputations to be openly associated with your site.
If your regulars were to start posting under their real names, you can bet your non-adjourned arse that they would either change their tune ASAP, since most of them know quite well that what they say is both wrong and socially unacceptable, and it would cost them their careers and relationships if their real names were attached to their words; or would stop posting here altogether.
You are toxic and willfully blind of your toxicity. Deal with it.
http://www.justfourguys.com/black-women-do-not-respect-boundaries/#comment-57184
(Editor’s note): not only will we let your comment stand, we’ll do one better: Charity begins at home, yes?
“And, in closing, I think this is why Fate has chosen me, of all people, to do what it is that I am doing”
Yeah, the second coming of Messiah. You could not be any more narcissistic pompous arse if you tried.
Let’s review what it is that you are doing:
“a few guys (four, perhaps) angrily ejaculating into a shared slop bucket and then proudly applauding themselves for what they’ve contributed.”
Yup, Fate.
Well now. “guest” .. errr pot meet kettle .. ” You cannot seriously expect people who have a modicum of self-respect and concern for their personal and professional reputations to be openly associated with your site.
If your regulars were to start posting under their real names, you can bet your non-adjourned arse that they would either change their tune ASAP, since most of them know quite well that what they say is both wrong and socially unacceptable, and it would cost them their careers and relationships if their real names were attached to their words; or would stop posting here altogether.”
All I heard was an angry woman name calling and threatening the admins (re: what we are if you don’t post her rant).
Maybe you could soften up around the edges so a poor’que’pine could call you cute .. ;@)
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/feminism-and-womens-happiness/
I have always thought that the best move to make with regard to on-line discussions – was just to get the fools talking. It will be on the record for eternity. You do not even need to disagree.
Just get the feminists to say that lie-ing about paternity is a normal and OK thing. Get them to rant on about how fat they feel entitled to become after The Ring.
The ladies will never tune into whats really happening. Most of them are biologically incapable of sorting out the long term implications of their outwardly stated ideas. Just draw them out… on the record. They will do the hard work for you.
Well, I have been quote mined or misquoted by a feminist for the very first time. Do I get a gold star?
After a short search I found some info you can present to EMK regarding tgose fine 38 year old HQ babes … ;@D
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/more-grim-news-for-carousellers-hoping-to-jump-at-the-last-minute/
quotes from previous article.
summary of the data:
“The nonchalance by women towards marriage has been misinterpreted by many as a lack of interest in marriage, but I believe that it is reflective of an assumption that marriage will be theirs for the taking, so what is the rush? The statistics above tend to bear out the logic of this position. Young women look at their late 30s and early 40s aunts and see that all but a handful managed to marry. But the same stats which explain their current level of comfort show why that comfort will soon be coming to an end.
At some point as more and more thirty-something women find themselves unable to marry the mood of the marriage delayers will turn from greed to fear. Instead of looking for reasons to reject men, they will focus more on holding on to the men they can get. This will be a change on the margins, but it will be enough to be noticeable. This will have the follow on impact of changing the prevailing mood of late 20s and thirty-something men from fear to greed, as they notice a sudden embarrassment in SMP options.”
most of them know quite well that what they say is both wrong and socially unacceptable,
Definitely not wrong, as the thoughts posted here do mesh well with reality.
As for socially unacceptable, there is truth there. But not being PC does not mean that one is not in the right.
I’m not sure exactly what Evan has said that u found insulting, Obsidian (I know he’s said some general negative stuff about the manosphere, but I’m not sure about what more specific stuff he’s said about u or the other blog writers; I couldn’t open the first link in your article to see). But I think he’s generalising the whole website by some of the posts he’s seen that he didn’t like, which would be foolish but I doubt he has anything personal against u or the other main writers.
I really want to write more but right now I’m rushing to finish writing an annoying experimental report so I’ll just keep it short for now.
“Many Women will, as a result of their no longer being able to appeal to more topshelf Men like you, then turn to guys like us – that’s the whole point of my essay “A Blue Collar Brotha Speaks”. We’re not the first, or even third choice – we’re their last stop on the way to Spinsterhood. A lot of the older gals we’re talking about, first tried their hands at landing themselves a Mr. Big, got burned badly, got rode hard and hung out wet, and now toward the end of their reproductive attractiveness, turn to us. Oh, joy.”
Some of those ‘older gals’ acted like that, but lots of them focused more on their careers for many years and probably didn’t pay attention to dating. I think guys are making themselves miserable if they think every mid or late 30s woman they date was earlier sleeping around with hot successful guys and later wanna ‘settle’ to marry, thus making themselves feel like 3rd choice or 4th choice.
Some men think ‘what’s the difference, either way dating men like me wasn’t her priority in her 20s’, but I personally think a distinction should be made. Because it reflects different value systems in different women. And btw I am really quite different from EMK’s general demographic, (I am pretty darn far from the white, highly-educated and successful mid-30s-and-above women, lol) so I’m not saying this as some kinda personal defence. It’s just my personal relatively-unbiased judgement.
I actually don’t blame them for focusing on their careers in their 20s instead of dating, although I’m not a career woman. I don’t quite understand why some guys here seem resentful of them taking that path, almost like it’s a personal insult.
And btw, Honeycomb, although what u say has truth and may reflect a general reality, it doesn’t really add much to what those women on Evan’s site already know, and I doubt it will really scare them. One thing u can’t say about them is that they’re stupid, they’re navigating the dating reality and experience it first-hand. And though some guys may resent it, those mid or late-30s women there ARE generally in a fairly good position, in the top-10% for their age in the dating market. (Obviously I’m just using very rough estimations, it’s so hard to generalise accurately)
Also, there are very nice ladies on that blog too, who’re good un-arrogant people. Quite a few of them sound like really nice people. One shouldn’t just pay attention to the arrogant ones, but there’s a natural tendency to remember the people who are more outspoken and entitled.
That’s all I have time to write now!
Alana dear …
“And btw, Honeycomb, although what u say has truth and may reflect a general reality, it doesn’t really add much to what those women on Evan’s site already know, and I doubt it will really scare them. One thing u can’t say about them is that they’re stupid, they’re navigating the dating reality and experience it first-hand. And though some guys may resent it, those mid or late-30s women there ARE generally in a fairly good position, in the top-10% for their age in the dating market. (Obviously I’m just using very rough estimations, it’s so hard to generalise accurately).”
Obivously we see things different. A woman at 38+ yrs old has a SMV of less than a 2 (out of 10). A man doesnt reach that value until around 63 yrs of age.
Also a woman who WANTS marriage is just adding a bullet on her resume.
Why you ask? Because marriage is all about resource distribution. A womans resource is giving birth. A mans is excess work capacity.
A woman with an income is gonna want a man like me. A hi means individual.
The sad fact is this. If I get married it will be to a 20-24 yr old woman who could me with healthy children. I would not marry a woman based on income. I’ve got that already.
Enjoy the decline Alana.
PS
If you want an advance look at where the USofA will be in less than twenty years look at sweden. There you can find that men have zero protective instinct left for women. And they have a huge muslim population due to their low birth rate .. thanks the feminists. Thats the reason for the large muslim population. So when the muslim population overtakes the swedish nationals and they run the country .. how do you think the womens/feminist will respond? Enslavement of course. Cause and effect Alana. Cause and effect!
Hi Honeycomb, like I said I don’t have time to do a proper response now.
I will try to type more tomoro. Anyway for now, all I can say is the guy I’m dating is probably way above u in the market. So are the 2 guys who proposed to me last yr. I’ve written quite a few comments in the past on Evan’s blog, but am not a regular commenter then or now, nor do I fit his demographic. But for now I’m just adding one point to my previous comment.
Although I like this blog so far, I’m not saying I like the manosphere as a whole. I haven’t seen much of it, but I did subscribe to a blog called Roosh specifically to know what tips are being given out to help men ‘game’ women.
I don’t have anything personal against ‘game’, but it just wouldn’t be in my interest to spend time dating a guy who is trying to have quick sex. I think Evan is generalising his comments thinking that all men here are like those guys. So again, Obsidian, just trying to get u to understand his hostility to this blog.
I don’t think he means any harm. I personally like the writers here.
“Obivously we see things different. A woman at 38+ yrs old has a SMV of less than a 2 (out of 10).”
For men below the age of 38. For men 38 to 50, her SMV is higher and those are the men those women are targetting. I doubt many of them want to go over 50 and they don’t have to.
The American dating and relationship scene is chock FULL of middle aged couples. (As hilarious as even I find it that middle aged people are dating AT ALL, it is what it is.)
“If I get married it will be to a 20-24 yr old woman who could me with healthy children.”
You will have a very hard time finding a woman that young who wants to pair up with a man over 40. It happens, but rarely. I know a few (and one who is still living with her original partner of many years who is twice her age, while simultaneously having a baby daddy who is half HER age!!! who the old guy is raising. Yes that is a true story. Every once in a while the young father rolls into town to visit his pre-school aged daughter and the little girl gets confused as to who is her daddy. So the three adults came up with a solution, she will call one daddy and the other papa.
Welcome to relationships 3.0 (three, get it?)
Anyway, good like finding your Anna Nicole.
(Editor’s note): easy PJ. No need to be an arse here. Youre still very much on a short leash here. Be on your best behavior or you know what will happen right? Now then, lets leave asides to anna nicole smith out of it. Do you honestly think the threesome couple you know is the norm in America today? If so what evidence can you prvoide? If you’re going to be here at least try to be productive and not just here to antagonize others. Men are looking for relationship here. What possible can you add to that?
Alana .. young woman ..
“Anyway for now, all I can say is the guy I’m dating is probably way above u in the market. So are the 2 guys who proposed to me last yr. ”
Honey I’m flattered you think your current guy is higher means than me. If he makes more than 175k/yr you have a valid point.
Otherwise you prove that women are opportunity hunters. You had 2, pursumably hi means men propose to you, and you are now with another man. WOW! Maybe you are the “gamer” (re: roosh’s site).
All I see and hear from you are red flags.
maybe you should re-read this article again (note its 2 yrs old and was based on data from yers prior).
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/more-grim-news-for-carousellers-hoping-to-jump-at-the-last-minute/
I am gonna have to go find a real keyboard .. this qwrt keypad on my smart phone stinks .. sigh .. the joys of being on the road. ;@)
Plane Jane ..
I think you missed my point. I have no intentions of getting married now. That window for me is probably over.
My point is IF I wanted to get married it wouldn’t be to a carousel rider jus trying to punch her feminist merit badge card. Only to to marry me for potwntial cash and prizes after she qualifies.
Frankly since her child bearing days are over .. What Does She Bring to th Table? Whats in it for me to risk my lifes work / savings / retirement / homes / toys / etc.?
So my point is you have zero value to me. And more and more men are on the same page.
Enjoy the decline.
There is no “grim news” for carousellers hoping to jump ship at last minute provided they are “hot” looking. Women who are above average looking can have all the fun they want in their twenties and then settle down with a nice dad type in their thirties.
Average women have a harder time pulling this off.
Below average women have harder time still and the men they pull it off with will be below average like they are.
For a woman, LOOKS TRUMP ALL in the SMP.
A looker can get all she wants and more, unless she wants a really high quality guy in his twenties to marry her. 20 something high quality guys usually don’t want to commit to marriage in their 20s.
That’s why for good looking women the best thing is to play the field with a series of high quality 20 something guys in her 20s, and then her 30s settle down with a nice high quality 30 or even 40 something guy.
8s and higher can and do have the best of both worlds.
These women also get so much jealousy from women AND men both that its important that at least some of us show them some empathy and support.
“I think you missed my point. I have no intentions of getting married now. That window for me is probably over.”
Glad you understand that. Since being here I’ve seen so many old men trying to date and have sex and even marry that its a huge culture shock of epic proportions. Such age inappropriate behavior and lack of dignity I could have never imagined and never saw before in my life. Yes, your culture IS in a decline (unless it was always like that, in that case, its just the same old same old).
“My point is IF I wanted to get married it wouldn’t be to a carousel rider jus trying to punch her feminist merit badge card. Only to to marry me for potwntial cash and prizes after she qualifies.”
Nobody is suggesting you would have to. Everyone is free to choose and compromise at their own discretion.
“Frankly since her child bearing days are over .. What Does She Bring to th Table? Whats in it for me to risk my lifes work / savings / retirement / homes / toys / etc.?”
You don’t have to risk anything, and especially at your advanced age you shouldn’t have to nor are you expected to.
“So my point is you have zero value to me.”
ME?! Did I proposition you?
” And more and more men are on the same page.”
I support their decision to remove themselves from “the market”.
“Enjoy the decline.”
I don’t enjoy this sort of thing. Its foreign to me.
(Editor’s note): several questions:
1. Why are you so antagonistic twd older men here? What do you have against them? Ive noticed a definite skein of resentment on the part of many female critics of the sphere, and one of their favorite talking points seems to be ageism on the part of the men here. Why? Especially if you ain’t checking for them anyway. What gives?
2. Why do you remain the the USA if it is so very culturally alien to you?
3. Why is the idea of older people dating so repugnant to you? Its a fact that both sexes are living longer. What would you have them do?
Plane Jane ..
“That’s why for good looking women the best thing is to play the field with a series of high quality 20 something guys in her 20s, and then her 30s settle down with a nice high quality 30 or even 40 something guy.”
I am that guy .. and you are wrong. I dont care how hot she is .. she is beyond damaged goods bye this point.
She’s a sucker’s bet. And men now know this.
Sure I might have a fling with her .. but marriage .. negative.
“I am that guy .. and you are wrong. I dont care how hot she is .”
You are rare. Most average guys will and do jump at the chance to be with a beautiful woman.
“And men now know this.”
Most men do not know this.
“Sure I might have a fling with her .. but marriage .. negative.”
Your perogative. There are many beautiful 30 somethings getting married.
And just because a woman went through her 20s single does not mean she was promiscuous. Good looking, high quality men generally are not looking to marry by 25, so their female equivalents who might want to marry mid twenties have to wait until they are ready. It doesn’t mean those women slept with hundreds of guys or even have double digit notches.
(Editor’s note): yes…but even if your right about the aggregate we’re not talking about that here; we’re talkin about a specific case. Why does it bother you what this particular man has said? Why not simply let him live hidls life w/the woman of his choice and leave at that?
Time to expat!
“Brazilian Town Run By Women Looking For A Few Good, Single Men”:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/brazilian-town-run-by-women-is-looking-for-a-few-good–single–men-210647685.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons
(Editor’s note): yes, but when the documentary about black American men going to Brazil for love came out called “Frustrated”, you had a parakeet. You are so supportive of sex tourism for women but not for men? Please explain?
“Why not simply let him live hidls life w/the woman of his choice and leave at that?”
– I said its his life, his perogative. But he tries to paint a general picture that is wrong. The correct general picture is that an above average looking woman CAN easily settle down with a “nice guy” in her 30s.
“yes, but when the documentary about black American men going to Brazil for love came out called “Frustrated”, you had a parakeet. ”
Not a parakeet, a peacock.
I merely pointed out that those Brazilian women in that documentary were gold diggers (and they openly admitted it). That and that one woman who was like “why do American wives get angry that their husbands are coming to Brazil and we are showing them a good time?”
!?!?!?!
When Latinas are NOTORIOUS for their jealousy and would NEVER tolerate their husbands going on a vacation to a foreign country without them and “being shown a good time” by other women.
That and the fact that lady was talking about HUSBANDS, not mere boyfriends or single men.
(Editor’s note): but couldn’t the same thing be said of women who go on sex tourism trips? Youve extolled that why the double standard?
As for the gent his argument is not completely unfounded. In the black community there is much evidence for his position.
Folks have been calling me Ton for 25 years now. SFC is the rank I spent the most time at, and in some ways, enjoyed the most. Anyone who knows me will know that is my screen name.
Also
NAWALT; just the ones with vaginas.
The 38 year olds don’t matter, they’ve voluntarily consigned themselves to spinsterhood, second rate relationships or the carousel.
The thing that has recently piqued my interest as of late is the avalanche of close to the wall women marrying men younger than themselves.
Seems like there is a stampede to the altar by pre wall women with younger men, I wonder what is the cause and what will be the effect of this trend?
@ 57 Brazillian papers say that is a internet hoax. The husbands work in the city most of the week and can’t always travel back. The women run a coop thus the pictures…
“a few guys (four, perhaps) angrily ejaculating into a shared slop bucket”
Careful with your hair!
“57 Brazillian papers say that is a internet hoax..
That’s a LOT of papers.
Wait a minute….how many is in a brazillian?
“Careful with your hair!”
Especially if that bucket is a toilet bowel, and it’s got that blue cleaner in it….
Look what happened to mine!
“shared slop bucket” is that the new term for slut?
so hard to keep up with these empowered youngsters.
“shared slop bucket” so many words, howsabout “tosspot”, always with the verbiage.
(Obs gets respect for using Arse.)
People who assert that a career-skating, never-married, 38 year-old woman represents a relationship opportunity haven’t dated very many. Their habits are their fate. (Action is character and character is fate.)
Tautology alert: Relationships require relationship skills. Relationship skills are only acquired in … relationships. Dating 50 men over 20 years for 4 months each produces a skillset inimical to the demands of monogamy and domestic affairs. It doesn’t matter that Cosmo disagrees.
If their target market is comprised of men who similarly have been running around in faux, short-duration hookups for 20 years, they might get lucky. But I think their real market is divorced men, shellshocked from divorce, who pine for the comfort and illusory stability of their former households. That’s “settling” to most of these women. The problem is that such men bring 10-20 years of continuous effort (professionally, within their families) and 10-20 years of truly alien experience (childrearing) to the SIW’s table. My experience is that these SIW want that man to pretend to be experience-free, just as though the girl were still 27 and the guy a promising and handsome 32 and neither had any overhang or baggage from, you know, real life. On more than one occasion I’ve noted for a woman “Sure, I’m happy to act as though I don’t have a prior life and present responsibilities. Just as soon as you give the last 20 years of my life back, when I was working and building and taking care of other people — while you were clubbing and traveling the world to exotic locales.”
Net, the women asserting the option to ripcord out of the fast-and-furious singles carnival, in early middle age, forgot to note the expiration date on that option. Major compromises are in store for them, if they wish to settle down.
***
Katz’ breast-beating about his Duke degree is amusing. Here we have a grown man asserting superior value … because he did well on his GMATs at age 22. Granted, we live in a hyper-consumerist society, but by age 40 we’re all required to present a body of work, a portfolio of achievement, demonstrated leadership, if we want to demand a place at the front of the line. (Not a PAID IN FULL receipt from an exclusive graduate degree store.) It’s harder than being a keyboard jockey who scored well on his GMATs as a post-adolescent.
Some people can pull this off, referencing decades-old college experience. I’ve known two Rhodes Scholars who, in middle age but unable to show achievement, continue to get hired, over and over, by saying “Rhodes Scholar.” I’d say by age 40 even a Harvard MBA has lost 90% of its value absent a record of achievement. It’s just somewhat embarrassing to see a grown man or woman claim special specialness because they were once admitted to a competitive grad program.
Guest: “BTW, I challenge you to post this comment, and without your editorial “assistance,” and then let it stand on its own. You are not only deeply misogynist and in complete denial about it, but you are (unsurprisingly) cowardly and thin-skinned, unable to deal with criticism in any rational manner (hint: shooting the messengers — censoring critical comments and/or deriding the critics, and denying the obvious are NOT rational responses to criticism).”
Good to know I should be able to go anywhere and say whatever I like without censorship. Where’s your website? Remember, you’ll have to print whatever I say or by your own admission you’re being irrational. Then I’ll really raise the tone by CHALLENGING you to post whatever crap I write.
This is a privately-owned and operated forum that can do what they desire to do so, just like every other site. From my perspective, they don’t censor nearly enough.
It’s true that the best looking women can basically do what they want without consequences in the relationship market — 8+ women. They can have their cake and eat it, because they are 8+. But they are a very, very small sliver of the female population. Generally speaking, for most men, the hottest women you will actually see “live” and in person are 8s, because 10s are exceptionally rare (and generally the ones that do exist are not in general public circulation, because their rare looks have spirited them out of that general public and into a more closed world that you do not have access to), and 9s only very slightly less so. A man who works in Hollywood or in the fashion or porn industries may have come across the occasional 9 (although they are also rare there, too — most of the “beautiful” actresses, for example, are 8s, with a very few 9s and 10s smattered in there — you can count them on two or perhaps three hands at the most and that is globally).
So, yes, if you are, as a practical matter, in most social situations where the general public is present, the hottest or practically the hottest woman in the room (which you will be, if you are a solid 8), then you can get away with murder — have your alpha fux and beta bux with abandon.
However, so what? Certainly that is NOT the case for the 38+ women at EMK’s place, because if they had that kind of pull they would not need to be there. By definition, they don’t have that kind of pull, because if they did, they would already have landed their top tier alpha male corner office executive as a husband, and wouldn’t be bitching about the SMP on the internet, now, would they? (That criticism, by the way, which is often fired at the manosphere, is at least as equally on point when directed at EMK’s client base, to be honest.)
For women of that age who have not landed Prince Charming (TM) by that age, something has misfired, something has gone wrong. Again, I posted about this in an extended comment a few posts ago, but in summary I have known countless of these kinds of women having worked in the environments I do for the past ~25 years now: very highly intelligent, platinum educated, ambitious, career-oriented women. This is a demo I know very, very well because I have worked with them as colleagues for ~25 years. The women who are EMK’s core age I have observed when I was younger than them, then as age peers, and now that I am older than they are. There is an observable pattern to the “problem”, and it is not one that hits most women in that demographic — it only hits the women who have fucked something up, to be very frank.
Most of the women in this demo are married around 30. Most of them that I have known have stayed married. They are average looking women — mostly 5s, a few 6s, the very occasional 7 (less than 10% of the women I have worked with over the years fall into that level or higher). They are married to very average looking guys, not very alpha type, masculine/dominant/etc., who are similarly well-educated and turned out career-wise, and they have 2-3 kids. They live fairly “boring” lives, which is typical for people raising kids for the most part, and many of them seem post-sexual as couples (I’m sure that they have sex, but it’s also obvious that it isn’t really a big part of things, and you can tell from how they move and touch (or rather don’t) and so on). But, all things being equal, these average people are leading average married lives with kids and not getting divorced.
Based on what I have personally observed, the women who end up in the “I need help, EMK” situation, and who are not “unattractive” (let’s say not under 5), tend to be either: (1) women who waited too long to start taking relationships seriously, even when their peers were all doing so in the late 20s, because they were either having too much fun, or focused on ambition, (2) women who are not interested in marrying the kinds of men their peers married in the late 20s/around 30 (i.e., their peers who are still married and now have 10 year old kids, while these girls are still bitching at EMK’s site about a “lack of good men”), (3) women who bet the farm on a really bad bet as a man (a man who was great BF material but crap husband material, and so they never married) and it eventually all blows up in the mid 30s, or (4) women who are divorced, already, at 38 (this is a small number — most of the women in this demo who marry don’t get divorced). Essentially, by the time you get to be a woman who is in EMK’s core demographic, you’re pretty broken, from the relationship point of view. Mistakes were made (or are still being made), judgment is poor, criteria are poor, or perhaps all three. But these women have a hard time because they have issues, and that’s why they are where they are. Women who are not unattractive and don’t have issues like that have no problem being married by age 38 — the ones who have had the problem are either not attractive or have these kinds of issues, so if the women at EMK are in the “attractive” category, physically, they are the kind who have issues.
So, yes, if you are a female 8, you can do what you want, more or less, as long as you retain your looks. That is true, but also irrelevant because there are very few female 8s, and certainly the women at EMK’s would not be female 8s, or they would not need to be there.
For women who are more “normal” in terms of appearance, yet not unattractive (let’s say in the 5-7 range), and who have not been married by the late 30s, something has gone wrong, and it almost always has to do with the women herself, her actions, choices, decisions, criteria and the like. Again, I’ve observed this in numerous cases over the years, and there are things these women share in common that make them different from the vast majority of their peers — peers who married at the “culturally appointed” time of the late 20s/around 30, and who stayed married.
I once heard Shared Slop Bucket open for the Sex Pistols….
Nova, I do meet women whom I would not describe as damaged, but who simply bought into the wrong game plan. Perhaps we’re in agreement, because you refer to making the wrong choices.
They choose careers that isolate them from any kind of healthy SMP (say, Big Law, high-end investment banking, or any job requiring sequential foreign postings); they get inordinate *female cohort* reinforcement, personally and in the media. They think that they’re in the first or second act of the play that is their lives, but then the curtain comes up because the play’s ending, and they stand around blinking at the bright lights. It doesn’t make sense to them because they have been doing exactly what their college profs and preferred media recommended, while their girlfriends cheered them on, for 20 years. I often catch myself feeling sorry for them, but then I remember: oh, by 38 I’d been working 80 hours a week for 15 years, the better to take care of other people (i.e., the entire focus of my life was not me, myself and I).
Anyway, it’s a first-world problem to be sure and Katz is here to help them sort it out.
“I once heard Shared Slop Bucket open for the Sex Pistols….”
That’s a hellishly good double entendre, both meanings work as jokes – respect.
Did they ever find out Ms ‘Shared Slop Bucket’ ‘s real name? I gather, since you heard her, she was rather a screamer.
Mr. Bernakim sounds like such an angry, bitter mangina. He probably lives in his parents’ basement and plays video games. Bernakim is such a misandrist loser.
BV —
Yes, I agree that not all of them are damaged in that sense, and many of them are just experiencing the results of bad decisions. However, the problem is that if you spend that time between 22 and 38 making those kinds of decisions, there are consequences — not just in terms of foregone opportunities, but consequences in terms of the kind of person you become. It molds your persona. It is very hard to change that, even with effort, and frankly that persona is not a great bet for marriage at this point in their lives, due to that molding that has taken place as a result of the cumulative impact of all of those decisions. It has the impact of lowering their “quality” in the MMP sense, despite what they think of themselves, and what people like EMK will lead them to believe.
I would say, though, that, again, most of the women in this demo (the highly educated and ambitious demo) still do get married at the approved/appointed time. The ones who find themselves looking for help from Katz in their late 30s are in that situation for a reason, and that reason has consequences. Those consequences differ based on what the specific reason is, but in most cases the consequences are a negative from the perspective of assessing a good candidate for a wife.
@ Plain Jane
Glad to see you making an honest, reasoned argument. Keep up the good work.
For men below the age of 38. For men 38 to 50, her SMV is higher and those are the men those women are targetting. I doubt many of them want to go over 50 and they don’t have to.
A woman typically will commit to a man whose SMV is one to two points higher than hers. So, I don’t believe your comment: “For men below the age of 38. For [beta] men 38 to 50, her SMV is higher and those are the men those women are targetting.” Which men? Alphas can pull young women for sex when the men are into their 70s and the alpha SMV stays high for a very long time–why should they commit (and there aren’t that many of them anyway)? Betas want children. Will women 38+ be able to provide betas with children?
EMK is selling women declining-sex marriages. They have betas instead of cats for companionship. Oh joy.
A woman typically will commit to a man whose SMV is one to two points higher than hers. So, I don’t believe your comment: “For men below the age of 38. For [beta] men 38 to 50, her SMV is higher and those are the men those women are targetting.” Which men?
Indeed.
A “high quality” man of 38 does not need a woman who is 38, he can find one who is 30-33 without a problem if he is “high quality”. Even a 40 year old man of moderate to high quality can find a woman in the 34-35 range (lower if he is quite attractive). So, if we are talking about moderately attractive men who are 38, then yes, she has a higher SMV in their eyes, because those guys have fewer options to begin with — but those guys probably don’t meet the Katz criteria for being a “high quality” man. A 38 year old (let’s say a normal one and not an 8, because, again, the 8s are not needing Katz’s advice to begin with) who is attractive and wants a high quality man will probably have to be looking for one who is 42-45 — and such men are thin on the ground in that age group, because they are either married already or they are not interested in getting married (having too much fun with their options).
This is why the women in that position are complaining about “where have all the good men gone?”. They aren’t talking about the moderately attractive 38 year old guys. They are talking about the high quality 38 year olds (who are dating or marrying women in their early 3os), or the high quality men in their early to mid 40s who are either married or high quality but not interested in marrying — that is, there isn’t enough “supply” of high quality men in that age bracket, because these women waited too long to get serious about getting married, for any number of reasons as I describe above. So, in terms of what they are looking for, it’s true enough that “there aren’t any good men” — not that there are *none* of them, but finding a never married, truly high quality (attractiveness and rest of the package) man who is 42-45 who actually wants to marry a 38 year old BigLaw partner or investment banker is like looking for a leprechaun on the dark side of the moon: you may find him, but odds are you won’t. What is more in the cards for women in a situation like this is a compromise of some sort. I’ve seen this as well, over the years. A woman of around that age will finally marry, and to a man who really isn’t anything like the guys you remember her bringing to work-related social events when she was 30 or 32, but a guy who is more average looking, not dominant/masculine/etc., but otherwise a good guy. That’s a compromise for her, for sure — not what she wanted, but some women are willing to go there because they prefer it to the other outcome, while others are not willing to go there. Either way, it’s fine, people should dow what they think is best for their lives in terms of what they want and can put up with, but I think it should be obvious that the key problem is waiting too long, and being the one who is still standing when the game of musical chairs for landing a “high quality” man as a husband has ended.
@ Plane Jain 53
For a woman, LOOKS TRUMP ALL in the SMP.
Of course, in the MMP, THE WALL TRUMPS ALL. Once a woman hits 30, she wants a husband to make the kids legit. Betas will marry up anyone of any age. Welcome to declining-sex marriages.
A looker can get all she wants and more, unless she wants a really high quality guy in his twenties to marry her. 20 something high quality guys usually don’t want to commit to marriage in their 20s.
10% of women are “lookers”. NEWALT
8s and higher can and do have the best of both worlds.
Not 10’s since they don’t get enough attention as Rollo has documented. They can’t find men 1-2 points higher in SMV and men with 10 SMV are pulling 8’s hand over fist and don’t want to bother with the time it takes to pull 10’s. Minus 1% of women who can follow this strategy.
Women who are 9’s will mate with men who are 10’s, but they have a similar problem to the 10’s–men who are acceptable won’t spend the time. Minus 2% of women who can follow this strategy.
So we are down to 7% of women. Not significant.
And there are high SMV men who commit young and don’t want to marry sluts, so subtract more high SMV men from the SMP. This adds risk to the strategy since they will have fewer potential matches.
These women also get so much jealousy from women AND men both that its important that at least some of us show them some empathy and support.
And, for the same reason, alphas are entitled to some empathy and support.
Of course, if you factor in that the women are 10+ N-count CC-riders who can’t commit, have infertility problems, and will likely frivorce, maybe they deserve extra scorn.
I am not jealous of CC-riders; I see them as pathetic and unattractive.
@ Plane Jain
Such age inappropriate behavior and lack of dignity I could have never imagined and never saw before in my life.
Shaming alert. Where are the mods?
@ Editor 54 PJ
Why is the idea of older people dating so repugnant to you?
Maybe it’s because PJ can’t accept reality? The asymmetric nature of SMV for men and women?
Sorry, I said 54 instead of 56 at the last comment.
Yours is among the worst misogynist sites in the sphere.
Misogyny is about hating women. Guys here don’t hate women, they just dislike the typical modern women’s attitudes and behaviors.
In realty, many of the fellas here have fine relationships with women, and of those that don’t, they probably wish that they had one (e.g. an old time relationship without a metaphorical gun pointed at their head)
My big take away from all of this is very simple.
Men: If you’re single, never married, 40+, and aren’t named Clooney, Pitt, or Depp you’re totally screwed and no one gives half a shit.
Women: If you’re never married, 38, and “high quality,” you will never be without the support and sympathy of media, white knights, EMK, all other women, Big Gov. You still have hope.
Thus single, never maried, men should be plan one version of an MGTOW lifestyle beginning about 35.
“Such age inappropriate behavior and lack of dignity I could have never imagined and never saw before in my life.”
They even try to do the penis in vagina thingy. Gross.
“if they (EMK’s coterie of “high quality” late 30s women) had that kind of pull they would not need to be there. By definition, they don’t have that kind of pull, because if they did, they would already have landed their top tier alpha male corner office executive as a husband, and wouldn’t be bitching about the SMP on the internet, now, would they? (That criticism, by the way, which is often fired at the manosphere, is at least as equally on point when directed at EMK’s client base, to be honest.)
Yes, that criticism is spot on when directed at EMK’s client base; and it’s often fired at us in the form of ” you’re all just a bunch of low quality men of low sociosexual value. You’re just disaffected, disgruntled, disenfranchised men who either (1) chose crappy women; or (2) are low quality unattractive men; and you’re seething with anger and resentment because of it. Suck it up, buttercup, and deal with it.”
That being said, there are some key differences here when we talk about men who comprise the manosphere. And to be sure, the manosphere is a tiny sliver of men in the general public. I’d guess probably 5% tops of men comprise so-called “red pill” men.
There is a lot of “brokenness” in men when they come to the manosphere. Most such men find this place after a serious personal failure of some kind. Either they’ve suffered serial failures in personal relationships or career. They can’t attract the caliber of women they want or can’t attract a woman at all. Or, they serially fuck up in dating or personal interaction – they can’t get past a first or second date. Or they’ve lost everything in a bad divorce – their wives cheated on them or frivorced them. Or their marriages are failing and they know they need to do something to turn it around or they too will suffer a divorce.
There are differences between EMK’s clients and similar sites, on the one hand; and the manosphere on the other. Men who frequent the manosphere are aware that something’s broken. But the key here is that most of those men know that they themselves are at least part of the problem; they know that they are themselves broken in some way. They know something didn’t get formed up correctly inside themselves. So a lot of them are here to at least try to diagnose what’s broken inside themselves. And it takes a lot of those guys some time then to get to the point of then trying to fix what’s broken; or decide to live with it and the resultant consequences. Some guys don’t get to the point of “fixing” or repairing; but at least they know that they are themselves part of the problem.
So at least to my mind, most of the guys who frequent these parts own up to the fact that they are part of the problem – that they’re too supplicating and pedestalizing, that they aren’t masculine enough or aren’t perceived as such, and so on.
This sort of reflection isn’t something I see among EMK’s commentariat and the peanut galleries at other such sites. Most such women don’t consider that they’re broken or that they might be part of the problem. They don’t engage in that sort of brutal self-reflection and introspection – “hey, what am I doing that is causing this pattern to repeat itself?” No, what EMK and his girls are doing is complaining about the dearth of “high quality” men and why they can’t find one for themselves; while at the very same time having occasional casual sex with “in between” guys (which is in no way supposed to have any impact whatsoever on their “high quality women” status) and unwittingly confirming everything the manosphere says about such women.
The other key difference in the “sphere” or the more intellectual parts of it is a holistic approach to assessing overall problems in the SMP and MMP. We look outward to find root causes. The problem is economic, political, social, moral, and spiritual. It isn’t just about getting a trophy woman. It’s about living our lives for ourselves and our posterity. To EMK’s girls, it’s about getting a trophy husband, an alpha in the corner office, for ME ME ME.
FWIW, while I find Mr Guest’s whining irksome, publishing email addresses crosses a proverbial Rubicon.
Mr. Guest,
If you would like to see “misogyny,” might I suggest the recent ISIS offensive in the Levant? Or, if you would prefer to sit comfortably at home, checking out ROK or Heartiste or Roosh?
This site does not come close to any misogyny, let alone the unreasoned rabid hatred your ilk assumes we harbor. What we dislike is what modern women amount to: this is not blind hatred of women, but a rejection of women who reject child-rearing, pursue careers, more narcissistic than any past generation, more likely to become addicted to pain-killers, psychiatric drugs, etc.
Our interest is in understanding female nature, which obviously leads to, erm, “disagreements” with the mainstream Cathedral doctrines. You believe in sugar, spice, and everything nice. We believe in a more nuanced view of womanhood that recognizes their extreme inclination towards abuse and gluttony.
This isn’t our problem, it’s yours. And you’re going to change, not us. I would recommend reading Rollo’s recent pieces on “chore-play,” and the change in mainstream narrative.
There is no “misogyny” here. Friggin’ paranoid nutjob.
Evan Marc Katz has been very helpful for me as a lady and I think you are being a bit harsh on him for helping women……the manosphere is always talking about the flaws of women and the rampant gynocentriscism that this society promotes. Evan ROUTINELY says in his online blog that women should start their search earlier and that they should adjust their tastes earlier too. I also agree that men NEED help which is why as a trainee counsellor I will specialise with men. I don’t get why you are going for him in this way because his advice is a lot more useful than others out there!!! but I do like that he has responded and the conversation has happened, it shows growth and an appreciation of other viewpoints for the both of you.
“They don’t engage in that sort of brutal self-reflection and introspection – “hey, what am I doing that is causing this pattern to repeat itself?”
Is there any place right now where women can do this kind of introspection? is there a market for it?
The mainstream current is to sell narcissism to women. Introspection is healthy, which means it’s the poison that the mainstream culture needs. So they hate it.
*The mainstream current [BUSINESS] is to sell narcissism to women.
Another key difference between EMK’s girls and the manosphere is that a key focus of the latter is on understanding the truth of human nature; and then to apply that knowledge in the service of improved relationships. I don’t see that in EMK’s girls or similar sites. There, the focus is on finding leprechauns on the dark side of the moon, so to speak. The focus is on “holding out” for the “high quality” man.
And, in EMK-speak, the “high quality man” is, of course, the six figure earning, dominant, confident, very good looking, motorcycle-riding-on-the-weekends man who also brings her flowers [but only sometimes] and can make beef stroganoff in 15 minutes while rubbing her feet and telling her how beautiful she is.
Is there any place right now where women can do this kind of introspection? is there a market for it?
There is no market.
Guys learn early that they are responsible for themselves. That if they want something to happen, they have to figure out how to make it happen. The red pill is really just a further step in this process.
With women however, they never get this treatment. In fact, they get the opposite, the “self-esteem” treatment. Any type of red-pill introspection would be too much of a leap for most of them.
Until they find their “high quality” man, EMK’s girls will salve their egos with casual sex with “in between” guys. A couple of EMK’s girls said essentially that – until they find their “high quality” men, they’ll have “occasional” casual sex “in between”.
Ultimately, the takeaway for me is that EMK’s girls are not “high quality” women. If they were, they would not need EMK’s help. If they were, they would already be married or in LTRs to men they respect and who love them.
Badpainter at 82,
Sound advice. Cold but, it does prevent being used as beta bucks.
quote from farm boy..
“Guys learn early that they are responsible for themselves. That if they want something to happen, they have to figure out how to make it happen. The red pill is really just a further step in this process.”
I recall an expression .. “build it and they come”.
If women would (re)build it (i.e. the pre-modernist woman). We would come.
So, that in mind what EMK is doing is the opposite. There is nothing wrong with (other superficial) them and you can find the bucket of gold at the end of the rainbow.
I find SIW (aka american modern women) abusive with the desire to be head of household. Both of which are deal breakers.
So EMK .. if you want to offer them good advice see if you can sell a pill (because they will not do any real work) that will fix their broken women’ness. That would make them bearable and possible even attract a man of quality.
Tee minus 3 . 2 . 1 . .. anytime now ;@)
Another area of distinction between EMK’s girls and those of similar sites; and the manosphere is this: Among manosphere men, and among men in general, really, there is a fundamental willingness to compromise. Men generally realize they will never get everything they want in a woman. Men know if they play their cards mostly right, they might get most of what they want in a woman. Sure, she might have smaller breasts or be more overweight. Or she might have to learn to cook. Or she might have personality flaws, even a major one. And to most guys, that’s OK – they’re willing to tolerate it.
Most men are willing to compromise a LOT. Most men are willing to tolerate A LOT for their women. Most men are willing to deal with whatever that “flaw” or “problem” is, as long as their women are willing to deal with them in like fashion.
I don’t see this among EMK’s girls or those women who frequent similar sites. Most such women are single because they are absolutely unwilling to compromise, even a small amount. They bolt at the first sign of relationship trouble. They “hold out” for perfection, which never comes. They have exacting standards for attraction and relationships, and any deviation from them results in termination of the fledgling “relationship”. If a guy messes up in even the slightest way, his relationship is toast. He has to do everything exactly right, or he is totally screwed. Their refusal to compromise itself brings them relationship failure and dissatisfaction.
Both the Manosphere and the Cathedral exhort men to better. Both place the burden of responsibility on the man. In this sense both are in alignment. The difference is in defining the purpose. The Cathedral needs better drones to serve the women and labor for the approved Alphas. The ‘sphere wants men to better serve themselves.
Interestingly neither expects better of women (collectively) and mostly accepts they are what they are. The only difference is one accepts women as being flawed, the other as perfect.
@96 Badpainter ..
I asked Plane Jane those very questions .. and I still await an answer from the cathedral types.
@96 Badpainter ..
Post 52 to Plane Jane:
“Frankly since her child bearing days are over .. What Does She Bring to th Table? Whats in it for me to risk my lifes work / savings / retirement / homes / toys / etc.?”
If any of you EMK types would like to answer feel free.
A few rambling thoughts… In EMK’s defense, he’s probably running the equivalent of a matchmaking advice site for women interested in finding someone, well, a lot like EMK. Part of his value proposition is that he reflects how guys *like him* behave in the SMP and make long-term mating decisions.
My $.02 based purely on speculation is that someone like EMK has probably been a player in the past, with a number of hedonistic successes, but for whatever reason—probably fatherhood rather than any need for an “emotional life partner” or whatever—decided to change his lifestyle. I could be totally wrong on this and perhaps EMK is not a reformed badboy. However, the reformed badboy is arguably the single most effective and popular trope in all of romantic literature and it would certainly be a nice angle for him to explore in his core pitch.
In other words, EMK may be saying 1) “here is the type of guy I am” (see attached resume, education, photos, etc.) and then 2) “if you want a guy like me, here is how to go about pursuing it.” He may very clearly not wish to represent himself as speaking for all men, just for guys like himself. Indeed, speaking for “Red Pill” men might be extraordinarily destructive for his business model.
Re: women being disgusted by the RP. I think they see it as sort of like a pissed-off labor union that works an industry group that has been made extinct. Not to beat a dead horse, but this SMP is a virtual paradise for busy players who check a few critical strategic boxes as far as equally-busy women are concerned, and who work their niche ecosystem well. Campuses are dominated by women and post-campus environments by college-educated women who are by now absolutely habituated to girl-vs.-girl competition and forced to deal with structural scarcity dynamics. The bar for dating/courtship is very low. Sex-positive feminism insists that men and women have similar sexual appetites and generally calibrates to the male appetite as representative. The style/girlswagger icons are Iggy Azalea and Miley and increasingly straight-up porn stars. Lean In insists that women make their own $$ and that reliance on a male provider is almost a form of treason.
Consider the logistical advantages as well… Texts are the norm for communication, Google Voice/WICKR/Silencer/Black Phone are available for the sophisticated man about town with a security concern. The swordsman almost never has to give a landline phone #, sex is generally going to be there within 3-4 dates or less because the women involved are 2/3 of the way through their decision cycle before they even meet you and are largely concerned with sizing up alternatives (this accelerated consumerism and brand-consciousness is not just true in the SMP; it is true of buyer behavior across mkts and can be confirmed by any number of market research and neuromarketing organizations).
Because of these and related factors, a lot of women have adopted the POV that life is so easy for the hot/high-value guys that any men who are complaining about the SMP or concerned about some sociopolitical ramifications must be insufferably pathetic “sore losers” who cannot attract women, blame women for not being attracted to them, and who in some cases seem to want to call for some kind of insane apocalyptic jihad against sluts, players/alphas, and so on.
I think the anger of the Manosphere—and the misogyny, which let’s face it is frequently there—reflects three things: 1) the general pussification of society that abhors paleo-masculine virtues, takes out the lust for life for many men and leaves them just listless, lost, and depressed (and low T, high C); 2) family law courts, which are frequently brutal to men and which are fucked up legacy systems still operating according to principles forged under very different socioeconomic conditions for women; and 3) a growing sense of sexual inequality that perhaps correlates with income inequality issues and which places the middle-class American Dream under great pressure (i.e., great uncertainty about jobs, finding a mate who looks up to you at least a little bit, etc.). These are all legit concerns IMHO and deserving of some sympathy.
The current course will arguably lead to more and more women chasing fewer men, and those men enjoying this attention and having few incentives to commit and many incentives to invest heavily in their own lifestyles/toys/display totems. This must be unsustainable and self-correcting at some point…?
Well I certainly don’t fit the description of a “hig quality man” at Evan’s place, but that didn’t stop me from finding a woman 8 years younger than I was (at 39) that thought I was a good bet.
When I found myself single again (not at all my choice) I decided immediately that there was NO WAY I was going to try pairing off with a woman my own age or older. Why should I? If I was going to run the gauntlet again, I wanted to get something more out of the deal than I did the first time through. (Insert typical trope about man trading in his wife for a younger model. The ex left me and our family, I did not trade her in for anything)
Oddly enough, it was absolutely easy to find a woman substantially younger that saw me as a “high quality man” even without a six figure income and a McMansion to live in. Of course she’s no Ivy League educated power woman, but my point is simple. If I was a “high quality man” of the UMC class, the very last thing I would ever do is marry a woman my age. What the hell for? When such a man can certainly pull a woman 10+ years his junior, a similar aged woman is simply not an appealing idea.
The only rub in that may be a younger woman’s desire for children. I’m 44 now, and there’s no way I would start over at diapers now. So I can’t imagine a lot of 44 yea old Harvard grads are thinking about starting a family. That may be the best advantage an older woman has: not planning on starting a family. And even then, it’s gonna be a tough sell compared to the much younger women he has in his sights.
So the 38 year old “high quality woman” may want to rethink the idea of having kids. She may get a mid 40s guy to commit, but I highly doubt he will want to start a family. Most likely, he’s already raised his family and simply found himself back on the market. This time he isn’t looking for the mother of his children, he wants a companion and sex partner. And if a woman isn’t offering child bearing, she’ll need to step up the efforts elsewhere.
I wonder if the ab-fab-ulous mid to late thirties women looking for motherhood are the female equivalent of the old male ‘middle age crisis’ phenomenon?
Been working for getting on for 20 years post graduation, no longer seeing a glorious career, just continued existence in the rat-race…a man is up shit-creek (in traditional society). He might try a sports car, maybe a couple of flings. But really? he knows that if he wants to fund his life’s comforts (unfulfilling as they might be) he’s got another 20-25 years of drudgery, living for the weekend, getting fat and bald.
But for a woman? At this point in their life there’s the old standby lifestyle with built in excuse for giving up the power suits etc. Marriage’n’kidz(tm). The Katz-women have probably had this
plan-Bplan-BB, scuttling ever forward from theirhamster brainssubconcious for half a decade or more. Of course they’re upset to find this fall back plan unavailable. Or at least unavailable without having to accept a considerable re-evaluation (i.e. devaluation) of their ‘appropriate’ male…the one they might catch as opposed to the one they feel entitled to.Unfortunately for such females, their prey population has realised that being the financial provider for the wife’n’kidz plan holds only a 50/50 (being kind here – that’s the virginal wife odds) chance of happiness for her. 50/50 for her makes his odds worse; if she’s unhappy he WILL be unhappy. Her being happy doesn’t mean he will. Making hubby happy is not a concern for society, nor for any self-respecting modern wimminz.
Marriage for men just ain’t what it used to be. Unfortunately men are starting to put this together en-masse. Well, unfortunately for the women that is. Not great for society either, but then of what value is a society that screws men anyway? Time to sign it’s DNR* request and walk away. It is not fit for purpose.
A single male at forty has many, many better options for a change of path than a married one has. So have women, but first they have to accept that they’ll have to support themselves and kids are probably not going to happen. That is actually equality…well-done feminists. Ladies? don’t forget to thank them, don’t forget to shake them warmly by the throat. Men didn’t make you unmarriageable and make marriage a catastrophic risk…feminists did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir
There you go, your betters decided your fate long ago.
Charming. What a lovely couple. She never married, you know.
(*Do Not Resuscitate)
Moral of the story .. If you ladies are determined to act like men .. you will be treated like men .. seems “equitable” to me.
Spin on Spinster into the Spinsisterhood you so desired from your youth.
Where have all the high quality women gone?!?!? *sarcasm*
@99
I think this is a spot on analysis of the now. I fear it is not sustainable beyond the near term. Perhaps if the Alphas bring back feudal monarchy or some such they can sustain their luxury sex buffet for another generation or two before they have to plunder one another to pay off their useful idiots (feminist SIWs, and idiot betas).
This group of Alphas could possibly get the majority of men to go along but we need a bribe as well. Make prostitution legal. And make the Alphas bare the full cost of the tax bill that supports their lifestyle, and pays their whores. As well when the power leads to wars please don’t call on those who benefit least to take up arms unless the rules about rape and pillage are restored to their proper medieval understanding.
If the elites get live by everyman for himself at any cost to all other men then what can we expect when that becomes the operating principle for all men?
Spawny Get,
Thank you for the background on Simone deeauvoir. How could modern feminism put her on a pedestal?
BB: “In EMK’s defense, he’s probably running the equivalent of a matchmaking advice site for women interested in finding someone, well, a lot like EMK.”
Color me Templeton-infused, which I might be, but I think EMK’s clients are single because they want to meet someone like EMK. Until they do. They’ve actually met 100’s of EMKs; that’s why they’re 38 and asking Where are all the good men? On that first date, suddenly, the checklist qualification filter (height, face, politics, school, vacation tastes, Quirky Personal Details!, loves his mom, athletic and toned, did I mention moula?) fails because, well, the dude’s a guy who scratches out a living as a 21st century Miss Lonelyhearts. They make slightly less than a senior executive secretary at a BigLaw firm, and have to deal with a lot more whining.
So EMK may be teaching these girls how to get the first date with an EMK. But I suspect any SIW who takes the date (“He’s cute! and went to Duke! and cooks with cukes!”) subsequently barfs at the idea of explaining her infatuation with a penis-equipped Dear Abby. Neither Steve McQueen nor Gregory Peck ever played Dear Abby. These chicks want brawn, brains and moula, in a (situationally) pajama boy wrapper. Sure, why not. I wish I could have run the ball like Jim Brown, cook like Pepin, and write like Salter. Failing all of that, at least I could have Brown’s middle-aged shoulders in Any Given Sunday. But he’s a unicorn. As is their composite acceptable male. As Deti notes, and any strategy consultant knows too: it’s Speed, Quality, Price. Choose any two.
I could be wrong and his clients are more down-market.
(For the curious and literary-inclined, Miss Lonelyhearts by Nathaniel West may well explain American society.)
(Apologies for the following, but it’s football season, and Brown is the Boss.)
“I fear it is not sustainable beyond the near term. “
Oh, I think it is sustainable beyond our lifetimes, and probably for the next 50 to 100 years. I see a slow slide continuing on the trends currently existing, with things continuing to worsen for average beta men; and things improving for average women.
EMK’s girls will eventually marry or get into some form of LTR. But as Nova said above, the men they can snag longterm will be well beneath what they want and/or believe they’re entitled to. I think this is going to continue, because men want sex, and they’ll do what they have to do to get it. If I had to predict the future I’d say:
1. EMK’s girls marrying men who earn less but who make up for the lowered status in other ways. But many of those marriages won’t last because the men inevitably become kitchen bitches, even if they are very good looking or have high power/status in other ways.
2. A lot more men engaging in differing kinds of relationships, alternatives to marriage. A lot more men eschewing conventional marriage and fatherhood.
3. Lower tiered men resorting to hookers and porn.
I’d say this is going to go on like this, with gradual deterioration, for at least the next 50 to 100 years or so.
Ultimately, the takeaway for me is that EMK’s girls are not “high quality” women. If they were, they would not need EMK’s help. If they were, they would already be married or in LTRs to men they respect and who love them.
Yes.
In my own experience in observing the women who find themselves in this situation — who are quite a minority among their education/professional peer women generally — it’s that they have made choices that have backfired over a long enough period of time that it has decreased their quality. At some stage, they veered off the path that their peers took of marriage between 26 and 30, due to decisions they themselves made (could be emphasis on ambition at that time, could be betting on the wrong guy and having it blow up, could be shooting too high and holding out with unrealistic expectations, combo of all of those and some other things), and the cumulative impact of those decisions lowers their quality from the perspective of a wife candidate, quite apart from their age/appearance (my analysis assumes a woman who is attractive at that age, say a 6 or 7, but not an 8+). The cumulative impact of the decisions lowers the quality. Women who are most successful at finding a mate at that age range adjust their expectations, again, based on what I have seen with various female colleagues who have been in that situation and comparing the ones who succeeded with the ones who did not (there are more who did not, alas for them).
No woman should be authorised to stay at home to bring up her children.
Selfish she is
Society cares for this not
Most women cares for them not
Children cares for them not
Men cares for them not
You know, here’s another thing.
Another difference between EMK’s girls and sites like it, and the manosphere, is the solutions desired.
We’re told that EMK’s girls all ultimately want the same thing: Commitment from, and marriage to, a high value, high status man. And I believe most women do want that ultimately even as they bounce among the “in between guys” along the way. It just takes them some time to get there.
One could criticize the manosphere if every man coming here wanted to be a player. But they don’t. Some do want to become players. Most don’t. Most who want to be players won’t be able to become players. Most of the commentariat wants a LTR with a compatible woman of roughly like SMV. A sizeable number want to improve their marriages. Some want to GTOW.
@ 67 Bet Duke has more graduates a year then most of the military shcools I went through. Hell I have been in operational units smaller then Dukes graduating class, not to mention how few of us get into them per year. Doesn’t that my value higher then his?
And lets not even line up some of the real heavy weights that post here regularly. We have some really broad based accomplished men in these parts. Not to mention how clearly many here express complex ideas. Soooo Duke grad? Lame
Alphas always get laid like tile. Don’t think there is any need to do half the big soical issue stuff men here claim they do to get laid.
Unless we are using top 1% of ses as alpha
@106
Deti, I think you’re an optimist. I give the status quo and it’s current trends 30 years tops.
Otherwise I would agree except the increasingly repressive anti-male legal/cultural climate will hasten the end. Men shut out of the entirety of social mobility have exactly zero reason to not engage in piracy, tax evasion, and/or simply dropping out.
It’s one thing to rank low in the SMP it’s another to be actively punished for it.
@ 109
And some players would have preferred their marriage working out….
Because of these and related factors, a lot of women have adopted the POV that life is so easy for the hot/high-value guys that any men who are complaining about the SMP or concerned about some sociopolitical ramifications must be insufferably pathetic “sore losers” who cannot attract women, blame women for not being attracted to them, and who in some cases seem to want to call for some kind of insane apocalyptic jihad against sluts, players/alphas, and so on.
This is of course true, BB, but it’s really a more detailed way of describing the apex fallacy: women notice the men they notice, and assume that men who don’t have access to the things the men they notice have access to are a small group of losers, instead of actually comprising the vast majority of men who are not players and, in most cases, not capable of becoming one in truth. It’s the apex fallacy, full stop. It’s hard to get past it, however, because women really only notice, in ways that are relevant to these discussions, that small(ish) percentage of men, and so for purposes of their own thinking on these issues, it’s only this group of men that “matters”. The rest are, well — they don’t give much thought at all to the rest on these matters, other than assuming it’s a small group (even though if they reflected on it they know they are not attracted to most men themselves), and that it’s therefore an outlierish group of basement dwelling Xbox losers.
@ deti
There is a lot of “brokenness” in men when they come to the manosphere. Most such men find this place after a serious personal failure of some kind.
It sure was me. Coming out of a five year depression, obese, sex-starved. All those things cured, beginning with taking the Red Pill.
Well I certainly don’t fit the description of a “hig quality man” at Evan’s place, but that didn’t stop me from finding a woman 8 years younger than I was (at 39) that thought I was a good bet.
Indeed. It’s because men’s value increases with age (to a point where it levels off, but that isn’t as young as 39), whereas women’s value decreases with age. It isn’t all appearance-related, either, it’s life baggage/persona related as much as it is related to appearance, especially for men who do not want (more) children, or to start a family in their 40s.
@ BV 67
Relationships require relationship skills. Relationship skills are only acquired in … relationships. Dating 50 men over 20 years for 4 months each produces a skillset inimical to the demands of monogamy and domestic affairs.
My relationship skills were acquired incrementally through serious study, personal reflection, and practice. Still not great, but I’ve come a long way. The broads you see probably fail at the first two items.
A glimpse into the future for the Katz-ladies
Whereas the men up their gangster game
“In my own experience in observing the women who find themselves in this situation — who are quite a minority among their education/professional peer women generally — it’s that they have made choices that have backfired over a long enough period of time that it has decreased their quality.”
It looks like there’s a difference between the women we’re describing here (EMK’s girls – the 38 year old never married professional) and the typical AFBB carouseler, in the current SMP. Due to my SES and location, I have much more experience with carouselers than with one of EMK’s girls.
There’s a contrast here with the typical carouseler because in my experience, what happens with her is slightly different. The MC and below carouseler usually ends up at 32 marrying a man of roughly the same caliber she could have married at 22. For her, waiting doesn’t mean she ends up with a better guy, but she doesn’t end up with a worse guy either.
An EMK girl, though, DOES end up with a worse guy at 38 than she could have had at 25, though. An EMK girl has almost NO chance of doing as well at 38 as she could have before; whereas the garden variety carouseler has around even odds of “assortative pairing”.
Based on what you’re describing, Nova, an EMK girl would have been able to do a lot better in the marriage market had she been more focused on marriage as a younger woman. It ‘s probably a result of the kind, caliber and quality of man she would come into contact with because of her education and career. Such women interact with high status men every day in the work world. It seems an EMK girl would do well in her early to mid 20s to meet such a man and lock him down for marriage. An EMK girl should use her access to these men to meet a compatible one, offer herself up for marriage to him, and then make it work at all cost.
So the mistake they make is the same; but the consequences are different. They’re even worse for the EMK girl.
@Fuzzie
“Spawny Get,
Thank you for the background on Simone deeauvoir. How could modern feminism put her on a pedestal?”
dunno, but women are complicated. Personally I think Vlad had a better idea of what to put her on.
Based on what you’re describing, Nova, an EMK girl would have been able to do a lot better in the marriage market had she been more focused on marriage as a younger woman. It ‘s probably a result of the kind, caliber and quality of man she would come into contact with because of her education and career. Such women interact with high status men every day in the work world. It seems an EMK girl would do well in her early to mid 20s to meet such a man and lock him down for marriage. An EMK girl should use her access to these men to meet a compatible one, offer herself up for marriage to him, and then make it work at all cost.
So the mistake they make is the same; but the consequences are different. They’re even worse for the EMK girl.
Yes, I think it’s true that it plays itself out in different ways among different demographics, both SES wise and geographically.
Most of the female peers of the EMK set are married sometime between 27 and 32. And those marriages happen after 2 years or so (on average), so the women are in “looking” mode in the mid 20s, beginning around 25-26, and most of them end up married during the time frame before 32 or 33. The ones who are left standing at 38 missed this window either because they bet on the wrong horse (picked a guy unsuitable and wasted years with him), were too picky at this age, or didn’t want to settle down at that age (either for work reasons or for fun reasons, or a bit of both). The ones who started looking in the mid to later 20s mostly end up married and most stay that way. The EMK set are the outliers who missed the window.
Life as a vegetabletarian
@121 Plane Jane ..
Are you going to answer my question from post 52?
Nova, 122:
Yes, and the EMK girl has advantages that the run of the mill carouseler doesn’t. The EMK set has access to more attractive, higher status men. Carouselers don’t — they’ll still end up marrying the same men they would have married a decade earlier.
@121 Plane Jane ..
“They don’t. In Womens’ Studies classes, all the famous old school feminists’ theories are deconstructed and debated.”
Only insomuch as to tweek your message.
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/what-is-modern-marriage-for/#comment-137432
Yes, and the EMK girl has advantages that the run of the mill carouseler doesn’t. The EMK set has access to more attractive, higher status men. Carouselers don’t — they’ll still end up marrying the same men they would have married a decade earlier.
This is quite true. The UMC can optimize with the “around age 30 marriages” better than others can, due to their life script. For others, it doesn’t work so well, as you point out, where you are arguably treading water and simply have more baggage. Even for the UMCs, though, if they miss the window, they can be on the outside looking in, and end up a client of EMK.
Dalrock captures the essence of it with “a woman will save for her future husband only the bare minimum of her beauty, youth and fertility required to secure his commitment”.
One can see this playing out differently in varied demographic/geographic regions.
Deti, I think you’re an optimist. I give the status quo and it’s current trends 30 years tops.
Much depends on whether productivity gains cansort keep with the increased inefficiencies due to baby mamas and poor behavior in general.
Novaseeker – true. But my point was: if I as a LMC middle manager can land a woman 8 years my junior, there is no way a 38 year old UMC man is going to settle for a woman his age. If he has a six figure income, a nice car, and a McMansion, he can do waaaaaaaay better than a 38 year old woman. And he would be selling himself very short if he did.
Hell he doesn’t need half of that crap. A solid career and a good salary is more than enough. (Provided he isn’t hideous or as huge as a whale.)
Those 38 year old women should be looking at 50+ year old men and give up on starting a family. Maybe they can start with mid 40s guys, but my guess is that’s still too close in age. 48 would give the guy a 10 year age difference which is a good starting point.
If women want to marry similar aged men, they need to do it in their late 20’s or at the latest early 30’s. After that, the competition from younger (and smarter for looking at older men) women will start to chip away at their buying power, and it goes downhill from there.
Farm Boy at 127,
While I can;’t argue with the observation, it is perverse. Planning on minimizing all the transitory feminine qualities for her future husband is dangerous and miserly. Mostly dangerous, as who knows, until it’s too late, what the minimums are.
@128
Unrestrained hypergamy cannot last long term without either the complete economic emancipation of the Betas, buying off the Betas, or the Alphas being forced to choose between the Sex buffet, and their benefits from rent seeking at the public trough.
I think most men would continue to go along with the status quo SMP so long as they could make an honest buck, and not be presumptively assumed rapists. But between oppressive feminism, economic disenfranchisement and a winner take all SMP it’s too much.
I’d say it’s not that it’s not fair but rather a Kafkaesque level of injustice where the rules only are applied to the Betas. And The Betas aren’t even permitted to retreat to their video games and porn without further punishment and insult.
@ Bastiat
The current course will arguably lead to more and more women chasing fewer men, and those men enjoying this attention and having few incentives to commit.
I am leading them on happily ever after without even intentionally flirting (I probably am a natural flirt) and have perfect plausible deniability due to being married. No, I don’t even need to have sex with them to get them all frustrated. I’ll just dance with them a lot (Mrs. Gamer not being present) a little flirty on the dance floor and walk out with them when we leave and talk with them a bit. They hint about phone numbers by mentioning men who text them. I just play dumb. It’s so much fun!
One of them said that her bf was a “d1ck-hole” and I replied that I had a wife like that, so she asked if my wife was a “d1ck-hole”. I just looked her in the eyes as we danced and smiled and smirked for about five seconds. At the end of the dance I dumped her off back at her table. It probably annoyed her that I didn’t sit at her table and talk with her.
Ted D (@129)
You are right about SMV’s. A woman (declining #) is equal to a man (increasing #) at 30 yrs old.
She had better be ramping up her efforts by 28 yrs old if she hopes for it to happen before 30 yrs old.
You are also right about age distribution if we are talkin about a rational woman understanding her true worth.
But we arn’t talking about that woman. We are dealing with the EMK woman.
She has a truly un-realistic view of the SMP.
It just makes my approach so much easier. At this point in my life they are begging me to ask them out. It’s like taking candy from a baby ;@)
As for predictions for the future, the current marketplace has done all that it can to disincentivize and alienate betas. Without motivation, our economy, which is dependent on beta production will limp along.
At some point in the near future, the betas will have to see some hope.
@ Novaseeker 121
The ones who are left standing at 38 missed this window either because they bet on the wrong horse (picked a guy unsuitable and wasted years with him),
You missed an important possibility: They were unsuitable for marriage late-20s-to-30s and are divorced at 38.
@ Ted D
Those 38 year old women should be looking at 50+ year old men and give up on starting a family.
They might be able to crank out a kid or two at 38 if their plumbing isn’t hosed.
@136 theasdgamer
“They might be able to crank out a kid or two at 38 if their plumbing isn’t hosed.”
I doubt it seriously.
The risk of child defects 35+ is off the charts. Plus without artifical help conception is very tough.
In addition a woman that waits till after 28+ to have kids ruins her body. It won’t snap back like a 20ish yr old.
Everything is working against healthy children at that point in her life.
The one thing she brings to the table is reduced to a defective product.
They are told they can have kids by th cathedral but when she tries she realizes way to late it doesn’t matter if her plumbing is original issue or not. She’s out of time to do both (re: career and family).
@121 Plane Jane ..
Are you going to answer my question from post 52?
___
I did generally reply to it yesterday. But if you want to repost the exact question you want answered in a detailed manner, I’m now “banned” from posting anything (with no explanation as to why) so looks like the answer is “no”.
reference for post 137
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_maternal_age
click on effects
@138 Plane Jane
Question
Post 52 to Plane Jane:
“Frankly since her child bearing days are over .. What Does She Bring to th Table? Whats in it for me to risk my lifes work / savings / retirement / homes / toys / etc.?”
Those 38 year old women should be looking at 50+ year old men and give up on starting a family. Maybe they can start with mid 40s guys, but my guess is that’s still too close in age. 48 would give the guy a 10 year age difference which is a good starting point.
If women want to marry similar aged men, they need to do it in their late 20′s or at the latest early 30′s. After that, the competition from younger (and smarter for looking at older men) women will start to chip away at their buying power, and it goes downhill from there.
I agree, in theory, although in practice I have seen women who are 38 marry other UMC guys with similar backgrounds … who are not nearly as attractive as the guys they were seeing before (judged by the arm candy they brought to work social events in past years). So there is also the option to marry “down” in SMV a relatively peer age man, if they want to do so. Why would they do that? I think because a peer age UMC 38 year old man is more likely to want to try to pop out a kid than a guy who is late 40s early 50s, and so even though he is lower in SMV, she gets what she wants in other ways. Why would the guy in question do it? Because he is lower in SMV, and the 38 year old has a higher SMV than the 33 year olds he can attract.
Either way, though, it’s a hell of a compromise, but certainly something that should be looked at more clearly by women in this situation, rather than the pie in the sky approach of getting everything they want. That window closed when most of their peers were getting married.
You missed an important possibility: They were unsuitable for marriage late-20s-to-30s and are divorced at 38.
Yeah I wasn’t talking about the divorced ones, but the ones who are never married at that age. The divorced ones are a different bucket.
Tagging
140
Honeycomb says:
September 1, 2014 at 6:44 pm
@138
Question
Post 52 to blank name
“Frankly since her child bearing days are over .. What Does She Bring to th Table? Whats in it for me to risk my lifes work / savings / retirement / homes / toys / etc.?”
_____
OK lets see if this gets posted.
If you want to be a father then naturally it is only logical to look for women who are well within safe and healthy child bearing age. But you said about yourself that you have aged out of the marriage and family market so….?
(Editor’s note): first off, enough PJ. You’re badgering our readers at this point. Make your piece with the fact that you don’t like that older men can easily get younger women for mates and move on.
Second: No switching up of names and addresses. You either go back to using the name and address you rode in on or you vanish. I’m feeling generous today so I’m giving you until midnight EDT to comply. Your choice. Please make the right one…
How hard is it to answer the question ????
What does a 38+ yr old woman bring to the table for men of hi (or not hi) means .. aka UMC?
as a note .. i am not angry .. I just want answer to the most basic question.
.Planning on minimizing all the transitory feminine qualities for her future husband is dangerous and miserly. Mostly dangerous, as who knows, until it’s too late, what the minimums are.
The problem is that it seems to be changing. And women are not catching on.
Based on experience, many never catch on. As exemplified by their inability to even comprehend Honeycomb’s question, “What Does She Bring to the Table? Whats in it for me to risk my lifes work / savings / retirement / homes / toys / etc.?”
“What does a 38+ yr old woman bring to the table”
Her confidence.
@ yohami ..
I guess we had that one coming .. lmao
“What does a 38+ yr old woman bring to the table for men of hi (or not hi) means .. aka UMC?”
Upper Middle Class men?
She could bring similar cultural values and ethics, which is usually very important to upper middle class people (that’s why they are UMC and not LMC on down. Aside from that, it varies from individual to individual what specific traits they are looking for.
I have seen in your Western Civilization that “hobbies” are very important to people, indeed they even define themselves by such. So if a UMC man is really into mountain biking and animal rights and he meets UMC 38 year old woman who shares his culture, values, and ethics and is into mountain biking and animal rights too, he may think he has won the jackpot, provided she meets his minimum looks threshold (I hold that looks are very important in attraction).
But remember, I come from a culture where my paternal great-grandparents were officially wed at the ages of 11 and 12 (they moved in together in their mid teens), and I have already stated that I find the western middle aged obsession with dating and relationships to be an odd and age-inappropriate culture shock for me, so you won’t find me pushing 38 year olds onto anyone.
What does a 38+ yr old woman bring to the table for men of hi (or not hi) means .. aka UMC?
as a note .. i am not angry .. I just want answer to the most basic question.
It comes down to SMVs.
I can think of one case in particular at my workplace in the past 5 years. Woman was 38 when she married. Age-adjusted mid-7, against all women still a strong mid to high 6. High SMV. But 38. She had arm-candy a few years prior, in her early 30s, which was quite impressive from the male POV, but didn’t commit, of course. She married another similarly-compensated and similarly-educated man within 2 years of her own age, but … clearly a beta who was not comparable to the prior arm-candy. She made that decision, I think, because she wanted kids, and many/most guys +5-10 at 38, with a higher SMV than the guy she married, do not want to start a family at that age, so she went with the lower SMV guy who “had means” but wanted a family. And I assume he went for her because she was probably the hottest girl he’d ever had, by the looks of him (and deportment and so on).
They now have 2 kids, no defects. A bit lucky, yes, but it worked for her. However, it required a big compromise on *her* part.
“What does a 38+ yr old woman bring to the table”
Her confidence.
Yes. And her self-esteem also. She has always been treated real special and received lots of attention, so there is that.
This creates confidence, and with confidence one can do anything.
Or so they are told.
That is why they cannot comprehend Honeycomb’s question.
Kiya ..
Thanks.
You just describes what makes good girlfriend material (maybe) .. but not what makes feel entitled to my labor, loyality, love, resources, emotional stability, utility and my sanity.
Those things are not qualities that ensure a successful marriage. Heck she wouldn’t get a request for a second date without some level of connection.
Well when EMK and his cult followers final engage this one question I feel they will be horror’fried at their future.
As a side note the replacement rate of 30+ yr old never marrieds is much hihjer now than when these 38+ yr olds processed thru the toll gate.
The SMP is a changing with a different churn rate than upon entry.
EMK ladies .. Enjoy the decline.
“I can think of one case in particular at my workplace in the past 5 years. Woman was 38 when she married. Age-adjusted mid-7, against all women still a strong mid to high 6. High SMV. But 38. She had arm-candy a few years prior, in her early 30s, which was quite impressive from the male POV, but didn’t commit, of course. She lomarried another similarly-compensated and similarly-educated man within 2 years of her own age, but … clearly a beta who was not comparable to the prior arm-candy. She made that decision, I think, because she wanted kids, and many/most guys +5-10 at 38, with a higher SMV than the guy she married, do not want to start a family at that age, so she went with the lower SMV guy who “had means” but wanted a family. And I assume he went for her because she was probably the hottest girl he’d ever had, by the looks of him (and deportment and so on).
They now have 2 kids, no defects. A bit lucky, yes, but it worked for her. However, it required a big compromise on *her* part.”
From my experience with many thousands of Americans this seems to be standard fare.
The one situation that has truly baffled me is the case of the beautiful young 25 year old woman who shacked up with the (still cute for his age) 45 year old man. Still living together 15 years later, she’s now 40 with a baby from a 23 year old young buck and the now 60 year old “partner” is still living with her and raising that baby!
When the 23 year old baby daddy rolls through town the kid becomes confused so the 3 adults decided she will call one Daddy and the other Pappa.
The mom thinks she may not want her daughter to grow up an only child so she’s thinking of having another baby. But who will she get to donate sperm? She has two choices, the young just ok looking buck or the old but handsome and responsible “partner”.
(Editor’s note): last time bringing this up. Time to actually play by the rules. What do you have to say about my letter to EMK? Theres a lot for you to respond to. Lets see how you handle over the next few comments of yours. You know what can happen if you don’t cooperate so lets do this the easy esy hmm?
You were saying…?
“(Editor’s note): last time bringing this up. Time to actually play by the rules. What do you have to say about my letter to EMK? Theres a lot for you to respond to. Lets see how you handle over the next few comments of yours. You know what can happen if you don’t cooperate so lets do this the easy esy hmm?
You were saying…?”
I was saying… why did you delete my comment about the situation in UK?
(Editor’s note): I didnt. Now, you were saying about my letter to EMK…?
“I didnt. ”
Where is it?
(Editor’s note): I don’t know. You were saying about my letter to EMK…?
I am affraid .. within 10 yrs all men will be on an official marriage strike.
Women who ride th carousel will foster so many 30+ yr old never marrieds that no man (beta or otherwise) will be able avoid the un’avoidable. Women are devoid of any qualities desired by men other than being a walking womb.
Kiya .. Religious Marriage is dead. In fact marriage 1.0 has been dead for a long time now.
The only reason the womenz dislike the red-pill manosphere is we plan to educate every last american (plus other men outside america) man about the lie women / government have committed against them as a group.
Being a woman isn’t enough to breach the threshold of marriage material. Sure you will have aome amount of SMV. But your MMV will be zero.
It is juat sad to see how our nation will fail to meet the required reproduction rates necessary to survive.
At this point with divorce and forced slavery of men our future decline is assured.
Kiya (@157)
“That’s still decades behind Scandinavia and other Western European nations where official marriage is practically obsolete.
Why are post-modern Americans holding onto an outdated notion that their brothers and sisters in other Developed Western Nations, tossed behind years ago?”
one word … EDUCATION !!!
Again that’s why we are being villi’filled online.
@156
“Being a woman isn’t enough to breach the threshold of marriage material. Sure you will have aome amount of SMV. But your MMV will be zero.”
This is a key point. SMV does not equal MMV.
A 28 yr old former porn star has by virtue of her past an objectively lower MMV than a 35 yr old career focused never married woman. But the ex-porn star will still have a higher SMV.
Most American men don’t have th stats and facts available to make informed decisions.
That’s where we (i.e. manosphere) come in. We will “educate” those up and coming men on the facts.
We will tell them to ask some very basic marriage 2.0 or 3.0 questions.
This is why we are shamed like in post 38 & 39 of this thread.
Just keep in mind that as th average age of marriage goes up so does the SMV of the men that would wed. At that point approximately 28-34 for men they will have acquired s good deal of wealth.
This is th catylist for change. Self-Defense of assests.
I don’t see a change of cash and prizes via fault feee (errr it’s the man’s) divorce.
The poor will not marry either. The government has tax payer funded dad stand-in’s.
It is gonna fail fast within a decade.
“A 28 yr old former porn star has by virtue of her past an objectively lower MMV than a 35 yr old career focused never married woman. But the ex-porn star will still have a higher SMV.”
Depends on her looks. Some are busted. Plus, depends on how risk averse or risk friendly the guys are.
“Most American men don’t have th stats and facts available to make informed decisions.
That’s where we (i.e. manosphere) come in. We will “educate” those up and coming men on the facts.”
That’s good. Keep it up. Increasingly it appears only gay folks will marry (and then divorce, like everyone else).
I still can’t figure out why in this day and age anyone in the post-modern developed West would do it at all.
Kiya …
All SIW carousel riders are porn stars. Hence the rejection of such labels when applied to them.
All men should know that better than one in four carousel sluts is infected with a STD. That plus no domestic skills plus a feminian demeanor make their MMV zero!
SMV is not an iasue for some men because we look at the other important factors. MMV is the sum of the parts.
It is true we can’t save everyman from heartache (i.e. divorce).
But we can reach as many as resonable.
As a bit of trivia .. Do you know the leading cause of divorce in america? Marriage (i.e. heartache central)
That’s where we (i.e. manosphere) come in. We will “educate” those up and coming men on the facts
The question is “how to get them to sites such as this”?
“They now have 2 kids, no defects. A bit lucky, yes, but it worked for her. However, it required a big compromise on *her* part.”
That only works for awhile. Probably until the kids are old enough to be partially self sufficient. Then the fact that she’s “unhaaaappy” causes her to divorce. Although in UMC world it is more likely they’d just stay married and miserable, or maybe have a little fun outside the marriage.
None of that screams happy marriage to me. She will never be happy with a man lower than her original ideal, and any man that takes such a deal is disparate or clueless. And that’s why the word needs to be spread far and wide. Don’t settle for last place in some 38 year old woman’s life race. Who wants to be the consolation prize?
I talk to everyone I work with .. most have had a divorce in their sphere of experience.
I start with that and give a few stats plus tell them to look up the info on-line.
I mention they should look at the enemy’s sites too. YES the Enemy of my resources, liberty, utility etc.
It shocks some to hear that word. But the more they have contact with divorced men plus pay attention to the anti-male / man laws or conditions being exerted on them .. the more the curtains come back on the oppression of the feminists.
And even these women against feminist are still feminists. They just don’t want any further decline in men’s sphere because they know it will force men’s hand quicker. Thus it is self defense for feminists.
The best thing we can do is exist in our own space and advertise our case. Word of mouth plus well written anti–feminist agenda’s.
If we behave badly we will be discounted by our target audience. The feminist are not our target audience.
I am not anti-marriage. I am anti-slut marriage. I believe marriage is good and proper. I just don’t think women have a clue what marriage is and isn’t.
It will take some brave men to stand their ground to effect change.
In the mean time the sluts (un’fit’for’marriage bar’bee’s) will need to be made examples out of.
Again a woman had better convince a man she isn’t a bad investment. No complaining. No dissent. Feminine wife material.
But without changes in the laws it doesn’t matter. You are at risk if you marry in today’s environment.
Every man has to be shown the facts and let him choose.
I think we are on the right trajectory.
(enough rambling on this terrible phone keyboard)
“I am affraid .. within 10 yrs all men will be on an official marriage strike.”
In a way I see this as an improvement. I’d rather my boys come to adulthood in an age where men say fuck it, than to get saddled with a former carousel rider in the hopes have having a family. Only to see it ripped away from them in 10 years when she decides she’s not happy.
As much as I’d like to be a grandfather someday, I don’t want to see it happen at the cost of my boys happiness and well being. I simply can’t deny that it is probably not in their best interests to ever marry and have children.
Although in UMC world it is more likely they’d just stay married and miserable, or maybe have a little fun outside the marriage.
Yes, that would be my guess as well. Moderately “happy” (he more than she) but not likely to divorce. Perhaps some hanky panky, perhaps not. Most of the couples I know in this demographic (people I work with) are long term marrieds whom I would describe as modestly happy but satisfied and stable (and they married at the appointed age, not late in the game like this woman did). As for the guy, having met him, this was probably his best option unless he took a couple of years to lift and self-improve otherwise in terms of looks, demeanor, dominance (he has the career stuff down well enough). Likely a combo of clueless and unmotivated to change, especially since I’m sure he thinks that his wife is a Goddess. I chuckled when I first saw the couple, silently of course, having met a couple of her ex-BFs at work events years ago. But that doesn’t mean they will divorce — I think most likely they will be modestly happy and stay married for money/lifestyle/kids and not wanting to be arsed to deal with dating/mating again (they are both very career focused folks really).
Novaseeker – personally I’ve been married and miserable. If I’m gonna be miserable, I’d rather do it alone. At least that way I completely control my misery.
And I bet that poor guy has never felt a 10th of the passion his wife gave those ex-boyfriends. That is probably the saddest part of all.
There are three things that keep the present system going
1. Inertia of how it has been and seemingly always will be -guys marry women, just a bit later than they did in times past
2. Propaganda -Marriage is a fine thing and it is what makes a fella a man.
3. The thirst – guys gotta have it, and women exploit this unscrupulously.
Inertia is winding down. Propaganda is having a more difficult time of it. That leaves the thirst. What can be done here?
personally I’ve been married and miserable. If I’m gonna be miserable, I’d rather do it alone. At least that way I completely control my misery.
And I bet that poor guy has never felt a 10th of the passion his wife gave those ex-boyfriends. That is probably the saddest part of all.
Yeah I have the T-shirt, too, but I’ve never been a somewhat below average SMV guy who has never been married at ~38 (he would be around 41 now) and has the hottest woman he has ever been with (who is also objectively attractive — she still turned heads at 38, a bit less so now after the two kids) want to marry him. I think the guy is clueless, but, hey, plenty of that going around.
Thirst …
As for me I had to experience all this to get here. I guess I study women/feminists/marriage/divorce because it scared me.
I wanted to know because I didn’t it to happen to me too.
In the end it seemed to complex to figure out so I decided to just play the game no marriage instead
I have noticed tho, as I look back, I am always happiest without the SIW in my life.
Again maybe I am different but it was thru reflection and a desire to solve the marriage problem in my life that I put this all together.
Now we have great sites that would’ve saved years of uncertinty, re: the womenz, and searching on my own to pull from. Plus you can see more than your local arena of play regarding how other men have been treated.
As I said I give details / facts and point young men in the right direction. The desire can’t be done for them. If thy care about their future they will inquire.
Build it and they will come.
That leaves the thirst. What can be done here?
Men will still get with women. That will never change unless people become so thoroughly dysfunctional that our own current level of dysfunction would look like Elysium by comparison.
What I expect is that the forms of the relationships between men and women will continue to morph — more towards other models than long-term monogamous marriage. Christians and other religious people will hold on to that ideal, at least in theory, but the culture will begin to embrace other models. Those models may be embraced in the context of “marriages” — that is, among people who are married. But there will be different models, less expectation of permanence, more “monogamish” type of behaviors and a continued slide into the crude and brutish slurry of the more base human motives.
@Ted D
Years ago at a local flight department hung this poster. It still has meaning even after 30+yrs of wear and tear.
——————————–
Happiness and Success
1. Marry the right person. This one decision will determine 90% of your happiness or misery. (Or stay unmarried if you wish
2. Work at something you enjoy and that’s worthy of your time and talent.
3. Give people more than they expect and do it cheerfully.
4. Become the most positive and enthusiastic person you know.
5. Be forgiving of yourself and others.
6. Be generous.
7. Have a grateful heart.
8. Persistence, persistence, persistence.
9. Discipline yourself to save money on even the most modest salary.
10. Treat everyone you meet like you want to be treated.
11. Commit yourself to constant improvement.
12. Commit yourself to quality
13. Understand that happiness is not based on possessions, power or prestige, but on relationships with people you love and respect.
14. Be loyal.
15. Be honest.
16. Be a self-starter.
17. Be decisive even if it means you’ll sometimes be wrong.
18. Stop blaming others. Take responsibility for every area of your life.
19. Be bold and courageous. When you look back on your life, you’ll regret the things you didn’t do more than the ones you did.
20. Take good care of those you love.
*21. Don’t do anything that wouldn’t make your Mom proud*
I took a quick trip around the sphere today. Lots of good posts, but considering the weekends writing I find it hard to take anyone seriously that says J4G is one of the most misogynist sights in existence.
If this blog is that offensive to sensitive feminist ideals, they better not go snooping any further in. The water is rough outside the safety of the shallows.
@ Honeycomb
The risk of child defects 35+ is off the charts. Plus without artifical help conception is very tough. In addition a woman that waits till after 28+ to have kids ruins her body. It won’t snap back like a 20ish yr old.
I don’t buy it. I have lots of family members who had kids post 28. Some after 35 and there were no birth defects. I’ll ask around to find out if they needed medical intervention to get pregnant. I doubt it for those with 3+ kids.
Check post 139 (I think)
here’s the link
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_maternal_age
click on effects.
cases you will see wide variations. statistic medians world wide will give you your best data (due to the pill).
I work with a young man that had trouble trying for their second child. they are sub-28 yrs old. they didn’t have trouble on the first go’round.
After 35 yrs old (woman) all markers for bad things go vertical.
Just sayin you should know the facts.
@174
Trees vs. Forrest
The stats don’t lie, but neither do they suggest a fifty-fifty risk just a much greater risk. A risk that is not to be dismissed out of hand. Life is risk mitigation. Forewarned is forearmed and all that.
Take the coin toss odds of divorce and add the risk of sterility/difficulty conceiving and increased potential for birth defects and now you’ve got a new set of filters to consider. Obviously marrying into you family should indicate a lower risk with regards to conception and birth defects, but at won’t effect the stats as your family is already represented.
O,
I don’t think EMK response will be very helpful. It will be enternaining but will not change whom we are not supposed to critize.
The spinsters blame us for not manning up. They have a cast of supporters (EMK is also directly profitting) who we should be targetting for a re-education campaign.
It will take all of us working on each our white knights but if we could leverage a political / national host to carry our voice I think we can force serious change. Of course the other side will offer tokens our way and then dismiss us as crack pots who would not compromise.
All true.
But if we could be heard on a nationally syndicated program on a semi regular bases I believe we could reach more “matrix dwellers”.
You mentioned possible big news on this front .. care to share more?
Honeycomb’s link was interesting in itself, but it also linked to the male version
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect
Femeroids and many ‘fayurness’ demanding women insist that men have exactly the same problems as women regarding birth defects etc in late parenthood. If women have menopause (and even fembots have problems denying the evidence here…) then men must have an analogue of it and it must be as severe because otherwise it’s ‘unfayur’ and makes women ‘unhaaappy’.
They usually grab on to (intentionally) badly worded reports citing increasing risk in later fatherhood, but ignore that the risk remains at very low levels. Of course it could be women being even worse than the man on the street at maths and stats.
Anyway, Honeycomb’s link provided a link to what looks like a reasonable summary of the realities of older fathers.
The other favoured attack is citing male impotence as a problem. However I’m sure medical techniques can provide a pretty safe and easy get around for that. The best counter to the female gloating over the issue is to point out that in a study on impotence, 50% of men impotent with their wives had no problems with younger, hotter, tighter women…many women lose interest in the debate at that point. I don’t know how the rates of sahara snatch and male impotence compare.
#47, #50:
Dear Honeycomb, I’m not gonna go into how much money those 3 guys in question make.
1) I know a minority of readers on any blog are discouraged by life for whatever reasons, and can feel worse reading abt people with ‘more’ than them.
2) apart from 1 of the 3, I don’t know the exact amount, though one easily gets a general idea.
3) having already admitted on the blog to being a low-earner (I’m only working parttime as Ive gone back to college), I would just sound like a gold digger when Im not–I’ve rejected many v successful men.
Just suffice it to say that in my world, among my family, friends and guys I’ve dated, the salary amount u mentioned is not very high once a guy hits mid-30s. (Though i admit income has to be adjusted for the v high costs of living in the asian city/country I’m from.) So pls stop thinking that earning that makes u a BMOC that all women swoon over. It’s precisely that attitude that made me leave 1 of the guys who proposed last yr.
I didn’t choose them based on money, it happened that they both approached me in public venues. I want a financially-stable guy to build a family with, but don’t care much abt money above the basic needs; in fact guys tend to be v surprised at how many pricy presents I categorically refuse to accept, which may be a reason they get so serious so fast…Another reason being that here, divorce rate is a bit < than 10%, as opposed to 50% divorce rate in the US. Women AND men here are more family-oriented, so your fearmongering to me abt men's declining willingness to marry doesn't apply–even for US trends, I believe your projections are a bit exaggerated.
Btw I agree with men that many countries' divorce and child support laws are unfair, and 50% divorce rate is absurd.
Me–a gamer? No i rejected both proposals cos their character wasn't satisfactory to me, I have Very very high expectations in this. This is a decision on smthg that's Supposed to last a lifetime. I know it has to be balanced vs time limitations–for me I didn't even date for most of my early 20s, due to some other personal struggles.
"Enjoy the decline". Stuff like this 100% honestly makes me feel bad for u and the bitterness u have. I don't like bragging. But I was born at a very high percentile in beauty, IQ, and also into a happy stable family, so if u think u can make me feel lousy, u're v mistaken. I was v richly blessed (though I struggled at the start of adulthood), and since maturing I'm more worried about whether I can do enough to help others…I have high hopes for aging well being Asian (look at ShuQi in her late 30s, how many early-20s women are that beautiful?), but anyway it's not like I'm gonna spend every hr in front of my mirror looking for wrinkles, lol. I hope to experience life with a good guy, raising a kid, taking care of ageing parents and in-laws, having a job which helps others, etc etc.
Honestly trading lowbrow personal-insults with u is not to my taste, I was just earlier speaking to a dr who spends 1/4 of his time on overseas mission trips helping disadvantaged communities, so to go from such morally-'elevated' convos to this dialogue with u feels a little coarse…I just felt some indignation on behalf of some of the sweet mid-or-late-30s women on EMK's blog, who've worked harder than me to earn money to one day build a family, and then some guys insult them like this. Hopefully they're tough cookies who can take it.
theasdgamer: “I don’t buy it. I have lots of family members who had kids post 28. Some after 35 and there were no birth defects. I’ll ask around to find out if they needed medical intervention to get pregnant. I doubt it for those with 3+ kids.”
A friend of ours is one of 16 children, all from one mother. She was married at 26 and all of them were born after she turned 27, no multiples. No genetic abnormalities. No fertility treatments either.
I think “over the chart birth defects” is serious hyperbole. The worst odds are one in 35, and those odds aren’t reached until the woman is 45 (odds are actually lower at 50, strangely)….not a fun statistic, certainly, but not exactly anything to make Randall Flagg lace up his walkin’ shoes and hum about Captain Trips.
I was in my twenties, for the most part, when my kids were born (I was 31 for the last)…but I had a “pull out” baby at 28. I actually had two pull out pregnancies and I was in my late twenties for both. I think a lot of people are just infertile, for numerous reasons. Late 20s isn’t old at all for fertility, nor are birth defects “off the charts” after 35.
Frankly I’ve never been impressed with guys just cos they earn high, or even v high, incomes. It’s only after reading Evan’s blog and this blog that I’ve realised successful guys are so sought-after by women, on that basis alone. Gotta admit, realising that they’re so wanted by other women slightly ups their status in my eyes, but not much.
“Frankly I’ve never been impressed with guys just cos they earn high, or even v high, incomes.”
I’ve never thought a person’s value is determined by how much he or she makes. If I did, I wouldn’t have married a guy who didn’t even have a paying job back then.
But wealth is a sign of status. It’s pretty obvious Donald Trump or Hugh Hefner wouldn’t be pulling high-end tail if they had no money.
Nova, 171:
Yeah, that’s pretty much what it will look like — a slow slide away from hard monogamy into “monogamish” behaviors. It will look quite a bit like it does now, but exaggerated and accelerated, I think. Serial monogamy for women; occasional sex with long dry spells in between for men. The top men will still have more action than they know what to do with. Percentages of currently marrieds will drop below 35%.
There will still be some who will marry for life but as the economic situation continues to slide, there will be fewer people who can afford to marry and have children. There will be extended hookups, where men impregnate a woman and stay until the kid is out of diapers, then bolt. Or a woman will cuckold a well-meaning man after getting pregnant by an alpha (by then, DNA paternity tests will be outlawed). Typical, non-alpha men will have to be even more shrewd and savvy than they are now — they will have to have “protected” condom sex at all times. They will disappear if they slip up and impregnate a woman. Most will resort to hookers and pr0n. As their economic power increases, women will have “starter marriages” for children; then “older marriages” for when the kids are in high school. We’ll probably live in a world where it’s normal for a typical working woman to have two or three marriages under her belt.
@ Alana
If your fabled IQ allows it, consider his remark “Enjoy the decline” as not necessarily “trading insults”.
@179 —
It’s pretty much impossible to have a discussion about these things given that the mating marketplace in your Asian country is so different from what we have in the US. That’s not a criticism, but an observation. The markets in the US and Western Europe are somewhat more similar (although there are still differences, and even between specific countries in Western Europe as well), such that conversations can still be meaningful and relatable. However, when it comes to the market you are describing, the fundamentals from a cultural perspective around mate selection and marriage are so fundamentally different so as to render these kinds of discussions much less meaningful, relatable or actionable.
Birth defect issues aside, who in their right mind wants to start a family at around 40 years old?!
I for one am thrilled that our youngest is only 6 years away from graduating HS. Once that’s accomplished, my wife and I are released from our parental obligation and can go live our life the way we want. It would be sheer insanity to start over for both of us.
If I was a single guy right now with no kids, no amount of hot/sexy/feminine/whatever from a woman would talk me into diapers and formula. I can’t imagine there are a lot of middle aged men looking to have a baby or two in tow. Maybe in the UMC where a nanny can easily be in the budget. But otherwise? I don’t know a single guy my age that wants to start (or add to) a family. At this point they are all enjoying the freedom to spend and do as they want without the responsibility of parenthood. (The ones that don’t already have kids and/or and ex-wife and kids)
“What I expect is that the forms of the relationships between men and women will continue to morph — more towards other models than long-term monogamous marriage. Christians and other religious people will hold on to that ideal, at least in theory, but the culture will begin to embrace other models. ”
We’re already seeing liberal Christians depart from the model of “celibacy outside marriage, sexual fidelity within marriage”. The “cutting edge” Christians are already writing posts and talking about how premarital sex isn’t a mortal sin.
According to this liberal Christian set, tequiring virginity before marriage sets up purity and chastity as “idols”. We cannot judge people who have had premarital sex. It doesn’t mean they’re ruined and it doesn’t mean they can’t have successful marriages. God forgives “mistakes”. A person who has had premarital sex isn’t forever “damaged”. And it isn’t a horrible sin either.
They’re really just a step away from proclaiming that premarital sex isn’t sin.
“Birth defect issues aside, who in their right mind wants to start a family at around 40 years old?!”
Well…I wouldn’t want to try it either (I managed to never had a stretch mark, I can’t imagine putting my body through that now). But I don’t think that’s necessarily true for most men. Forty isn’t exactly old for a guy….and a lot of men don’t have children already at that age. My cousins actually started a second family late in life (maybe I’ve mentioned this before). She got pregnant at 17, and they had two kids right away…he was a teen as well then, and worked his way through college and vet school and started a veterinary practice. Then, when their oldest was 18 they had another, and another.
The guys who start families at 40 are the ones who led life the other way around, which isn’t that uncommon among UMC guys, although most of these guys still do marry in the 28-35 range. For the ones who have never been married and never have had kids by 40, the idea is that the “fun part” of life happened prior to 40, and now it’s time to “get serious” and so on. Whereas, for people who have kids younger, it works in reverse — the fun begins later once you are in your late 40s or around 50 and the kids are all in their 20s.
I remember when my son was young (he’s 15 now), and seeing all the parents with kids his age at playgrounds who were obviously in their mid 40s with very young kids. It’s not that uncommon here in DC — not the “norm”, but also not very far outside the norm either.
Tailored suits, chauffeured cars
Fine hotels and big cigars
Up for grabs, all for a price
Where the red hot girls keep on dancin’ through the night
The claim is on you
The sights are on me
So what do you do that’s guaranteed
Hey little girl
You want it all
The furs, the diamonds, the painting on the wall
Come on come on, lovin’ for the money
Come on come on, listen to the Moneytalk
Come on come on, lovin’ for the money
Come on come on, listen to the Moneytalk
-AC/DC, “Moneytalks”
I have been thinking about Novaseeler’s and Deti’s predictions for the future. The presumption is that there will more of the same with no corrective action. I don’t think that will happen. You can’t relegate eighty percent of men to involuntary celibacy without profound social consequences.
The presumption is that there will more of the same with no corrective action. I don’t think that will happen. You can’t relegate eighty percent of men to involuntary celibacy without profound social consequences.
Well, it isn’t really that 80% are incels. It’s a small number of incels, a large number of guys who get some sex here and there when they have a GF or are married, and a small number who get sex almost on demand. I think if we went to 80% incels, it would be unsustainable — I agree with you. A system with 10-20% incels, 10-20% casanovas, and 60-80% middling guys who get some sex at some points in their lives probably is sustainable for quite a while if we retain:
1. Pornography on demand, in whatever flavors or colors titillate, coupled with advanced technologies to make it even more compelling for the incels and the undersexed (in relative terms) men (** note I am not advocating this — see note below);
2. Continued acceptance of the growth and development of bro culture around Xbox, ESPN, beer and so on, for men of all ages (de facto MGTOWs without the ideology).
If these two basic conditions are met, I think this kind of system, roughly, can be sustained for quite some time without leading to massive social instability. The wildcards I see are (a) moves to regulate/get rid of ubiquitous access to HD porn (seems unlikely, but could happen), (b) deteriorating economic circumstances such that large numbers of guys become unstable because no jobs (could also happen due to increased technology over time).
———
** — I am not an advocate of pornography. I think that, even quite apart from moral issues (which are personally compelling for me), it’s a real negative for men to spend time with porn due to its wide-ranging impacts on your brain, your sexual wiring up, your ambition and drive, your testosterone and on and on. I just think that it isn’t likely to go away, and it will continue to have a huge impact on the culture. Right now, we live in a porn culture, when it comes to sex, and that is more strongly the case the younger you go. I think that is not likely to change, although as I note above, it’s possible that there could be some measures at some stage to curtail porn — if that happens, there would be, in my view, dramatic social stability consequences in the short term.
@Ted
“If I was a single guy right now with no kids, no amount of hot/sexy/feminine/whatever from a woman would talk me into diapers and formula.”
ayup. Don’t need no son or daughter turning 18 just when I get to retirement. Don’t need all the stress and bother until I get there either*. Neither do I have any need for a woman of around my age. Not that age makes much difference to anything but the sex.
MGTOW for me, thank-you-very-much
(*Not that I’m much fussed if I do get there. Longevity is not the be all and end all afaiac.)
As far as I remember, go check out Dalrock’s blog (great site, I read there all the time):
I extrapolated by eye the marriage rates out to zero, which they achieved around 2030 on Dalrock’s graph (it won’t ever hit ‘zero’, somebody’ll always do it, but you see the trend).
His tables showed that chances of a first marriage for a woman pretty much ended on a statistical level when she reached 35, or so. That’s from numbers a couple of years old now, and nothing will be improving. Do first marriages for 38y.o. never married women occur? yes, but not many, not a good bet at all.
@181,
Frankly I’ve never been impressed with guys just cos they earn high, or even v high, incomes. It’s only after reading Evan’s blog and this blog that I’ve realised successful guys are so sought-after by women, on that basis alone. Gotta admit, realising that they’re so wanted by other women slightly ups their status in my eyes, but not much.
Earning a lot of money may attract a woman’s interest but is not enough to sustain attraction among discerning women. Although women want male material resources, they also want the male personality resources that suggest both good genes and a sustained ability to provide material resources, such as ambition, confidence, intelligence or talent, assertiveness, social status, emotional & social intelligence. Because men with these attributes are often materially successful, material success can serve as a proxy and a means to quickly gauge a man’s potential. It may spark a woman’s interest, but if she sniffs out weakness in these other attributes, she will quickly lose interest.
“Birth defect issues aside, who in their right mind wants to start a family at around 40 years old?!”
Well, I had my third child at 47. His half-siblings were 17 and 19 at the time. The pregnancy was “unplanned” so I had ample reason to question the entire experience. I’ve cried once, in joy, in my life, and that was the moment he was born.
It remained one of the best things that ever happened to me. I found that having a child when a) I knew what I was doing as a parent, and b) I had reservoirs of other experience that obviated other sources of self-doubt, made the experience magical, easy, fulfilling. I’d recommend it to anyone, and I have. I’m of the contrary opinion that a desire to be a further is not extinguished with time, but the capacity to properly nurture a child only improves over time. The first time around (I was 31, 31 at their births) I worried incessantly that I would fuck up. I didn’t experience that for a moment on the second lap.
Fuzzie, Nova:
I think Nova’s right. I think that a long slow slide and deterioration in the US is more likely, absent a hard economic/political “reset” which I think is a lot less likely.
Men’s sex lives break down pretty much as Nova mentioned:
10-20% incels who get nothing
10-20% Casanovas who get sex on demand
60-80% in the middle
Most men are “in the middle”: Sex sometimes here and there, the occasional girlfriend, the wife. Sex lives of widely varying satisfaction and frequency. And a man can live on this.
The one additional thing you need after pr0n and “bro culture” is a subsistence economy. You need enough jobs for these guys to earn just enough to get by and pay minimum bills. An adult man living by himself can live quite frugally, assuming he has no children to support. Where I live, a single man with no dependents can rent a one BR apartment and own a used compact car. He can probably live quite well on $1500-2000 a month, and perhaps less if he’s careful and budgets. I did it for a couple of years in the mid 90s. Back then I was able to live on $1000 a month, but I had no student loans and no car payment. (I was working full time with benefits, though.) And these guys won’t be “incels”, necessarily — they’ll get “lucky” here and there, with the occasional hookup, ONS and STR. They won’t last, though, because being where they are economically, neither party has any incentive or reason or ability to stay together.
A guy who doesn’t go to college and is determined to subsist because he won’t marry and plans never to have kids can live relatively inexpensively. I think we’ll see a lot more of this from men as time goes on, and this can go on for quite a while.
Novaseeker at 192,
The sixty to eighty percent that you put in the middle are getting sex at a rate where they may as well be classified as incel. I do keep bringing up the Ok Cupid study in which eighty percent of men were considered to be below average in appearance. That’s pretty damning. If eighty percent of men aren’t good looking enough for a first date, I think we can forget about sex.
Hypergamy has cut that deep into the sexual marketplace. It’s past time for us to see it as it is.
Nova: “I think that, even quite apart from moral issues (which are personally compelling for me), it’s a real negative for men to spend time with porn due to its wide-ranging impacts on your brain, your sexual wiring up, your ambition and drive, your testosterone and on and on. I just think that it isn’t likely to go away, and it will continue to have a huge impact on the culture.”
I share your skepticism about porn for similar reasons, and until I was in my 40’s I had never even seen any; I thought enjoying one of my college friends (wow, she’s lost some weight!) in a centerfold was an egregious violation of my marriage and my high-toned, promise-keeping pretensions.
I think visual (as opposed to the emo porn or RomCom porn that dominates the female imagination) porn serves some very beneficial purposes though, beyond its safety valve element that you describe. (I further agree that the feminist impulse to suppress porn as a competitive alternative is a powerful social impulse.)
These include the demystification of female sexuality, which promise-keepers (that was I) (and based on my pastor’s strange repetitions in the pulpit, he) might benefit from; the demystification of women’s bodies (I really, really would not wish to sleep and shower with Kate Upton’s chubby form every day); and the simple fact that you can’t learn to hit a baseball by reading a book on hitting. (Way better to watch Anthony Rendon swing a bat, than read about how he does it.)
Women, desirous of a lasting monogamy, would do well to “cheat” a little on the side, taking instruction from porn accordingly. Because I mostly date divorcees, I will say that I am frequently astonished at their ineptitude. This has nothing to do with the feminist charge that men have corrupted their sexual impulses through perverted comparisons of their women with apex-sexed freaks who screw on camera for a living. These women might find their ability to lock down and entrance a man greatly enhanced, in their purported quest for a Good Man who will only look at them, if they knew what the fuck they were doing. No woman should hear “stop that hurts” when “oh baby yes” is so easily achieved.
“But wealth is a sign of status. It’s pretty obvious Donald Trump or Hugh Hefner wouldn’t be pulling high-end tail if they had no money.”
Yeah I see your point, wealth is seen as a sign of status because there are enough people who value that highly. But there are also women who don’t treat well-to-do guys as having high status automatically. Obviously u could have married someone richer than a guy who hadn’t technically started worked yet, for e.g.
In a huge country like the US of 300 million, there are many many beauties, and among them, a fair amount who are both very materialistic and don’t have the ability to provide for themselves and to buy the things they want. I think that’s how u get many women who are keen enough to date or marry a guy who seems unimpressive in other ways (I’m just judging from the surface, possibly those 2 men are really great nice pple, haha).
Previous comment was to Liz #182
Deti: “A guy who … is determined to subsist because he won’t marry and plans never to have kids can live relatively inexpensively. I think we’ll see a lot more of this from men as time goes on, and this can go on for quite a while.”
A lot of divorced men, some paying alimony as well as support, are stunned in divorce to find they have more disposable cash. Out goes the McMansion and the perpetual new Volvo wagon, in comes the modest dwelling and more predictable cash flow. Out goes the treadmill in the service of perpetual status-elevating spending — Veblen’s conspicuous consumption — in comes an ethic of true need and desire.
The sixty to eighty percent that you put in the middle are getting sex at a rate where they may as well be classified as incel. I do keep bringing up the Ok Cupid study in which eighty percent of men were considered to be below average in appearance. That’s pretty damning. If eighty percent of men aren’t good looking enough for a first date, I think we can forget about sex.
Hypergamy has cut that deep into the sexual marketplace. It’s past time for us to see it as it is
Yeah, that’s for sex. When women are choosing just for sex, then it’s really the pareto rule — they want the hot ones, and don’t care about the rest of the package really, because it’s just about sex. Star Child posted here about how she has itched the scratch and when she does, she just goes for hot. That’s what the OKCupid thing is about.
When it comes to mate selection for marriages and LTRs, of course it isn’t strictly pareto, because women can’t all marry the same 20% of men. So they compromise and marry guys that wouldn’t pass the OK Cupid test — because they have to if they want to get married, at least for most of them, and most of them still do want to get married. It’s as Deti says often — most women will end up marrying a guy who they would not give a thought to having a ONS with, because of the numbers game.
It’s like the bar game girls play you may have heard of: fuck, marry, kill. The girls eye around the bar and describe each man as falling into one category: fuck means they would do you just for sex but not marry you, marry means they wouldn’t do you just for sex but they would marry you, and kill means, well … charitable way to say it is that you are not relevant as a human being from that perspective. The OKC stuff is about the guys who fall into the “fuck” category — that’s your 20%. It’s what women will answer when they are being asked that question because to them that question is “would I fuck him, not knowing anything else about him”, so that’s the 20% guy. They marry, however, the broad number of guys in the middle because of the numbers — they can’t all marry the same guys at the top, even assuming those guys want to marry at all. So they marry guys that are less attractive than the guys they would have a ONS with.
This has always been the case, I think (most women being forced to marry men they were less attracted to than other men) because of the way female *sexual* attraction works, and how concentrated it is. The difference today is that while in the past this expressed itself in the form of largely unfulfilled longings (or fulfilled ones with disastrous consequences, like Anna Karenina), whereas today, almost every woman has had sex with one of the 20% guys to
“scratch that itch”, and so every woman has a direct, tangible, experienced comparison to their subsequently less sexually attractive husband — which leads to a more intense sense of dissatisfaction than simply an unfulfilled longing does. That’s a fundamental problem in many marriages today, and its one key factor that drives why the sex dries up in so many marriages: the women don’t want to have sex, because it doesn’t compare, in terms of how turned on they are, to the sex they had with hot guys before they married (the “in-between” guys Katz likes to talk about).
Deti at 197,
One has to wonder what the guy in the middle will think when he realizes that living a bare bones existence is all that there is and as good as it gets.
185 Novaseeker:
Yes it’s true that the cultural environments are v different. Growing up, anytime I went to a friend’s/classmate’s/neighbour’s home, I’d see their mum And dad. And my parents are still together well into middle age, and I believe that’s the case for parents of most of the people I grew up with. I gotta say it’s nice for kids to grow up in that kind of ‘ideal’ environment, but I can understand the reluctance of American guys to get married.
@FuzzieWuzzie #198,
The sixty to eighty percent that you put in the middle are getting sex at a rate where they may as well be classified as incel.
Let’s have some facts, please.
If you check out that link, you will see the majority of men aged 18-59 who are partnered or married have sex between “A few times a month” or more, up to “4 times or more a week”. Is a “few times a month” effectively incel? I would say no, although it would be unsatisfactory for many men.
If you look at the table for single men, the majority do not get even that amount of sex. Most have “A few times per year to monthly” or “Not in past year”. “Not in the past year” – that’s what I would call incel.
“One has to wonder what the guy in the middle will think when he realizes that living a bare bones existence is all that there is and as good as it gets.”
You could do worse than look at the ‘Arab Spring’ for some idea. China has a large oversupply of single men as does India (iirc). Adult males in those cultures are required to look after their parents in their dotage, females are not. So when the chips are down (through money or law) parents prefer to have sons (as future provider pack mules). Karen Straughan / GirlWritesWhat did a video on it. All this femeroid clap-trap about misogyny because ‘more sons’…it’s not misogyny it’s premeditated misandry.
Not sure who said it first, catching up on this thread, but 100% agreed women would get a lot further w introspection than w blaming external factors or searching for leprechauns. You gotta be the part to get the part. Good advice!
Ciaran #195:
“Earning a lot of money may attract a woman’s interest but is not enough to sustain attraction among discerning women. Although women want male material resources, they also want the male personality resources that suggest both good genes and a sustained ability to provide material resources, such as ambition, confidence, intelligence or talent, assertiveness, social status, emotional & social intelligence… It may spark a woman’s interest, but if she sniffs out weakness in these other attributes, she will quickly lose interest.”
Thank you! U really understand women. All those ‘personality resources’ and good character are really the things that careful women are looking for.
It’s not just about a husband, but also a potential father for one’s future child. I want to marry the kind of guy that will be a good role model to any of our kids. And someone with whom a marriage can last (thus my previous discussion with u on why I want to marry a SMV/MMV ‘equal’, so that we’ll be happy with each other long-term), so that my child has the benefits of growing up in an idealised environment with happy loving parents.
Like I said earlier, I’m impressed with the writing of this blog’s writers so far, and I think Evan has misjudged and misinterpreted a lot of what u guys said.
A lot of pissed off males…bad idea. Very bad idea. Crank up the pr0n, hand out the video games and the beer. Far better to have the more easily domesticated females, so that’s what the state welfare system encourages – single moms having more daughters. Read an article on it recently…can’t remember where though. It cited research that female cows(? coes, I think) produced richer milk for female calves than males…it’s misandry that’s innate in nature(!)
“most women will end up marrying a guy who they would not give a thought to having a ONS with, because of the numbers game.”
Right. Nova’s coworker, the 38 year old age adjusted 7.5, 6 overall, is a good example of this. She is accomplished and earned her own money. Thus, her only desire for men prior to marriage was for fun, for status and for sex. The men she dated were probably quite high status, or wealthy, or very good looking, i.e. very sexually desirable men. In her heyday she wouldn’t have even considered dating or sleeping with her current husband. She wouldn’t even have noticed the man.
She probably wanted to marry one of those men when younger, and probably would have accepted a proposal from one of them had one been forthcoming. But the men she was dating were men who would not have married her, for any number of reasons: They have options. She was easily replaceable – if she refused them, they’d have a new woman in a short time. They don’t want to marry, mostly because they don’t have to marry in order to secure sex from sexually desirable women. They were married before and don’t want to marry now.
She married her current husband because she couldn’t get one of those more attractive men to commit to her, not even by offering up her most valuable asset – sexual access. Full stop. This is the ONLY reason that she’s married to the man she is now – he was there, he wasn’t repulsive, she could stomach the sex with him, he offered commitment, she finally resigned herself to going downmarket to get what she wanted. It’s a bit like shopping for a new car. You’d love the Lambo, even got to test drive one. Some got to rent the Lambo for a few weeks. What fuuuuun. But truth be told, you can’t afford the Lambo, and you quickly figure out you can’t. Same with the Ferrari, the Bentley and the Maserati. So you settle for the Ford or the Toyota or maybe if you’re lucky, a used BMW, and it’s “good enough”.
In all fairness I did state that a UMC man may very well be willing to start a family at 40.
I’m not UMC. None of my friends and family are UMC. The vast majority of men are not UMC. I realize that is the target audience for Evan’s clients, but they are fishing in a rather empty pond.
In my experience with the poor and LMC, it’s have kids young and hold on to see if the marriage can last. (If there was a marriage at all…) Just about everyone I know with kids had them by the ripe old age of 25, (with a few exceptions like second marriage families) and the goal is to get them raised and out before retirement so there is some time left for fun. You see, poor people don’t have money to live it up while young, so we can’t spend our summers backpacking through Europe while in college. At 26 I was married with one child, and had 2 children by 30. And separated pending divorce by 38.
That is the standard boilerplate story for the LMC on down. The lower the SES the worse the stories get. But to me, all of this 38 year old high quality female talk is unicorn fancy. And honestly, I have no sympathy for a 38 year old single UMC woman. She’s had a life with just about every advantage a person can have, and still found herself unhappy. Hard to put the blame anywhere but squarely on her shoulders in my opinion.
A friend of mine, a fine woman, lives in Nova’s world. She’s divorced and her first affair post-divorce was passionate and only ended when she popped the “where is this going conversation” with the guy. She described it to me as a sexual and emotional awakening. She won’t have even a coffee with the ex-boyfriend, she says, because “I was too attracted to him.”
After the passionate affair ended, she took a redshirt year and then met a new guy, also of Nova’s world. They met at Congressional, his kids are in the rival private school, blah blah blah assortive mating to the max.
She describes her new guy as “kind.” Oh, and he has a “good sense of humor.” Mainly he’s “kind.” Kind of “kind.” As in, “kind.” He probably commits a random act of kindness every day.
They are so getting married.
Deti: “…he was there, he wasn’t repulsive, she could stomach the sex with him, he offered commitment …”
I *think* that a marriage with sex occurring one or less x per month is considered clinically “sexless”, and that there is a predictable increase in sexless marriage % as you split the married demographic into age cohorts (i.e., 20-29 yos have relatively low rates of sexless marriages; 60-69 have relatively high).
Another interesting theory I have heard put forward is that increasing “N”—sexual partner—has a diminishing utility in terms of psychological boost for men, while sexual activity with the same person provides virtually no psychological boost after some amt of repetitions, and is seen more as a barometer of relationship health and scorekeeping.
So here is what this would mean if true:
1. As a man sleeps with more women, he would be expected to require more stimulus—hotter girls, riskier activities, 3somes, whatever—-in order to derive the same sense of satisfaction and accomplishment that he did earlier in his career. So the single man sees sex in terms of the “carrot” or psychic paycheck.
2. A man in an LTR achieves little sense of reward/accomplishment from sleeping with his partner, but he does achieve a pleasurable security sense that the relationship is in some kind of stable equilibrium, that both parties are effectively “doing their jobs” (as contractually defined—so to speak). If he does not have sex with his partner, he sees this lack of sex as more of a “stick”—i.e., something is wrong.
I personally find this result to be intuitive. A new N generally fulfills a different type of need and is entered into a different psychological accounting book than is another round of sex with an LTR partner.
What do you guys think…?
Re: money. IME, there is “Hot Money” and “Secure Money.” Being simplistic here, but have patience with me for a moment…
Hot Money is an indication that a lifestyle bubble surrounds this guy and that entering said bubble means that various narcissistic, aspirational-glamour needs could be fulfilled. The man’s courting style will be whirlwind/blitz, perhaps even swashbuckling. He will expect gold-digging and will have built this into his strategic model. I think it is generally recognized that pursuing a relationship with Hot Money is a high-risk/high-reward play and that sex will be happening early on.
Secure Money essentially means that the woman would not be asked to take on the man’s liabilities and absorb the resulting balance sheet shock, but she will have to pull her weight or at least some weight financially. The man’s courting style will be measured and controlled and practical; he will be on the lookout for gold-digging. She could conceivably take an SAHM option if willing to make tradeoffs, but in all probability these days would be a working mother with a salaried partner.
The Secure Money guy may actually have a higher net worth than the Hot Money guy; the terms are less indicative of AUM than of personality and disposition towards rampant materialism and security/retirement-seeking behaviors in the SMP.
Also, we should keep in mind that:
Wealth = Resources – Needs
On the utility of remedial sex education for our distaff side. Not from The Onion:
“Half of 26 to 35-year-olds were unable to correctly identify a vagina on a medical diagram of the female reproductive system, a new survey has found.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2739552/Just-HALF-women-locate-vagina-diagram-female-reproductive-system.html#ixzz3CAtu9Pka
@ Fuzzie, Spawny:
“One has to wonder what the guy in the middle will think when he realizes that living a bare bones existence is all that there is and as good as it gets.”
We won’t see what’s going on in Middle Eastern Islamic nations and India and China, in the US. Not yet, and probably not for a couple of generations. The difference is the standard of living, accessibility to basic comforts and luxuries, and the culture. We’re still a first world country and that’s going to continue for the foreseeable future. Even the most impoverished and least privileged among us still can get the basics of life: clean drinking water, cheap and plentiful food, inexpensive clothing, and basic living quarters. (Now, with Obamacare, everyone can get free or nearly free medical care. But that’s another story.)
A single adult man with no dependents doesn’t have to take care of Mom and Dad. He can move far away and never see them again if he wants to. All he needs is a sparsely furnished apartment with water and heat, basic transportation, a cell phone, a laptop, an internet connection, a little beer money, and a steady income to cover those expenses. That costs maybe $2000 a month.
A guy in that situation can still get laid once a month. He will get “lucky” now and then; might even get a GF every so often. If he can’t, then there’s porn. Most guys don’t know much else, to be honest – they don’t get laid often, so getting older and still not getting laid all that often is no different from what they’re accustomed to already.
Oh, BV, don’t be coy…as though it isn’t obvious that this chick’s “ex-boyfriend” is you.
“She describes her new guy as “kind.” Oh, and he has a “good sense of humor.” Mainly he’s “kind.” Kind of “kind.” As in, “kind.” He probably commits a random act of kindness every day.
They are so getting married.”
Lol! Maybe you could help him and her out by pointing them to some red pill stuff? Passion is pretty important.
#184 Exfernal:
Perhaps not ‘trading insults’ per se, but just a random hostility for no reason, which always says much more about the person expressing it than the person its expressed to. I saw some women like that on Evan’s site too, they’d just make hostile comments to male commenters for no discernible reason, due to bitterness vs men. To his credit, Evan sometimes called them out on it.
It’s ok, I’m not angry at him, I have sympathy and goodwill towards almost everyone in the world and wish him the best.
I think “over the chart birth defects” is serious hyperbole. The worst odds are one in 35, and those odds aren’t reached until the woman is 45 (odds are actually lower at 50, strangely)….not a fun statistic, certainly, but not exactly anything to make Randall Flagg lace up his walkin’ shoes and hum about Captain Trips.
Liz,
Not sure what data source you are referencing with the 1 in 35, but let me take that as a given. 1 in 35 is about a 3% occurance rate. Perhaps not a huge risk, but certainly not trivial. If one had a 3% chance of getting in a fatal car crash each time they hit the road, you’d probably minimize your automobile use.
I get kind of particular when it comes to math, because I see and read so much abuse, misuse, and sometimes flat out lying when it comes to math. Many people count on the fact that most people are mathematically illiterate when using statistical arguments (NOT referring to you). See my post Fun with Numbers and PhDs as an example.
Here is a common abuse/misuse of math. Someone will say Factor X led to a 10x increase in occurances of Y. This is a completely horseshit argument unless you state the starting base rate and emphasize the percentages we are talking about. A 10x increase from 2% to 20% is pretty important. A 2% chance of something negative going to 20% negative probably will influence your decision making. 20% might be unacceptably high to live with. In contrast, a 10x increase from .001% to .01% is something where you would most certainly ignore both percentage rates in decision making. Both are small enough percentages that you would probably disregard whatever is causing that increase from .001% to .01% in an actual real life decision. A good example of this BS is in the paternal risk of mental health items like schizophrenia or incidences of autism. To my best recollection, the 10x or 20x increase were from extremely small percentages to begin with, and the absolute percentage even after the 10x or 20x increase was still lower than the absolute percentage risk when it came to advanced maternal age.
There are those who specialize in these sorts of bogus “math” arguments in order to lend a credence of rigor to their purely ideological arguments.
Actually, Liz, I think she prefers “kind”, which means he’s predictable, responsible and gracious, and at low risk of turning into husband #1 or presenting complexity and risk like the ex-boyfriend.
She’ll smile thinly, I’m sure, when her girlfriends ask her, “Well, now dish, girl. How’s *it* going?”
“Fine!” she’ll say. “Can you take the car pool Monday? I have to meet a contractor.”
I’m not UMC. None of my friends and family are UMC. The vast majority of men are not UMC. I realize that is the target audience for Evan’s clients, but they are fishing in a rather empty pond.
In my experience with the poor and LMC, it’s have kids young and hold on to see if the marriage can last. (If there was a marriage at all…) Just about everyone I know with kids had them by the ripe old age of 25, (with a few exceptions like second marriage families) and the goal is to get them raised and out before retirement so there is some time left for fun. You see, poor people don’t have money to live it up while young, so we can’t spend our summers backpacking through Europe while in college. At 26 I was married with one child, and had 2 children by 30. And separated pending divorce by 38.
That is the standard boilerplate story for the LMC on down. The lower the SES the worse the stories get. But to me, all of this 38 year old high quality female talk is unicorn fancy. And honestly, I have no sympathy for a 38 year old single UMC woman. She’s had a life with just about every advantage a person can have, and still found herself unhappy. Hard to put the blame anywhere but squarely on her shoulders in my opinion.
Very true — the way the SMP/MMP plays out differs dramatically between social classes in the US.
I also agree that it’s hard to have sympathy for the women in question. Again, having observed several of these never married by late 30s women over the past 25 years in that social class, they are mostly there due to their own decisionmaking.
Pornography on demand
How satisfying is self-stimulation compared to the real thing for the average guy?
Awkward question I know. But relevant.
How satisfying is self-stimulation compared to the real thing for the average guy?
Awkward question I know. But relevant.
No personal experience because I don’t do porn. But I have read that there are a not insignificant number of guys, including younger guys, who watch a lot of porn (seems normal especially in the younger set who grew up with internet porn) and suffer from ED when it comes to real sex. Something to consider.
I was talking to a friend who shared a story about a once a month at best marriage that his ex-wife flat out told him, “I am not here for your sexual gratification.” Pre-red-pill I would not have thought twice about that, but after learning more about men and sex and how important that is to the emotional “glue” of a relationship now it sounds beyond unreasonable and self-sabotaging for her, quite frankly. Married partners ARE there for each other’s sexual gratification, that’s “the deal” as BB puts it. Especially if “the deal” includes exclusivity. Being able to stomach sex with someone is not a good strategy long term just to get a ring and quite frankly is an insult and unfair to the other person (the beta bucks guy in most cases as I’d reckon not many men marry someone they can stomach sex with but aren’t into.)
“ How satisfying is self-stimulation compared to the real thing for the average guy?
“Awkward question I know. But relevant.”
Porn is a safety valve for guys who aren’t getting laid a lot. Guys get “pent up” and that has to be released somehow; so guys use porn for the release. It’s not human contact and it’s not sex, but it’s better than nothing, so lower value men turn to it a lot.
The problem is that that release is addictive and Pavlovian – the release feels good and increasingly the only way to “feel good” is to use it more and more. To such guys, porn becomes preferable to contact with real human beings because the former is instant gratification with little effort while the latter involves risk and effort. The ultimate result is as Nova described above – rewiring the brain such that only porn will stimulate it, nerfing your ambition and drive, messing up your sexual responsiveness, possible ED, lowered testosterone, etc.
@ 196
If the world was different I’d have kids until I was worm food. Ton loves kids.
Bloom, Herzberg’s concepts of “hygiene” and “motivator” factors may apply here. A hygiene factor is one that you largely take for granted, that you consider a basic right or part of the deal. You notice it when it is *absent*; the presence of the hygiene factor is largely about avoiding negative effects. A motivator factor, on the other hand, is a differentiated, novel, stimulus-providing element that one way or another is linked to aggression, risk-taking, excitement, etc.
This may be crucial: a man pursuing STRs is viewing sex from a motivator factors POV. Let’s say his psychological baseline in “O”; if he adds N, he gets a temporary spike and feels like a stud or player or validated as an alpha or whatever. He may be psychologically at “+5″ for a period of time (more experienced guys would derive both a lower spike and it would wear off more quickly, which might either push them further out on the risk curve or perhaps result in them shifting their priorities and looking to hang up their guns. It could go either way).
An LTR has a different dynamic. A married guy may be baseline “+2″ (I’m perhaps being optimistic and charitable here, but let’s assume a happy marriage and that a happily married man is on average more content than his single counterpart). But having sex with his wife does not give him some spike in alpha self-concept; e.g., few men would brag about successfully fucking their wives as it would be seen as an absurdly low bar for performance comps. Sex may now be a hygiene factor—it’s an expected part of the relationship and its absence will result in a *downwards* excursion from the psychological baseline. Perhaps the guy says nothing until he hits a -5, or a -10, or some other threshold.
It’s very problematic because once the man says something about the lack of sex, the sex that follows may be seen by him more as a capitulation on the female’s part than as a validation of his alpha/hotness. IME, a lot of cheating happens because of this.
The very worst situation is for a married guy to have to “earn sex” as if he were single and still pursuing sex as a motivator factor. It’s not a motivator factor for him anymore. It’s different—no better or worse, just different. I think that’s where a lot of guys just check out and fap to porn and report being satisfied with clinically sexless marriages.
The importation of the Herzberg model into sexual dynamics also may explain something about the cost-benefit analysis of marriage for men. A guy who routinely can generate those +5 motivator spikes in the SMP may have little incentive to get married until he either cannot generate spikes or the spikes themselves lose their strength.
A guy who cannot reliably generate the motivator spikes of new sexual partners and activities (due to any number of factors) may find that his baseline level of contentment is higher in a marital setting than it would be if he was single and having to “eat what he kills” (unfortunate phrase, i know).
Perhaps a naturally ambivalent guy would have the general satisfaction level of a happily married man while remaining single.
“Something to consider.”
From the similar angle to alleged 50% of married men cured from ED when faced with a more appealing alternative?
“ How satisfying is self-stimulation compared to the real thing for the average guy?”
To me the two are not related, nor is one a substitute for the other. My “self stimulation” habits don’t change much based on if I am or am not having refular sex with my wife. And actually, if there is a change at all, I’d say it increases as sexual activity with the wife increases.
When I was in the first marriage and going without, my desire to get off in general tanked, so there was no increase in solo action.
Put another way, the more sex I get the more orgasms I want in general. As sex ramps up so often does “self service”, but again one is not a substitute for the other.
And so far I have never experienced ED or any issues related to being attracted to my wife based on porn usage. I’m not a huge consumer of porn, but it has it’s uses as a means to an end. I’ve never once consciously made comparisons between my wife and a porn star either. I realize those women may be super hot, but I know beyond all doubt I’d want nothing to do with them given the chance. Truth be told, I hardly ever think of them (porn actors/actresses) as “people” anyway. Porn is a great way to get out all that sexual objectification stuff I guess.
My guess is men that find themselves unable to perform due to porn usage may actually just not be that attracted to their mate. It’s easy to say porn usage is the problem, but in reality he simply isn’t thrilled with idea of having sex with her. (Which is probably why porn usage is up in the first place) I bet many such men would have no problem performing for a porn actress in the flesh. Are there cases of men with ED due to porn? Probably. But I bet the numbers are much smaller than common wisdom claims.
Drat!
…of married men with ED cured form it…
I see Exfenal and I are barking up the same tree.
*exfernal – sorry forth autocorrect blooper.
The very worst situation is for a married guy to have to “earn sex” as if he were single and still pursuing sex as a motivator factor. It’s not a motivator factor for him anymore. It’s different—no better or worse, just different.
What is interesting… is if you read various websites, you’ll see that this attitude is by no means some infinitesimal minority. In fact, it might be quite common that many wives do in fact think their husbands have to “earn sex” on an ongoing basis. Dalrock has posted on this, apparently it must be somewhat common in Churchian marriages as pastors apparently even deliver this sermon that husbands must “qualify” on an ongoing basis for sex and sexual intimacy.
Of course, if you really think about it, the implication is that these wives are not very attracted to their husbands. If they were, they would want sex with their husbands from their own desire/initiative rather than the husband have to “earn” it. Regarding marriage, if you start to to subtract these various pieces, easy stable access to sex, homemaking/helpmeet type skill set, the question becomes what are you left with? I just don’t think many women do much contemplation on what exactly most men expect from and are incentivized to get married. If it is simply all the negatives of single life with more responsbilities and obligations that is hardly a compelling proposition.
Bloom, I think a difficult problem in married sexual relations is knowing when sex problems are a metaphor for other relationship problems, and when it’s just a sex problem. I’d say your friend was dealing with relationship problems and his wife (if we trust his story) was just expressing that through sexual contempt.
Obviously, I’m in the camp that sex is part of all relationships, but it’s also just sex — just good sex, bad sex, mediocre sex, whatever. In our culture we tend to have been raised to think of sex as the metaphorical expression of a soft-focus exalted union, instead of just being sex. Or we are raised to think that if we men are good barking seals, we’ll be rewarded! yay! as BB describes. An utterly transactional, and demeaning condition.
I have a friend whose wife wanted sex the night she blindsided him with a divorce demand. (Based on her choice of second husband, she appeared to have intuited her new life as an alpha widow.) So it’s not just men who distinguish between relationship-management/reward sex, and sporting sex. And of course it’s not just men who expect or want both.
Re: porn and ED
It may the case for married guys that its about how attracted they are to their wives. But the stuff I read was about single guys in their 20s who fap to porn a lot and have ED.
“Of course, if you really think about it, the implication is that these wives are not very attracted to their husbands. If they were, they would want sex with their husbands from their own desire/initiative rather than the husband have to “earn” it.”
THIS! I will never again accept a relationship where my mate has to somehow talk herself into having sex with me. Or one that requires me to perform some chores or duty for sex. Not. Happening.
If my wife doesn’t want sex with me on a basic desire level, I’m not interested in putting in the effort required to make it all work. That is the exchange price I’m asking for everything I provide. No my marriage isn’t all about sex. But the truth is sex comprises a very sizable chunk of what I “get” from the marriage, so I weigh it heavily when doing the math.
@Ted D,
And so far I have never experienced ED or any issues related to being attracted to my wife based on porn usage. I’m not a huge consumer of porn, but it has it’s uses as a means to an end. I’ve never once consciously made comparisons between my wife and a porn star either.
I have. Not ED per se, but porn usage can deplete my physical desire, which reduces how much I initiate sex. When I was younger, sexual desire was an almost undepletable resource. No longer.
The issue with me isn’t the relative attractiveness of the porn actresses, but rather the endless novelty, which makes “married man sex life” seem rather dull in comparison.
The root problem is that human appetites are almost infinitely extensible upwards, but are adjusted downwards only with great difficulty. The “alpha” mentality seems to be to chase those appetites upwards, regardless of the cost. The “beta” approach is to find a satisfactory provisioning of one’s desires, then to resist temptations to escalate those desires upwards.
This is true of everything, not only sex. One can always seek finer food, drink, clothes, cars, homes, art, whatever turns your fancy. Or one can be content with what one has.
Morpheus, I read a book a few years ago called “Superior Wife Syndrome” that IIRC argued for women to institute policies of “well-earned marital sex.” The man would traditionally perform some domestic chore or equivalent and if he performed admirably enough he would be treated to sexual access that evening, in a kind of transactional “pay to play” arrangement. This was considered healthy.
It’s a position that infantilizes the man because it explicitly assumes that he is comfortable with his innate attractiveness contribution to sexual access being zero or even negative. His sexual access is instead apparently contingent on how far he can pull a plow that day. She may feel desired and pursued at the end of this, but he does not; on the contrary, he has had to negotiate a steeplechase.
So let’s say that a sex act has three potential reward components:
1. Physical release as per primal reproductive mandates.
2. Psychological/emotional validation (“I’m attractive and sexy”).
3. Economic or equiv work-related compensation.
The recommended “well-earned martial sex” approach hopefully provides #1 for the man. In terms of #2 and #3, however, he essentially gets nothing and it is arguably little different than a man finding a pro off of Craig’s List or backpage.com.
My guess is that both women and men may miss the motivator factor sexual experience of early courtship and this may simply be an ill-conceived attempt to re-deploy it within the marriage so that the woman feels that she is still courtship-worthy and objectified a little and so on. Completely understandable. But pulling this off does not work quite the same way anymore because of the almost inevitable shift to a hygiene factors-dominated sexuality from the male POV.
One justification I have read is that men inherently want sex more often than women do, particularly in an LTR that has gone on for a few years, and thus continuous negotiation of terms is authorized. But what happens if the man wants sex as little as the woman does? Theoretically she would be pleased to be off the hook, but then she may also lose #2 and #3 (putting her in the same boat he was in all along).
I get the feeling that the consensus for the single guy in the lower eighty percent tier is “Let them eat cake”.
Marie Antionette never said this. Her mother, Maria Theresa, brought her up better than that.
“it might be quite common that many wives do in fact think their husbands have to “earn sex” on an ongoing basis. Dalrock has posted on this, apparently it must be somewhat common in Churchian marriages as pastors apparently even deliver this sermon that husbands must “qualify” on an ongoing basis for sex and sexual intimacy.
“Of course, if you really think about it, the implication is that these wives are not very attracted to their husbands.”
As an aside, all the Churchians believe husbands have to earn sex; but none of them believe wives have to earn financial support or footrubs or affirmation, or any other wifely benefit.
Yes, Morpheus, it is common that wives believe husbands must earn sex. In most churches, it’s been elevated to an article of faith. It has its own theology complete with hackneyed “scriptural support”. You’ll find this most often in protestant “ministries” like Family Life Today, Focus on the Family, and any number of ministries catering to women and wives.
And yes, it is because these wives aren’t very attracted to their husbands. Most of the time, these women aren’t attracted to their husbands because hubby was the last in a line of more attractive men who she had sex with before hubby. But this little known fact of most wives’ premarital sexual history is glossed over and covered with pretty sparkles, you see.
Try telling a Christian/churchian wife with a premarital N of, oh, 4 or 5, that her husband doesn’t have to earn sex. Watch the hamster spin: “Oh yes he DOES have to earn sex! My body belongs to ME! I don’t have to give him ANYTHING if I don’t feel like it! I should give him sex just because he wants it? Pffft. I don’t OWE him sex.” These are Sunday School teachers and choir members and food pantry volunteers. They go to the women’s circle meetings to pray for others and minister to the sick and the shut ins. The local faithful, mind you.
Try also asking her how she gets “turned on”. The answer’s always a combination of time and choreplay: “I need ALL DAY to get turned on. I need him to do some chores, help me around the house. If I could just get a handle on the housework, I wouldn’t be so worried about it, and I would be freed up to think more about sex. I just LOVE a man with dishpan hands. And I HATE it when he just mauls me and paws me and just wants to stick it in me.”
And with that same churchian wife, dig down a little deeper. They all had a College Boyfriend, some permutation of Alpha McGorgeous, Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer, and Frank Fratboy.
Ask if she and College Boyfriend had sex. Why, yes they did. And lo and behold, CB didn’t have to “earn sex”. He didn’t have to do dishes to get laid. With CB, she could go from 0 to 60 in 3 seconds flat. She was ready for sex with CB at the drop of a hat.
Same old, same old. Every time.
And with that same churchian wife, dig down a little deeper. They all had a College Boyfriend, some permutation of Alpha McGorgeous, Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer, and Frank Fratboy.
Keep an eye on your e-mail…something you should find interesting
I think this joke sums up EMK’s clientele.
A store that sells husbands has just opened where a woman may go to choose a husband from among many men. The store is composed of 6 floors, and the men increase in positive attributes as the shopper ascends the flights.
There is, however, a catch. As you open the door to any floor you may choose a man from that floor, but if you go up a floor, you cannot go back down except to exit the building.
So a woman goes to the shopping center to find a husband.
On the first floor the sign on the door reads:
Floor 1 – These men have jobs.
The woman reads the sign and says to herself, “Well, that’s better than my last boyfriend, but I wonder what’s further up?” So up she goes.
The second floor sign reads:
Floor 2 – These men have jobs and love kids.
The woman remarks to herself, “That’s great, but I wonder what’s further up?” And up she goes again.
The third floor sign reads:
Floor 3 – These men have jobs, love kids and are extremely good looking.
“Hmmm, better” she says. “But I wonder what’s upstairs?”
The fourth floor sign reads:
Floor 4 – These men have jobs, love kids, are extremely good looking and help with the housework.
“Wow!” exclaims the woman, “very tempting. BUT, there must be more further up!” And again she heads up another flight.
The fifth floor sign reads:
Floor 5 – These men have jobs, love kids, are extremely good looking, help with the housework and have a strong romantic streak.
“Oh, mercy me! But just think… what must be awaiting me further on?” So up to the sixth floor she goes.
The sixth floor sign reads:
Floor 6 – You are visitor 6,875,953,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please.
Novaseeker: “It may the case for married guys that its about how attracted they are to their wives. But the stuff I read was about single guys in their 20s who fap to porn a lot and have ED.”
There is quite a lot of information out there about the trend of rising use of viagra and ED for young, single men. My husband has actually had this discussion with our oldest, and I think every father of sons should investigate this and explain it to them, because there is a lot of porn out there and it is ubiquitous…unlike anything we were raised with.
My husband has actually experienced this on several occasions during TDYs. Probably started around 7 years ago or so. Young men (thirties) have asked him on several occasions if he had any “vitamin V”. He didn’t know what they were refering to at first (no, he has never used it).
Ciaran – “Not ED per se, but porn usage can deplete my physical desire, which reduces how much I initiate sex. When I was younger, sexual desire was an almost undepletable resource.”
Apples and oranges. ED to me implies the willy doesn’t work. Lack of drive from self service is very real, but not ED in a clinical sense.
That being said, my sex drive is higher today than it’s been in decades. Sometimes I wonder if it’s worse than my teenage years. (I suspect that’s just memory fading lol). For the last few years of my first marriage I was starting to believe my libido was simply fading away. I was pleasantly surprised to find out it was just my lack of desire to have sex with the ex. The moment I got with someone I was attracted to (that also showed strong attraction for me) it kicked into high gear, and I’ve done everything I can to keep that going. (I have years to make up for!)
When I say experienced this, I don’t mean porn and ED. I mean evidence of this phenomenon. That was awkwardly worded.
Deti’s illustration of how Churchian women are all for men having to earn sex is a true concern. Tara Palmatier said that one of the biggest red flags is a woman who makes a transaction out of sex.
Two years ago, she was positive on marriage. No longer.
Should the bear count his blessings?
floor #6 they are attacked by a Kaiju and consumed
My gf just said this about EMK’s challenge:
“maybe if someone needs help finding a husband their problem may be something completely different, and they should take care of that”
I got a smart one
@ liz 63
Wait a minute….how many is in a brazillian?
Idk, let me googol it. [facepalm]
If I did, I wouldn’t have married a guy who didn’t even have a paying job back then.
Just like Mrs. Gamer. I was a grad student when we married. Then I ditched an opportunity to go to the U. of Chicago for my Ph.D. because I wanted to help support the family and Mrs. Gamer thought so, too.
I’m curious about your reaction to Mike being around women. I get it that his LizDar ™ is always activated and accurate. What is your reaction to Mike’s appeal to other women? (I assume that preselection works.) Does Mike’s attractiveness also enhance your status among women? Is there much fear or jealousy?
Do Mike’s trips away from the family create fear in you? Are you more attracted to him when he returns? Do you inspect his clothing for strange perfume after he returns?
Thanks. This is all related to my study of Preselection, Breaking Rapport, and Soft Dread.
theasdgamer,
I’ll answer after considering your questions…probably at your blog, though, instead of here (or in e mail).
Continuing on that same thought process:
Ask your typical Christian/churchian wife if she believes that she’s entitled to financial support and affirmation/validation from her husband. Ask her if she believes she needs to earn those things; that there’s a transactional nature to this aspect of the marital relationship. Here’s the answer you’ll invariably get:
“My husband is scripturally REQUIRED to support me and my kids. That’s part of loving me as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her. I don’t have to earn that – he HAS to do that for ME. It’s just part of being a husband and father –he MUST do those things. He’s designed for those things anyway, and he’s just supposed to do them. Because he’s my husband, and I’m his wife, and he has to love me sacrificially and unconditionally. And his loving me means he has to do things for me. I can be the worst wife in the world, and he still has to do those things for me because that’s part of his obedience to God.”
@ Bastiat 214
I personally find this result to be intuitive. A new N generally fulfills a different type of need and is entered into a different psychological accounting book than is another round of sex with an LTR partner.
Sex partners need a change up from time to time, as I discuss in my post, Sexual Macrodynamics: Sometimes sex with the same person becomes stale and new experiences won’t help. In that case, the best option may be to break rapport and for each to become The Stranger to the other.
@216 .. BV
I read that this morning. (re: 50% of th womez can’t find their ve-jay-jay)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2739552/Just-HALF-women-locate-vagina-diagram-female-reproductive-system.html
Sad really.
As to Churchian women .. I have had to have a long conversation to one of our 32 yr olds that shown interest in me about what is expected of a married woman.
She rebuffed my claims of a womans duties.
It was the end of the convo. If she is willing to dissent and provocate now she most certainly do so when married.
I set a low bar for the womenz. Be feminine and understand God’s hi’arc’ee.
I know who taught her this (the other women at church) and who is complicit (the men).
The infection is complete.
I get it. She mistook my kindness for weakness and thought she could catch a man in her fly trap .. and be all she has been educated (by feminist) to be .. tho I am certain she know’s where vee’jay’jay is .. it’s where her stablemate of studs cause her the tingles.
I believe she thought that I would yield because of my age I guess. She and the rest of the advanced years ladies can rest assured that more and more men will standing their ground.
@Alana
When I mentioned my salary .. it was to show what “I” think of as “HI MEANS” .. of course that all it meant. Don’t read into it any more than that.
I think these EMK babes are looking for a bit higher number because at their age that’s all they can do … they are taking / settling for scraps if you recall ;@)
And yes the men at chuch have .. errr .. requested “I” “man-up” .. oh the convo we had immediately after those words got uttered was intense.
They are holding their tongues right now .. as far as I can tell they’re now worried “their” tithe money is about to walk out the door.
*sigh*
Deti at 253,
Your “Churchian wife” pulled a number of tricks in her statement. First, she denied all obligations on her part. Two, she DICTATED obligations for her husband.
Third, and most important, she flipped the hierarchy and took the position of dominance.
Once again, the bear should count his blessings.
Not that it would count for much inthe mind of our Churchian wife but, what is God’s position in all this?
Re porn use, redux, an interesting comment at Rollo’s on this:
Anyway. Dedicate your time to your enjoyment. Learn to draw, to paint. Learn a trade. Carpentry is a lot of fun and can earn you money. Don’t interact with women if you can avoid it and consume porn.
I’m a successful ghost. Went to college at the age of 18, saw how much of a fraud college is, and how higher education is a breeding ground for compliant betas, entered the work force, returned to college in my late 20s. I spent my days surrounded by very attractive women and not once did they arouse my sex drive. That’s what porn can do for you. It can set you free from your biological imperatives.
http://therationalmale.com/2014/09/01/the-myth-of-the-good-guy/#comment-53054
#258:
1. Consider an important relationship decision. Write down your reasoning and proposed course of action.
2. Fap to porn.
3. Reconsider #1. If your attitude and plan remains the same, that’s a good sign. If your attitude has changed, you were possibly thinking with your dick and should pause before you risk doing something crazy.
I think that strategic, Zen-clarity porn use actually prevents more real-life infidelity than it generates. It’s a tool, and like any tool can be dangerous in the wrong hands (haha, I said “hands”).
I have known young men who took viagra and something else to keeping them from coming thinking they had to out preform a porn star to keep a girl
Which to my reckoning is fully beta thinking
@211
A woman who can “stomach” having sex with me? Where do I sign up?!
That’s exactly what I aspire to be the living reminder of all of her failures, underachievements, and lost opportunities. I so want to be nagged for working too much, not being around enough, or working too little and never being able to satisfy every material whim.
Oh how I long to be the consolation prize that comes with sudden onset reality. The thrilling lack of respect, lack of lust, lack of validation oh so desirable.
Of course the best part will be if the sex she can “stomach” doesn’t require her to do anything more than play dead.
Or maybe not.
The last time I got a booty call from my ex, she tapped her inner porn star.
Both of us had difficulty walking for a few days afterwards. That stuff is not for the faint of heart.
@SFC Ton,
Interesting observation! By all means please elaborate? Thx
O.
@ liz
Thanks. Your answers were helpful. Your comment will remain in limbo.
I spent my days surrounded by very attractive women and not once did they arouse my sex drive. That’s what porn can do for you. It can set you free from your biological imperatives.
One wonders if this is a viable lifestyle alternative for young fellas if they are not interested in having children…
Ask if she and College Boyfriend had sex. Why, yes they did. And lo and behold, CB didn’t have to “earn sex”.
“But that was different. He wasn’t my husband”
From what I’ve read, it’s less a lifestyle choice for a young fella than something that happens…ED with a real person after fapping to porn since adolescence. I’ve read some cases where young men aren’t even attracted to real people, but anime. I don’t think that’s healthy.
I have nothing against fapping to porn in general and I know it’s healthy to have a release (I’m aware that after our lube was thieved our oldest son became much more agreeable). But moderation is key there, I think.
I’m aware that after our lube was thieved our oldest son became much more agreeable
You have no idea how glad I am that I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that.
Lol Sumo!
It was some brazen thievin’ too, I’ll tell ya!
@Sumo:
Actually I think ms Liz had done a great thing in understanding her son’s emerging sexual needs with great aplomb. We need more parents and especially moms with such empathy and eaenestness.
If ms Liz is amenable I’d like very much like to hear more off how she attached these masters with her boy. Thanks!
O.
From what I’ve read, it’s less a lifestyle choice for a young fella than something that happens
He seemed to be describing it as a feature, not a bug
Regarding Novaseeker’s find at 258, While it may be good that this guy cannot be brought low by his libido, it is in opposition to what God and nature have ordained.
It would be better if our opponents didn’t twist this feature into a disadvantage.
Unforeseen consequences and all.
@Obs
I just found the idea to be vastly amusing. Check out this vid at around 0:42 to fully understand what I was thinking when I read it.
Dedicated to all men slogging through’married man sex life':
Maybe EMK gals are asking a different question.
We think it’s .. “Where have all the good men gone?”
Instead maybe it’s .. “Where have all the nice guys gone?” (i.e. beta’s that were supposed be their reward for all that hard work.)
They know they are not gonna get the Alpha. Hence EMK is trying to protect them from the p&d alpha’s / opportunistic beta’s.
I say this because RoK’s has an aricle regarding Mr. Nice Guy. (e.g. No More Mr. Nice Guy)
This may be why EMK is so mad / upset with the red pill manosphere. We are educating is targets (i.e. beta’s) how not to get suckered.
Interesting book I might want to buy a few copies and leave in heavy foot traffic guy zones. Or give them out as gifts to men who don’t yet know about the red pill.
“This may be why EMK is so mad / upset with the red pill manosphere. We are educating is targets (i.e. beta’s) how not to get suckered.”
This has been my belief since day one. By sharing Red Pill knowledge, we are stealing their suckers.
While it may be good that this guy cannot be brought low by his libido, it is in opposition to what God and nature have ordained
Indeed. But what to do in world turned upside down?
Honeycomb, Ted D:
“This may be why EMK is so mad / upset with the red pill manosphere. We are educating is targets (i.e. beta’s) how not to get suckered.”
“This has been my belief since day one. By sharing Red Pill knowledge, we are stealing their suckers.”
Yeah. Novaseeker mentioned this on another EMK thread. In order for EMK’s girls to get married, they have to find men who are sufficiently ignorant and “beta” to serve as husbands.
Who else is going to “court” these 35 and up women with degrees and jobs? It won’t be the high value men, the top 20%. Those are the men they spent their 20s having sex with. It won’t be the “in between guys” that Fusee and Julia talked about on the EMK thread in question. Those are the guys they have casual sex with “in between” the “courting” “relationships” they try to have now. And it won’t be the lower middle class and working class guys. They aren’t “high value” enough (unless they are really good looking).
Nope. All that’s left are guys like the men who married Nova’s 38 year old age adjusted 7.5 and overall 6, described waay above. They are basically rules followers (to avoid pushback), high earners (to subsidize her life choices from here on out and hopefully retire her); and good men (all the better to be “nice” to her and do her bidding). Those are the guys that EMK is targeting. Those are the guys that EMK’s girls expect to “court” them.
I wonder if we are EMK’s fall back position when this goes horribly wrong and he needs cover?
Not that I care but it would possible explain his actions.
As it turns out we all get to the same destination using different paths in the red pill arena (re: Deti’ ref to Nova’s comments).
I guess I was born a century too late ;@D
“If ms Liz is amenable I’d like very much like to hear more of how she attached these masters with her boy. Thanks!”
Not sure if I’m reading it correctly, Obs…
(kidding about the last)
Beats the hell out of therapy. Seriously, that lube worked a miracle. We just keep two bottles now and he thieves one from time to time. The next one is set to come to age soon enough and then we’ll probably need three…eventually we’ll just get a dispenser on the wall and pretend it’s antibacterial gel.
According to the news just now the ‘Britons’ heading to fight for ISIS tend to order “idiot’s guide to the Koran” just before they go. They aren’t super religious (according to this story)…
Might I suggest that this is what happens to young men with no hope of a future?
Their female cohorts get preggo, get a flat and bennies off the state. The boys don’t get that option.
One can find “No more Mr nice guy” by Robert Glover for free online. I picked it up to read digitally on a plane ride. Kind of long winded, but pretty good for the most part. Decent stepping stone for more red pill truths.
And @ ton 260
It isn’t beta to think that. If anything it is a preventative measure. I’ve never done it, as I have the opposite of their problem, but it makes sense. Fuck phantoms are a real and horrible thing, and the cause of men taking those pills to begin with in my estimation. The amount of pressure to preform for men that don’t have women throwing themselves at him, is immense. So, it makes sense for these men to do everything in their power to provide the best experience for this woman in bed. Otherwise she will go to some other guy who can provide what she wants. So he is left with one more personal failure and back to square one. And that is assuming she is decent enough to keep it to herself, rather than put his personal inadequacies on blast via social media. ( had a acquaintance in school this happened to. Guy changed his name and moved to another state. Shit like that will give any man pause. So much for social circle game )
Re: Pr0n. In my opinion, its a good thing. Feminists and their lackeys hate it because is gives women “body issues”. I can see that, and I could agree. But you don’t hear any other options suggested to help men obtain their goal of sex. Whenever it is brought up I a
state the following question ” If sex were as attainable to the vast majority of men as it is to their female counterparts, it wouldn’t be as prevalent as it is.” They don’t like that statement haha
Farm Boy at 277,
We need to go straight to the source for advice.
Statement, not question*
Might I suggest that this is what happens to young men with no hope of a future?
So what will China do with its excess males?
@Ms. Liz:
(kidding about the last)”
“Not sure if I’m reading it correctly, Obs…
Beats the hell out of therapy. Seriously, that lube worked a miracle. We just keep two bottles now and he thieves one from time to time. The next one is set to come to age soon enough and then we’ll probably need three…eventually we’ll just get a dispenser on the wall and pretend it’s antibacterial gel.
O: LOL! Well, I think your comments above really say it all – I think you have a kind of intuitive understanding of these issues, partly due to just your basic makeup, but also partly because of all your time spent among the masculine energy – and unlike so many Women in our time, you aren’t freaked out by it. Indeed, you have a strong respect for it, and I think this accounts for how and why you approached things with regard to your son in the way you did, i.e., not shaming him and so forth. LOTS of parents do this, and mums especially are horrid with these things. I honestly do think that one of the reasons why the Black community is so screwed up along these lines is due precisely to this, with Baby Mamaism dominating there, and the Baby Mamas being thouroughly warped and depraved.
I have often said, that our society not only doesn’t take the Male Mating Mind and attendant Sexuality seriously, it sees both as depraved and deviant, and in need of “correction” and “reeducation” – and we see manifestations of this in a number of ways in our sociopolitical climate in our time. The current “street harassment” issue, and college sex assault hysteria are but two examples of this, and this is another reason as to how and why I am such a strong proponent of the Pickup Movement, because they are the only organized force out there that supports the Male Mating Mind and attendant Sexuality; that there is NOTHING wrong for a Man to have a strong sexual drive, nor is there ANYTHING wrong for a Man to want a Woman sexually and to act on it. Now, to be sure, there are ways to go about these things, but the current “approaches” along these lines mentioned above, are woefully wrongheaded. As your son proves in his “before” and “after” lube, LOL, and in the words of the ‘hood, “Pressure bust pipes” – and Man Must Bust (A Nut) – it is a deeply psychological and physiological impulse and need that, to be frank, I honestly do not think that majority of Women understand at all. You may be among the very relative few.
There needs to be more discussion about this, I am dead serious, because A LOT of havoc is being wreaked due to so many Men in our time not having any release point and the culture being ever more restrictive and punitive in this regard.
So, Ms. Liz, I salute you for, in your own small way, supporting your boys at a very important time in their lives. You and the hubbie “looking the other way” when the Astroglide disappears, is a good thing.
O.
So he is left with one more personal failure and back to square one. And that is assuming she is decent enough to keep it to herself, rather than put his personal inadequacies on blast via social media.
Well, she obviously wasn’t wife material.
And probably not her friends either.
One wonders how people could be this way…
@Nekros:
“Re: Pr0n. In my opinion, its a good thing. Feminists and their lackeys hate it because is gives women “body issues”. I can see that, and I could agree. But you don’t hear any other options suggested to help men obtain their goal of sex. Whenever it is brought up I a
state the following question ” If sex were as attainable to the vast majority of men as it is to their female counterparts, it wouldn’t be as prevalent as it is.” They don’t like that statement haha”
O: Precisely – which is why I said what I did to Ms. Liz; it was so powerful, I had to run it twice:
“@Ms. Liz:
(kidding about the last)”
“Not sure if I’m reading it correctly, Obs…
Beats the hell out of therapy. Seriously, that lube worked a miracle. We just keep two bottles now and he thieves one from time to time. The next one is set to come to age soon enough and then we’ll probably need three…eventually we’ll just get a dispenser on the wall and pretend it’s antibacterial gel.
O: LOL! Well, I think your comments above really say it all – I think you have a kind of intuitive understanding of these issues, partly due to just your basic makeup, but also partly because of all your time spent among the masculine energy – and unlike so many Women in our time, you aren’t freaked out by it. Indeed, you have a strong respect for it, and I think this accounts for how and why you approached things with regard to your son in the way you did, i.e., not shaming him and so forth. LOTS of parents do this, and mums especially are horrid with these things. I honestly do think that one of the reasons why the Black community is so screwed up along these lines is due precisely to this, with Baby Mamaism dominating there, and the Baby Mamas being thouroughly warped and depraved.
I have often said, that our society not only doesn’t take the Male Mating Mind and attendant Sexuality seriously, it sees both as depraved and deviant, and in need of “correction” and “reeducation” – and we see manifestations of this in a number of ways in our sociopolitical climate in our time. The current “street harassment” issue, and college sex assault hysteria are but two examples of this, and this is another reason as to how and why I am such a strong proponent of the Pickup Movement, because they are the only organized force out there that supports the Male Mating Mind and attendant Sexuality; that there is NOTHING wrong for a Man to have a strong sexual drive, nor is there ANYTHING wrong for a Man to want a Woman sexually and to act on it. Now, to be sure, there are ways to go about these things, but the current “approaches” along these lines mentioned above, are woefully wrongheaded. As your son proves in his “before” and “after” lube, LOL, and in the words of the ‘hood, “Pressure bust pipes” – and Man Must Bust (A Nut) – it is a deeply psychological and physiological impulse and need that, to be frank, I honestly do not think that majority of Women understand at all. You may be among the very relative few.
There needs to be more discussion about this, I am dead serious, because A LOT of havoc is being wreaked due to so many Men in our time not having any release point and the culture being ever more restrictive and punitive in this regard.
So, Ms. Liz, I salute you for, in your own small way, supporting your boys at a very important time in their lives.
You and the hubbie “looking the other way” when the Astroglide disappears, is a good thing.
O.
I have often said, that our society not only doesn’t take the Male Mating Mind and attendant Sexuality seriously,
Perhaps the largest issue is that young marriage is no longer encouraged.
203:
“today, almost every woman has had sex with one of the 20% guys to “scratch that itch”, and so every woman has a direct, tangible, experienced comparison to their subsequently less sexually attractive husband — which leads to a more intense sense of dissatisfaction than simply an unfulfilled longing does.”
There are certain female bloggers who will disagree vehemently with this. That said, this cannot be stressed enough. EMK’s girls are likely to be women who are quite sexually experienced. If such a woman has had sex with four or five (or 10) men before you, somewhere in there is a guy she found very very attractive. Somewhere in there is a guy who pushed all her attraction triggers. Somewhere in there is her Goldilocks guy (“this one is JUUUUUUST right!”). Don’t for a minute think she doesn’t remember that guy or the experiences. She most certainly does. She won’t forget them easily, if she ever does. She will always compare you to them; she’ll always weigh you in the scales and you’ll always be found wanting, so to speak.
@Deti:
“There are certain female bloggers who will disagree vehemently with this. That said, this cannot be stressed enough. EMK’s girls are likely to be women who are quite sexually experienced. If such a woman has had sex with four or five (or 10) men before you, somewhere in there is a guy she found very very attractive. Somewhere in there is a guy who pushed all her attraction triggers. Somewhere in there is her Goldilocks guy (“this one is JUUUUUUST right!”). Don’t for a minute think she doesn’t remember that guy or the experiences. She most certainly does. She won’t forget them easily, if she ever does. She will always compare you to them; she’ll always weigh you in the scales and you’ll always be found wanting, so to speak.”
O: Of course, the solution to this issue, on the Guy’s End of things, is to build his sexual skills to a premium level – and give her an experience she’ll not soon forget. It CAN be done.
I’m Living Proof of that…yes, that’s a humble brag…
O.
There are certain female bloggers who will disagree vehemently with this.
Deti,
What exactly is their position on it?
O: Of course, the solution to this issue, on the Guy’s End of things, is to build his sexual skills to a premium level – and give her an experience she’ll not soon forget. It CAN be done.
Oh, of course. It certainly can be done. But if you succeed at doing that, you’re unlikely to be marrying one of Katz’s clients. No need. By definition, the men they end up with will not be like that, because men with the options that these kinds of skills create are not going to go for those women. So, the problem remains for the guys these kinds of women actually end up marrying at that age.
Now, if you are one of the guys who does marry one of his clients, after you are married, you can (and should) do what you can to improve in that area, for your own self-protection as much as anything else. But that presumes an interest in learning about this (because if you knew about it already and were already like that you would not, again, marry one of those but someone else with less track record — because you can).
@290
“….she’ll always weigh you in the scales and you’ll always be found wanting, so to speak.”
Which is why the older ones have so very little value and aren’t worth the effort. You don’t serve leftovers on fine china and try to pass ‘em off as fresh.
FWIW, I’m going to play devil’s advocate and say EMK isn’t all bad. The fact of the matter is he does try to mix in just a bit of straight talk reality, but I suspect there is a combination of having to walk a fine line plus being a “true believer” in certain UMC liberal tropes.
If you go read his last two posts, you will see at least some aspects of his thinking which are surely not 100% blue-pill orthodoxy. Still, he will say something and then immediately try to walk it back or hedge it….here is a good example.
http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/dating-tips-advice/how-do-i-know-if-im-ready-for-a-relationship/
A more confident man is going to find a girlfriend who makes him feel more important – just as you did when you left your husband.
As always, this isn’t a black and white thing: I’m sure there are some alphas who think having a self-centered partner is kind of hot; after all, what’s more attractive than a woman with passion and purpose?
Some garbled contradiction here but at least the first clause is on point
The problem is that he doesn’t get much out of your goals and dreams and hobbies. You can make the argument that he gets a happier girlfriend, but again, what’s the value of a happy girlfriend if she’s theoretically busy 60 hours a week or 5 nights out of 7 You didn’t like being married to a man like this, so why would a man want to be with a woman like this?
I think this is on the mark as well.
My sense is first and foremost he is a businessman. He has chosen a difficult mission that nonetheless is likely very profitable. These UMC SIW types likely can afford to shell out a lot of dough for the person who theoretically will land them their very own “high quality courting beta provider”. As Nova as indicated, this is difficult because most certainly the majority of never married women by 35 have something majorly wrong. I’ve got one in my family. On paper, looks good, and physically I’d say attractive, but personality and mental wise she is a basket case.
Some will often point out that sociopathy is much more prevalent in men. I don’t doubt this is true. But for example, neuroticism is much more prevalent in women. And this is something that can be hidden for a small time. It certainly won’t come out in a dating profile, it is hard to detect in online discourse although some will eventually give away what a neurotic basket case they are. I’d bet my last dollar that a large percentage of these older never married types score off the charts in neuroticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Neuroticism
Obsidian,
To add to Novaseeker’s response, there is no substitute for experience. Book learning can only take you so far. After that, may I refer you to Joseph Heller’s novel about B-25s?
In my life, it has been just another club to beat me with.
It could be that Roosh is right. All we are is entertaining clowns.
@ 262
Well Obs I don’t hide the fact I am a purveyor of fine performance enhancement products. 2 or 3 times a year someone I know will ask for Viagra and something to keep them from busting a nut. These are normally guys who have a new girl they think they will bang and want to make sure they lay it down like she has never seen. a girl above what they normally pull. Like if he pulls 6’s and has an 8 lined up. I am assuming because he thinks she will walk if he doesn’t put in some kind of Olympic level sexual performance. This screams beta to me…. or someone totally lacking in confidence and or experience. And more importantly she is there for you. Otherwise you step into her frame and whatever odd issues she has about getting off is on her, not the man. All beta ish traits and mindset. Anyrate, I would suspect low t as well but these are guys who jump out of planes and what not for a living, are in decent shape, under 30 usually. Nothing about their life suggest they lack juice
I’m anti jerking it myself. Seems like surrender
@276
Yep. emk is part of the FI. As such he doesn’t have the best interests of men in mind. He is literally the enemy, as much as any feminists that wants a man to totally submit his best interests to those of women
@282, giving a shit about it is beta. dump that bitch, bang 10 more. If you are worried about her fuck phantoms she isn’t worth investing in or worrying about
@fuzzie,
No doubt what Roosh says is on it. But he also says to get experienced by bedding down some sub-6 chicks. Get with v dine 4s and 5s. Trust me a lot of them.don’t get soaked a lot and will greatly v appreciate some good wood. In fact they will bee more down to get busy than the finer jawns. Many of them just lay there thinking all they got to t do is sore up. Being a not plain Jane can and often does Humble a woman. She will be more apt to please more submissive etc.
You get out there fuzz. Gotta make some approaches. Gotta talk to women v with purpose of mounting them. They need to know b you trying to smash like the hulk.
O.
@ Obsidian
Of course, the solution to this issue, on the Guy’s End of things, is to build his sexual skills to a premium level – and give her an experience she’ll not soon forget.
It’s been said that if a woman finds a man hot enough, he can merely breathe on her throat or wrist or similar erogenous zone and she’ll shiver with pleasure. This
is true. If I told you how I know, I’d have to kill you.
Oh, and moms are the worst c0ckblockers. They are sure that all women are sluts or golddiggers.
Oh, and young girls need their massage devices–for aching shoulders, you understand. Plausible deniability.
@ASD,
Oh no doubt; but that’s what separates the buckies from the pros-generating attraction. Trust me I done had plenty of v written day that weren’t attracted to me like that while they heels pointing to the sky LOL.
A good seducer creates his own shot just a good b-.baller on the court. Sure he can be slowed down somewhat bit you’ll never stop him completely. Same thing applies to knocking boots.
O.
OT Women’s shenanigans
I think that a woman I know is trying to game me. She’s married and has met my wife. Good dancer and in my social circle. Doesn’t seem to be a rounder (that’s “town bike” for those across the pond). We have chemistry ™ and dance together a lot. We were dancing cowboy cha-cha and she snurggled right up to my side. (Dontcha lurve that word “snurggled”?) Normally, people dance with a bit of daylight between them. However, she was tight from shoulder to hip under my arm against my side. It felt really nice and I dinna want the dance to end. Hmmm. This was a romantic/emotional venture, not sexual flirting. Not cricket nor Marquis of Queensbury nor according to Hoyle. Strictly speaking, I have no right to complain, though, since she has plausible deniability that it was just dance floor chemistry. Still, I’m pretty sure what her purpose was. Time to have The Chat ™.
O is right the woman with the greatest resistance to you will be your biggest fan after you take her to the woodshed and break her. I never stay with a woman I can’t break (sexually). Good Game gets your foot in the door, Good Wood closes the deal…
PS it always amazes me to see the look on woman’s face that didn’t think you were s**t when she relizes she way out of her league …lol
@Keith,
Exactly. Women don’t.know what they v want a lot.of the time anyway and they want three man to lead. Do that and she will love you for it.
My best seductions were when the lady completely misunderestimated me heh heh. Trust many a guy have wondered how I got with this our that gal..heh heh…its all in knowing and understanding the female mating mind which longs for dominance. You bring that and you’ll have a friend for life.
O.
the woman with the greatest resistance to you will be your biggest fan after you take her to the woodshed and break her.
Why that sounds much like rape.
Except when it isn’t.
@297
That’s assuming such a man can. There in lies the conundrum, good sir. If said men were able to “bang 10 more”, they wouldn’t be worried about the situation to begin with. I applaud your ability do accomplish this feat, but the fact of the matter is simply put … easier said then done. A hefty majority of men won’t even get up to double digit N, let alone whatever number you and others of your ilk are able to. The amount of work it would take to reach said heights is stratosphereicly high and there are no guarantees.
I’m not condemning in any way, but pointing out the glaring fact that a lot of men, especially those in the younger crowd, won’t be able to accomplish a swordsman level or even make it to double digits. Regardless of want, one must have the drive to succeed. Without drive, apathy sets in. Apathy leads to the current state.
The reason I bring this up is because the idsue is deeply personal to me. I have friends that lurk here who know my personal story, so I won’t share it to preserve anonymity. The whole ” just get another girl” is so foreign do these groups it is hard to even comprehend. Not because of oneitis, although that can be a contributing factor, but because of the belief that they can’t beat out the competition. Whether the competition is currently in-house or a fuck phantom. It causes a lot of resentment and bitterness. I’m not one to chide their emotions, hell I took the red pill 2 years ago and I’m still in that same boat. I can’t pull them out nor can any other men, in spite of effort put forth. The sad fact remains, the only group that can save these men are their young female counterparts. And we all know they are just chomping at the bit for that opportunity. /sarcasm
This was a shit load to read, most likely. But, considering the group I know, EMKs clients should be thankful everyday for what they have. If possible, these guys would love to be in their position.
I should add I am slowly introducing them to the red pill. I am by no means a coach, as I struggle at times myself, but I can explain the concepts well enough. Hence why I brought them to this site, so others more experienced than I can expound on said teachings. Carry on all.
Obsidian at 298,
Thank you for the kind words. I did try that after being on the internet for a little while. That failed too.
Nekros at 305,
That was painful to read. You and your buddies deserve better. While there is a lot of talk about “real men”, not a word is said about “real women”. Good women do not get off on being cruel to men.
“All SIW carousel riders are porn stars. ”
– What does SIW mean?
Most humans are not hyper sexual or highly promiscuous so I reckon carousel riders are an extreme minority, even in your Western Civilization.
“As a bit of trivia .. Do you know the leading cause of divorce in america? Marriage (i.e. heartache central)”
– Yeah. The nature of my career is such that I am sometimes in a position where people ask “relationship advice” of me and I NEVER recommend marriage to Americans. I recommend it in certain other countries, but not here.
Are you familiar with something called Human Bio Diversity? Anyway, my opinion is that certain populations of humans evolved to not be cut out for marriage and solid family ties. No amount of religion or socialization is going to change that for long. For a period of time, an era or two, perhaps, but they will eventually revert back to their natural non-married, isolated and individualistic states.
It is what it is. Don’t fight it.
SIW = Strong Independent Woman
Now pipe down, pumpkin. The grown-ups are talking.
You get out there fuzz. Gotta make some approaches. Gotta talk to women v with purpose of mounting them. They need to know b you trying to smash like the hulk.
It would seem that he is a gentle bear, and not so hulk like.
And modern chicks need their tingles.
Society pays an awful price due to the pursuit of tingles.
Now pipe down, pumpkin
Does she turn into a horse drawn carriage at midnight?
Honeycomb, a great example of that Human Bio Diversity thing I talk about above with certain populations of human beings evolved toward human bonding, interconnectedness, marriage, family, community, and other populations evolved toward isolation and individualism is comment number 217 which I copy below for you;
“A single adult man with no dependents doesn’t have to take care of Mom and Dad. He can move far away and never see them again if he wants to. All he needs is a sparsely furnished apartment with water and heat, basic transportation, a cell phone, a laptop, an internet connection, a little beer money, and a steady income to cover those expenses. That costs maybe $2000 a month.
A guy in that situation can still get laid once a month. He will get “lucky” now and then; might even get a GF every so often. If he can’t, then there’s porn. Most guys don’t know much else, to be honest – they don’t get laid often, so getting older and still not getting laid all that often is no different from what they’re accustomed to already.”
An era or two, and then a reversion back to their natural tendency toward isolation, only in a hi-tech way.
“Human Bio Diversity” is natural state
Feminism / mainstream culture and its problems are all structured and imposed.
Though, of course Human Bio Diversity wouldnt end up forming monogamy or civilization – these were all imposed too.
“Though, of course Human Bio Diversity wouldnt end up forming monogamy or civilization – these were all imposed too.”
HBD means different human population groups evolved in diverse ways in adaptation to their natural ancestral environments. Culture is an outgrowth of environment.
Certain groups are not genetically predisposed toward marriage and family because they are not predisposed to human interconnectedness. Their evolutionary tendency is toward isolation and individualism. Later, religion and outside cultural influences from family oriented population groups may compel them to marry and give the oddly named so called “nuclear family” a go, and it may appear to work for sometime, but at the first gap they will revert back to individualism.
Plain Jane at 308,
“All SIWcarousel riders are porn stars.”
It was a dig and should read as
“All strong independent women carousel riders consider themselves to be porn stars regardless of sexual ability.”
SIW and SIM are modern descendents of the population groups that biologically evolved with a tendency toward individualism and isolation as opposed to human bonding, interconnectedness and family.
@316
No.
The SIs you refer to are the result of technological developments and societies that found a way to far produce in excess of need. It’s a curse of abundance not biology. If the entire planet had western standards of living all the same problems would manifest just in different costumes.
PJ, I have a hard time believing that. Leaving out that HBD could be misconstrued as a justification for racism, you don’t take into account that women have a choice in the matter. They can go all SIW, lane change, or early marriage route. Men have no choice but to be independent. Anything but will be shamed from both sides of the fence.
Farm Boy at 310,
“Society pays an awful price for tingles.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zofga33W4tI
i do have to wonder how long it took to clean up after this.
SIW and SIM are modern descendents of the population groups that biologically evolved with a tendency toward individualism and isolation as opposed to human bonding, interconnectedness and family.
No. The basis is that we were the ones who figured out how to lift most of our folks out of the kind of abject poverty that plagues your society. With that kind of abundance comes tendencies toward individualism. With poverty, comes tendencies towards family because of dependencies. Your idealization of South Asia is, and always has been, criminal in its rank stupidity.
@320
Adding…
Only with a healthy respect for individualism does a society get to create the wealth in question. Collectivist rigid class/caste oriented societies haven’t done as well because individual mobility in those societies is severely limited.
“The SIs you refer to are the result of technological developments and societies that found a way to far produce in excess of need. It’s a curse of abundance not biology. If the entire planet had western standards of living all the same problems would manifest just in different costumes.”
– I used to think the same thing but research into natural selection, evolutionary biology, genetics, history and cultural anthropology has made me think differently.
Think might be the wrong word for it.
@fuzzie,
Online dating is a turmeric for the vast majority of men for reasons ill explain in an upcoming post so stay tuned. In the meantime though, you go out and get social. You gotta mix it.up. there are women out there in droves even in places you wouldn’t think at first. And again to get the experience you need u you. Should be gunning for slot of 3s, 4s and 5s. Trust me when I tell you they starved for attn and sex. Because they don’t come.often. Roosh had written a lot about this, hit him up. And he’s right.
If you tell me your social routine I can tell you what’s going on and how to fix it.
O.
“Online dating is a turmeric for the vast majority of men ”
A turmeric? What do you think turmeric is?
“And again to get the experience you need u you. Should be gunning for slot of 3s, 4s and 5s. Trust me when I tell you they starved for attn and sex. ”
Sex? I thought Fuzzie was a Christian committed to staying virgin til marriage.
Anyway Fuzzie, where are you? I’ll go on a date with you if your city is on my fall or winter tour.
@plain jane,
What’s do you do for a living? Also I don’t recall fuzzir discussing his theological beliefs if he had any at all. I don’t see it as relevant unless he has brought up himself.
O.
@plain jane,
Whoops my bad, I’m swyping from.my smartphone and it goes on auto spell a lot. What I meant to say was that for most men.Online dating is a timesuck for most men for reasons ok cupid had explained some time back. His just have to know how to work around that is all. It is nowhere near as hard at it.sounds.
O.
@ 305
Nekros you made my point, the maneuver of a beta mindset.
I’d rather help betas alpha the fuck up instead of build a better beta.
and when I tell a man to man the fuck up, I don’t mean it like matt walsh or emk. I mean for him to grab his man parts and be the baddest and best motor-scooter he can be. At everything he sets his hand to
I’ve been girls best and worst lays. Been on the wrong side of alpha widowhood, and made alpha widows. The girls who though I suck in bed got the same game as the girls who said I am amazing and still hit me up. Hell I have been a girls best and worst lay within hours of each event and the changing of her mind and perceptive. Your position is all wrong my friend. Don’t give these bitches and the men who banged them before you, that much room in your life and head. Have more respect for yourself. I don’t say any of this to dog you or betas out. Fuck man, if I could, I’d take all the motivated-betas on the interwebz under my wings at Camp Ton. This shit isn’t complex from the masculine perceptive. Fuck phantoms are as much about the emotional roller coaster a man takes a woman on before she spreads her legs as it is about how well you laid it down. When you are battling fuck phantoms, you are not going up against objective and measurable criteria, like how many times she got off, or how long you lasted. It is purely subjective, based on her perception of more stimuli then we as men can imagine. Girls with fuck phantoms are not the girl you want to keep around for any length of time. Its damn hard to overcome and almost always leads to an unsatisfying long term experience.
So #1 a man can dump that bitch and bang 10 more. just the act of dumping her sets you up better for the next. It is going to be hard work, especially for the 1st 2 years, but there is no reason why the average dude cannot bang 10 new chicks in 2 years, and use that experience to pull a better chick, better in looks, emotional health and attitude then he pulled on chick #1
As tough as it would be, I think banging 10 new chicks is easier then trying to fix or over come some random chicks fuck phantoms/ alpha widowhood. Been there, done that, wasn’t worth the effort
@ Ton
Fuck phantoms are as much about the emotional roller coaster a man takes a woman on before she spreads her legs as it is about how well you laid it down.
This is why I always run pickup Game on Mrs. Gamer. It gets her In The Mood ™. Really, if we aren’t fighting, the only problem is logistics. She usually makes logistical changes to give us time for Fun and Games ™. Sometimes F&G slides for a few hours because of logistics.
There are certain female bloggers who will disagree vehemently with this.
@ Farm Boy:
“What exactly is their position on it?”
Farm Boy, you were asking me about this statement by Nova:
“today, almost every woman has had sex with one of the 20% guys to “scratch that itch”,
I agree with this. Some female bloggers don’t. Their position on this is that the only women who have had sex with those promiscuous top 20% are the most promiscuous 20% of females. The argument is a combination of (1) most women don’t want promiscuous men for long term relationships or marriage; (2) the math doesn’t work out for most women having sex with the top 20% at least once or twice in their lives; (3) it doesn’t line up with female self reporting of sexual partners and, the argument goes, the studies on this have good controls and are reliable; and (4) most women have a restricted sexual bent, meaning they don’t have a lot of casual sex, if they have it at all.
I disagree with this very much for a lot of reasons. First, the notion that only the sluttiest 20% of women has sex with the top 20% of men is totally incongruent with what we’ve seen every day. It just does not line up at all with observational and anecdotal evidence and experience. Not in the least. Every man here and all over the ‘sphere has seen women go for the top men and at least occasionally have sex with one of them.
Second, there’s a dual strategy we all know about – AFBB. Even if we accept as true the notion that most women don’t want a so-called “manwhore” for marriage (which I don’t), that has nothing to do with most women’s willingness to sleep with that hot guy for the short term.
Third (and this goes to 2 and 3) it is definitely mathematically possible for a top guy to sleep with 10 women below him in SMV, even have STRs with them in serial fashion. It’s not that difficult to envision a situation in which this occurs. And, scientific “evidence” based solely on asking about sexual histories and what a woman would do in a given situation is inherently unreliable. We all know: men fudge their numbers up; women fudge theirs down. So I put very little stock in arguments premised on evidence gleaned from asking people about their sexual histories and their projected hypothetical responses.
Fourth, even if we accept as true that women are “restricted” and thus not inclined to casual sex, that doesn’t mean a woman won’t have casual sex if the man, the time, the circumstances and the lack of judgment are optimal and in place. I’ve known plenty of “good girls” who would shake plaster off the walls with the right guy. I’ve known plenty of nice Church girls who jump at the chance for sex with the hawt guy. I’ve known a few wives who’ve cheated so long as the guy was right. So this notion that “restricted” inclination means a girl will not have casual sex, or won’t have casual sex with a top man, is simply ridiculous.
By the way, most women don’t marry the top 20% of men (the so-called “manwhores”) because those women cannot marry those men. It isn’t because they do not want to. They don’t marry those top 20% because those men don’t propose marriage to most women. Indeed – those men really don’t need to marry to secure sex (though a lot of them do marry, and not to the women who are giving them sex left and right).
Most women really don’t care one way or the other about a man’s N. And his N isn’t going to be a factor in any decision points about the relationship, really, including how to respond to a hypothetical marriage proposal.
“today, almost every woman has had sex with one of the 20% guys to “scratch that itch”,
I agree with this. Some female bloggers don’t. Their position on this is that the only women who have had sex with those promiscuous top 20% are the most promiscuous 20% of females.”
Not a female blogger, but I disagree. Not for the reasons you cited, I disagree because I think it’s a false dichotomy and there exists a huge middle ground between “almost every woman” and “only the most promiscuous 20 percent”. Reality is probably somewhere in there, but it’s not at either extreme (only my opinion, of course).
Liz:
CDC reports for women: median number of lifetime sex partners is 3.6.
I’m not sure I agree with that number, but we’ll go with it. Let’s assume before she gets married, a woman has had 3 sex partners. Somewhere in there is a man she really, really, REALLY wanted to have sex with. It’s a pretty good bet that at least one of those guys is a top 20% guy.
‘
In this day and age, and for the past 30 years or so, most women across all demographics have had premarital sex. They’re not in the habit of giving it up to just any old guy who comes along. They save it for the really, really sexually desirable ones. They’re wired to do it this way.
The point is that if the typical woman with 3 premarital sex partners is having sex, it’s not likely to be with Ernie Engineer or Paul Plumber or Billy Beta. It’s far more likely to be with Alpha McGorgeous, Fuckbuddy Rockbanddrummer, and Harley McBadboy.
WRT “restricted,” it’s a term that describes an inclination, more than an actual law. A restricted girl has a higher threshold for engaging in casual relations than an unrestricted girl, not an absolute disgust of it. Such girls, and similar boys, are extremely rare: there may be only a handful of these Lancelots in the whole world, perhaps all sharing common genes with Ted….
On that website you describe, a study was cited that still showed something like between 1 in 10 and in 1 in 6 restricted girls engaging in some casual physical relationship in the past year. They still do it, they just don’t do it anywhere near as often, because they aren’t as comfortable with throwing themselves out there.
Note that this actually means you might get a different selection of guys. Restricted girls might be more likely to “recycle”: they’ll call up an ex-boyfriend to “hang out,” or maybe something will “happen” during a holiday break (because keeping our pants on is hard for SIW). Doesn’t up the N, still with a guy she’s comfortable with, still casual and still increases the S-L-U-T score in my book.
But that also means she’s less likely to run a casual relationship with a top 20% guy. These PRIGs aren’t really going out to bars and hooking up with guys, and if they are, it might strictly stay make-out (doesn’t count). They might still accidentally trip into a bed or two (hidden wires are a noted PUA tactic, after all, one might think a PUA house might resemble the Home Alone mansion, what with all this “accidental tripping,” in the bedroom, in the bathroom, in the kitchen, etc), but they still might do with it a guy that’s not 20%….though still higher than her on the SMV ladder.
How might this work practically….if she isn’t out at the bar, throwing herself at guys, she might try to delay intimacy for a few dates. A SMV 8 or 9 will probably not invest a couple dates worth of effor in a 4 or 5 or even 6 if he has other plates.
Really this restricted 5 ends up in a social circle with a mixture of delta, beta, and greater beta men, who situationally appear AMOG (since this restricted 5 who refuses to throw herself at men is essentially shut out from any scene involving the 8s or 9s.) Eventually, as she has the observational skill of Stevie Wonder, she trips on the wire this caniving beta lies out under her bed, and her N increases by a N with a Beta guy with a little natural charm and some decent looks (perhaps after alcohol numbs his natural fear of escalation, while granting a +100 bonus to Lay Tripwire).
Basically, while I think we’re still talking about the hawt guys cleaning up, the lower-SMV, restricted-type girls, might still be hooking up, and certainly are engaging in some casual, but it may not be with a top 20% guy.
@ Deti, farmboy
“What exactly is their position on it?”
Surfer, I think.
LOL @ Liz.
I lub you darling ebul Liz but you are banging one of those top 20% dudes so your disagreeing seems silly to me.
@ liz 333
Let’s approach this numerically and analytically. By “women” I mean women 39 and below in age.
Here’s my uneducated guess about what is going on in the SMP/MMP:
10% of women are extremely moral/faithful 0 STR’s and 0-1 LTR’s
(If we consider older women, we find that 50% of women marry and self-report as being faithful. A lot of these married young.)
(Some % of marriageable women marry young and don’t participate much in the SMP. I expect that this will skew the statistics down.)
10% of remainder are fuglies (SMV 1-3) = 0.5 STR’s and 0 LTR’s These women are invisible to men for the most part.
10% of remainder are plain (SMV 4) = 0-1 STR’s and 1-2 LTR’s
86.5% of remainder range from somewhat attractive to pretty (SMV 5-7) =
10+ STR’s and 5+ LTR’s. This is the main hunting ground of alphas.
2% of remainder are very pretty (SMV 8) = 2-3 STR’s and 3-4 LTR’s
1% of remainder are beauties (SMV 9) 1-2 STR’s and 2-3 LTR’s
0.5% of remainder are very beautiful (SMV 10) 0-1 STR’s and 1-2 LTR’s
ADBG – “Such girls, and similar boys, are extremely rare: there may be only a handful of these Lancelots in the whole world, perhaps all sharing common genes with Ted….”
Lol! You are only encouraging me to believe I am a unicorn…
At any rate I pretty much agree with your post. Surly “most” women aren’t riding the carousel full time, but “most” have probably gone around at least once. And of course, to those women it wasn’t a ride on the carousel at all. Because after the deed is done, she remembers “trying to win his heart” while all he was doing is adding another notch to his bed post.
333, 334: CDC says 3.6, Deti says BS, Liz says NAWALT.
The median number is a joke, if we’re talking about women in our cohort. That cohort would be:
Women who can read, use a telephone, and go to the movies. Forget it: 3.6 is accomplished by sophomore year. Maybe even at BYU.
Of course, NAWALT. Liz isn’t. But as we know, Liz isn’t a real woman, she’s a unicorn. If all women were like Liz or Amish girls in their bonnets, there would be no issues in the SMP. (Liz should pay special attention to her man’s maintenance chief; someone might want to take him out with a compressor stall on departure.) And on the Big Rock Candy Mountain, pennies would fall ever-so-lightly from heaven.
***
Ton, advising the younger set, and dispensing chemical aids:
It seems to me, Ton, that all these guys need to learn is Roissy #14, and as you note, it might take a year or two of spring training before our cadets are ready for the big leagues. But being a memorable man is a lot less challenging than many other human endeavors (say, throwing a curve ball or worse, hitting one). And a memorable man will always be invited back. Very few women have experienced Roissy #14 and it’s actually a pretty low bar. If they need something to bump their confidence, what’s to worry.
As a single man in middle age I was shocked at how easy it was to make a difference in a woman’s (secret, denied, I’m not that kind of girl) life. But I concluded: I’m just here to help.
Obsidian at 324,
Thanks for the kind words. I have to do some thinking. I am not a short term guy and I am looking for some companionship too.
After reading Sfcton’s following comment, I need to spend some time scratching my head.
Staying put and staying in may be the wisest course for now.
And for clarification: my definition of “riding the carousel” is having sex with any man you are not in a committed relationship with. Which means to me, if you have ever had casual sex, you are a carousel (or former) rider.
I set the bar pretty high, but I walk the walk. Never had a casual encounter that went further than kissing. All my former partners were from LTRs, the shortest of which lasted 4 years. (My HS girlfriend)
I could have scored at least a few casual hookups, but made the conscious decision NOT to peruse them. Some of it was moral, but most of it is related to my personality and temperament. I’m not trusting enough to ever get naked with a woman I don’t know well. (As in know about her life, not just her last name) I need to feel comfortable with a woman before I can let my guard down enough to “perform”, and usually it takes me a bit more time after I’ve decided it’s a possibility to get comfortable enough to follow through.
@332
“Most women really don’t care one way or the other about a man’s N. ”
Just so long as it’s large enough to induce tingles. But yes women aren’t bothered by large numbers. The loathe small numbers.
@Honeycomb 255:
“When I mentioned my salary .. it was to show what “I” think of as “HI MEANS”…
I think these EMK babes are looking for a bit higher number because at their age that’s all they can do … they are taking / settling for scraps if you recall”.
Ok maybe I misinterpreted. Anyway, I think it’s a high salary of cos, just not crazily-high. I may never make that salary in my lifetime, since I didn’t (and may never) get onto the career-woman track.
Btw Evan’s clients are not all UMC, though many are. Evan’s Readers are certainly not all UMC. (This is a general comment to other readers here, who have a wrong impression of his readers.)
EMK’s clients are not all looking for high-earners. But many of them are because, earning good incomes themselves, and with that old-fashioned desire of women to marry ‘up’ in income, many do want high earners.
Evan actually has told his clients/readers to consider guys who aren’t tall, aren’t successful, etc, as long as they’re good people. At least 80% of the advice I saw him give seems like sound advice to me.
I’m not sure why u seem happy that some of them are struggling relationship-wise. BUT I understand that pple have a need to vent and that’s one way this blog is helpful, so I’ll try to refrain from being the moral police, that’s not my place here, haha.
(Continued)
And although I see sense in a lot of Plain Jain’s comments, I personally don’t agree that men past late 30s have missed the marriage boat. There was a popular EMK thread on ‘Why women in their 30s don’t want to date men in their 40s’, and IMO some of the comments were absurd. But men must have things to show for their time on earth, which sets them apart from the men a decade younger, for eg. Increased maturity, depth, and yes, a safety net of savings.
I guess some people here may derisively say I’m just after ‘beta bucks’ and actually prefer alphas but that’s BS. Anyway when I have a responsible father to my kids and a loving husband and we’re all contented (reasonably contented, I’m not asking for pure unadulterated bliss, lol), well the proof will be in the pudding.
The man I’m currently dating is much older than me and I’m fine with that. So far, I’m preferring him to the 2 bfs last year, who were my age and 8 years older, respectively.
Marriage for men in the US is risky business, but it’s still the best way to bring up kids, and as u get a bit older, u may realise that u really really want kids. Just a few years ago I didn’t want kids, but now I really do.
333, 334: CDC says 3.6, Deti says BS, Liz says NAWALT.
The median number is a joke, if we’re talking about women in our cohort. That cohort would be:
Women who can read, use a telephone, and go to the movies. Forget it: 3.6 is accomplished by sophomore year. Maybe even at BYU.
BV, Deti
My view on this is that the overall population median number even if that is accurate is meaningless. It is akin to putting one foot/lower leg in ice water, and the other in boiling water, and saying “on average” the water is comfortably lukewarm.
I’d bet that when you break it up into meaningful samples, you get higher informational value. I suspect the median of urban versus rural is quite different for example. I’d also bet you get a huge difference by age, for example I’d like to see women born before 1950, then 1950-1970, 1970-1990, and 1990+. I suspect 1950 was the point of crossing the Rubicon when sexual mores shifted dramatically and the technology of birth control changed the consequences of premarital/casual sex.
How might this work practically….if she isn’t out at the bar, throwing herself at guys, she might try to delay intimacy for a few dates. A SMV 8 or 9 will probably not invest a couple dates worth of effor in a 4 or 5 or even 6 if he has other plates.
Really this restricted 5 ends up in a social circle with a mixture of delta, beta, and greater beta men, who situationally appear AMOG (since this restricted 5 who refuses to throw herself at men is essentially shut out from any scene involving the 8s or 9s.) Eventually, as she has the observational skill of Stevie Wonder, she trips on the wire this caniving beta lies out under her bed, and her N increases by a N with a Beta guy with a little natural charm and some decent looks (perhaps after alcohol numbs his natural fear of escalation, while granting a +100 bonus to Lay Tripwire).
Basically, while I think we’re still talking about the hawt guys cleaning up, the lower-SMV, restricted-type girls, might still be hooking up, and certainly are engaging in some casual, but it may not be with a top 20% guy.
ADBG, I think this is spot on right in terms of how this plays out with who.
@ Morpheus
Beta guy with…his natural fear of escalation….
I’m incredulous. Other men have a fear of escalation???! Big news to me! I need more input. Then I need to process what I have learned.
@ bv 340
If all women were like Liz or Amish girls in their bonnets
There may be quite a few of these outlier groups to skew the numbers. That would make each of our experiences seem to contradict averages.
@348
“I’m incredulous. Other men have a fear of escalation???! Big news to me! I need more input.”
Sarcasm?
“There may be quite a few of these outlier groups to skew the numbers. That would make each of our experiences seem to contradict averages.”
Sure among the highly religious mostly. (In the west at least) And of course when a man complains of general female high N the response is “look for a woman from a conservative group” which would be great IF such groups took kindly to outsiders.
Which is why I agree with Morpheus that for the data to be useful it needs to be broken down into sub-categories. I don’t care what the median N is for all woman alive. I’m very much interested in that stat for a subset of all women though.
@ Badpainter
“I’m incredulous. Other men have a fear of escalation???! Big news to me! I need more input.”
Sarcasm?
No, just shows how disconnected I am with betas. Every now and then I find one of these big holes in my social understanding.
@ Morpheus
Beta guy with…his natural fear of escalation….
I’m incredulous. Other men have a fear of escalation???! Big news to me! I need more input. Then I need to process what I have learned.
asd,
I’m not following you at all here….the part you quoted..wasn’t a quote from me.
#349.
First, Liz is sui generis. That’s been amply demonstrated.
Second, their might be 125,000 Amish women of all ages — and they don’t respond to surveys about their sexual behavior.
The CDC is a political, not a scientific entity, at bottom. 3.6/woman is ludicrous.
@ Morpheus
Beta guy with…his natural fear of escalation….
I’m incredulous. Other men have a fear of escalation???! Big news to me! I need more input. Then I need to process what I have learned.
asd,
I’m not following you at all here….the part you quoted..wasn’t a quote from me.
Sorry, I should have attributed that quote to ADBG.
I thought a little more about my question. If betas pedestalize women generally, and I think that they do, then it makes sense that they would be inhibited from escalating.
Certain groups are not genetically predisposed toward marriage and family because they are not predisposed to human interconnectedness. Their evolutionary tendency is toward isolation and individualism. Later, religion and outside cultural influences from family oriented population groups may compel them to marry and give the oddly named so called “nuclear family” a go, and it may appear to work for sometime, but at the first gap they will revert back to individualism.
Perhaps the most laughably ridiculous thing you have ever written on any of these blogs, to be honest.
Western civilization was based on family life for thousands of years. Romans, barbarians, same. Family life. Not individualism. Individualism is a meme that entered Western civilization with the Protestant Reformation, and which was exacerbated by the Enlightenment. It is not a reversion to a bio-cultural mean for Western populations — there is no history at all to support that ridiculous claim.
@355
“If betas pedestalize women generally, and I think that they do, then it makes sense that they would be inhibited from escalating.”
In part this is true. Now speaking only for myself the biggest component is the punishment that attends a failed attempt to escalate.
1. Another failure. Rejection and embarrassment.
2. Women talk so there are follow on effects. Too many failures you’ve poisoned your social circle, and become a walking joke.
3. When I was younger if any of that made back to my parents there was further punishment. Not for failing but for even attempting. Since my mother was likely trained by the Stasi there was always the suspicion, despite a lack of evidence, that I was actively trying to impregnate the entire high school.
4. Since I was taught NO means NO, and not “try that again differently” or some other LMR, any resistance seemed to be simple rejection. So I need clear unambiguous signals of permission to proceed.
5. Given all of that, and cultural messaging that all men are pigs eventually any attempt to escalate become any exercise in anxiety because the conditioning of the past coupled with past rejection puts me in the position of punishing myself.
6. I can never really enjoy success, because of what I have to do to succeed. So the prize is always tainted with shame and regret.
At any rate I pretty much agree with your post. Surly “most” women aren’t riding the carousel full time, but “most” have probably gone around at least once. And of course, to those women it wasn’t a ride on the carousel at all. Because after the deed is done, she remembers “trying to win his heart” while all he was doing is adding another notch to his bed post.
Yes, that was exactly my point. I wasn’t suggesting that most women are promiscuous, but rather that most women have taken at least one ride on a top 20% guy at some stage if they are the type who are marrying at the appointed time of 26-30ish. Not all women, but of the women who can, it’s an overwhelming majority of them.
“If betas pedestalize women generally, and I think that they do, then it makes sense that they would be inhibited from escalating.”
Man you’re funny. Yes, of course betas are inhibited from escalating. Also inhibited from anything that requires taking the first step / leading, but sex has a special inhibitor multiplier to it.
Look at it this way. In nature if you hit on a woman that means fighting the alpha who owns her. Betas feel they are going to be punished by a greater force if they hit on women above their hieararchy. Add all the social layers of “Im a man therefore Im scary and I suck” that betas build their personas on top (because betas try to adapt to the norm instead of bending the norm so they adapt to themselves like alphas do) and, well, yeah, duh.
If a beta gets laid either the girl confused him for an alpha, or he’s a situational alpha without realizing it, or the girl is using him for bucks, or using him in another way. The beta still prefers the girl takes initiative and leads and is very clear and acts as a captain and only pushes things as long as she’s comfortable. Which is the kiss of death, of course.
Badpainter 357, that.
but rather that most women have taken at least one ride on a top 20% guy at some stage
All that it makes is five minutes.
Ruin is almost assured
“most women have taken at least one ride on a top 20% guy at some stage if they are the type who are marrying at the appointed time of 26-30ish. Not all women, but of the women who can, it’s an overwhelming majority of them.”
Yes, precisely. Even looking at a so-called “median” of 3.6 partners, it’s a really, really good bet that at least one of those guys is a top 20 percenter. That’s one of the points I was trying to make with amplifying and explaining what you’d said earlier.
It doesn’t mean that the guys in the big middle 60% are getting nothing. It just means they’re getting a lot less, and less frequently, and with much more effort.
I wouldn’t necessarily limit it to the kind marrying at 26-30ish. Some of those girls are also giving it to a top 20 percenter, though probably not as many as the girls who are taking their time to get to the “ready for marriage” stage.
*takes instead of makes
“It doesn’t mean that the guys in the big middle 60% are getting nothing. It just means they’re getting a lot less, and less frequently, and with much more effort.”
Not to mention the fact that those 60% guys have to deal with fuck phantoms down the road with the 60% women they partner with. Every man wants to be his women’s best sex, regardless of IF they should care at all.
And that may be worse than getting very little. When those women “come to their senses” and find a “nice guy” to partner with, it’s highly likely that guy doesn’t have a shot at being her best.
“When those women “come to their senses” and find a “nice guy” to partner with, it’s highly likely that guy doesn’t have a shot at being her best.”
Skills can be learned.
By the way, are RoJ links put on lock out here?
I am way behind on comments but wanted to say fuzzie you know what the source says on sex in marriage. Except for short periods of time by mutual agreement neither spouse is to deny the other but to give themselves freely. Of course as bb and bv say, it’s both much more complex and yet as simple as that.
Bloom,
I am glad you agree with the source. For a lot of Churchians, it’s as if she owns the faucet and she turn the tap as she chooses. It makes for unhappy people like Jf12.
Missed you, Bloom!
“THIS! I will never again accept a relationship where my mate has to somehow talk herself into having sex with me. Or one that requires me to perform some chores or duty for sex. Not. Happening.”
Welcome back Ted D.
Why did you ex wife have to “talk herself into having sex” with you?
Plain Jane,
While I can’t answer for TedD specifically, a lot of modern women have made sex in marriage transactional and/or conditional. In the long run, this doesn’t work out too well.
In a comment on his blog, Dalrock talked about how this is obvious, even to his kids. “Daddy, you and Mommy talk to each other. Look at all the other couples in the restaurant. They’re not even looking at each other.”
@ fuzzie how churches can miss what’s pretty plainly right there is what i wonder. Let’s look at it:
1 Corinthians 7:1-9English Standard Version (ESV)
Principles for Marriage
7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Missed you too fuzzie!
“Plain Jane,
While I can’t answer for TedD specifically, a lot of modern women have made sex in marriage transactional and/or conditional. In the long run, this doesn’t work out too well.
In a comment on his blog, Dalrock talked about how this is obvious, even to his kids. “Daddy, you and Mommy talk to each other. Look at all the other couples in the restaurant. They’re not even looking at each other.”
Thanks Fez but Ted is the best answerer to questions posed to him. Nonetheless I don’t see what couples not talking or not looking at each other in restaurants have to “modern women have made sex in marriage transactional and/or conditional.”
Now get in the kitchen and make me a paratha. And don’t forget the achar. You ALWAYS forget the achar.
it’s as if she owns the faucet and she turn the tap as she chooses.
The law of the land says so
Bloom,
I always thought it was 1 Corithians 5 but, it is good that you know it. Over at another blog, there was a married woman commenters who kept reminding us that this saw cut both ways.
So, essentially:
Yep. And yes, Betas, the middle 60%, whatever, do form some LTRs and do get some action, which does show that there are a lot of Betas out there who do “show” Alpha (sometimes), and a large number of women are effectively shut out of any sort of interaction with “real” Alpha.
Her only way to get an actual Alpha would be upping her S-L-U-T persona dramatically, which most girls aren’t going to do, so their casual experience is going to be with situational alphas who aren’t actually in the top 20%. But that’s a little bit of guess. Anecdotally though? Even Ted has some girls throwing himself at him back when he was in a rock band, and he’s about as restricted Beta as you can get (no offense meant Ted! I’m pretty much the same way and turned down some girls in the past, too).
Your typical PRIG (Plain, restricted, Introvert Girl) might think herself pretty moral and disadvantaged. What SHE sees are Apex Alphas who get whatever they want, and if she doesn’t put out quickly, she can’t even get a shot. Plus, she isn’t actually attractive enough to land one of those guys for the long-term, so she’s really just an ugly girl (and guys are obviously superficial for ignoring her awesome personality anyways).
Not to mention, guys have it so easy. Even the Omegas get laid! I know because this one fat guy got laid once back in 2007. Even Omegas get laid, you see, so a nice, plain, restricted, introverted girl, really has no chance in this cuh-wazzzzzyyyyyy SMP.
So, over the course of a few years, she might have a LTR or two, and then a couple dates, and then some crazy make-outs now and then, and hooks up with her ex on weekends sometimes when she has that itch. She wont’ recognize this behavior as carousel riding, because she’s not in clubs and not having ONS.
She is also blind to her priviliege, because she’s stuck in a stream of Betas trying to supplicate to her, who don’t have a chance because they are Betas. She views the Beta accidentally showing as Alpha as “winning her over,” which she confuses with chemistry and true love, and she’s stuck hooking up with exes when she’s horny.
Of course, none of what I am saying is NEW. I am only pushing back on the “every girl sleeps with a guy in the 20%” narrative a bit. That’s very specific. On these specific points, the Blue-Pill folk push back and think they have disproven everything we say, and then go back to pedalling their own nonsense. My point is that what we see today, even with Betas scoring on occassion, is 100% compatible with our understanding of the Red Pill (with some adjustments).
Practically everything we know suggests that, at a macro-level, we need to raise the status of masculinity and allow it to flourish. That’s regardless of how many Beta marriages in the UMC stay stable.
“She views the Beta accidentally showing as Alpha as “winning her over,” which she confuses with chemistry and true love”
Beautifully put.
Your typical PRIG (Plain, restricted, Introvert Girl) might think herself pretty moral and disadvantaged.
New acronym. I like it! FWIW, just as INTJs are perhaps overrepresented online relative to the overall population, I suspect the same is true that online discussion is primarily women forums is dominated by PRIGs perhaps overwhelmingly. HUEs (women) (hot, unrestricted, extrovert) don’t spend time posting on blogs.
Of course, none of what I am saying is NEW. I am only pushing back on the “every girl sleeps with a guy in the 20%” narrative a bit. That’s very specific. On these specific points, the Blue-Pill folk push back and think they have disproven everything we say, and then go back to pedalling their own nonsense.
You’ve got a good point, and I think we do ourselves a disservice when we make blanket statements that overreach. The fact of the matter is “top” guys and let’s just call that SMV 8-9 don’t target PRIGs for ST casual. They are going to require too much effort for too little reward. Even when top guys “slum it” a bit for purely low investment ST casual there is going to be a “floor” around the 6 level. The plain girls are not going to even be on the radar. So it is kind of ridiculous and detracts from red pill credibility to insist that ALL women have had sex with a top guy (say 10-20%).
“So it is kind of ridiculous and detracts from red pill credibility to insist that ALL women have had sex with a top guy (say 10-20%)”
NAWALT solves that
Girls are still going to enter social circles where they have a chance of competing for the top 20% males of that circles, and then have sex with them.
A bunch of random plain girls came to my circle all the time and tried to hook up (flirted). Two months later they are doing the same in a lower SMP circle, rinse and repeat till they can catch the top 20% male of the circle they are in. That guy is still below me but the sole reason she’s got him is because of his situational hierarchy. Numbers dont change.
Of course the guy will not measure up to the 20% guys of the immediate social circles around her so he’s dumped. Welcome to the chasing cock carousel.
To elaborate more on that point.
Number one advice from woman to woman on how to find a boyfriend is “do yourself first, be yourself, be happy with your life, and then you’ll find a boyfriend”
What this does to the woman is she stops moving from circle to circle chasing cock and getting exposed to hundreds of different variables – she picks a social circle and stabilizes. THEN it’s obvious who the top 20% men are. Note, who the top 20% men are and how likely she is to get them plays a main factor on how she chose this social circle. Then, she hooks up with the guy, or sluts it up, for fun, because “she’s just doing herself” and after some time she makes the guy into a relationship by providing with an ultimatum or creating jealousy plots.
If the guy interrupts this play by being too proactive and chasing her, she’ll probably feel something is not right (hint, he’s beta) and hit on the next hot dude on that circle, or chance social circles again altogether “she found herself again” rinse and repeat.
As soon as she gets her man she’ll isolate him from the group to reduce female competition. That’s where the guy is probably going to get screwed because without the group he’s not longer a top 20% but just a guy. When he becomes just a guy, she loses interest and starts wanting “more” to scratch that weird new itch. Then of course the more the guy tries the less cool he is – dump him and go back to “finding herself” AKA become available for a true top 20% dude. Rinse and repeat.
All sex with a non 20% is either rape or prostitution
Not exaggerating: I cannot recall when I last met a true PRIG (who wasn’t married, though marriage rules seem to matter less to PRIGs around about 35).
It’s easy to meet pretend-PRIGs. They’re everywhere. Their pose of being restricted, whether they are introverted or extroverted, breaks like a matchstick if challenged. They’re accustomed to men tiptoeing around their special moral flower self-conception. In this respect a PRIGs entire self-presentation is shit-test.
Example follows. So I don’t believe there is any such thing as a plain, restricted, introverted girl who walks the talk. It’s more just social positioning in search of the opposite. Which is fine, I’m sure I have my annoying self-delusions, too. But let’s not forget what mainstream society presents as aspirational in, say, the checkout line at the supermarket: the sex lives of celebrities. PRIGs buy those mags, they buy 50 Shades, they buy EPL. They don’t buy these things for abstract research purposes.
Good Catholic Girl: Wow, those thoughts are giving me a nice glow this morning. Looking 10 years younger!
Man: Good morning, back.
GCG:Weary epic legs and all, the thoughts were sensual and delicious and I slept like a baby. Ima GCG, can’t go into details in text, so I will just have to show you.
Man: Promises, promises. Glad you won’t be distracting me today. Hate to be distracted, hate it.
GCG: You’ll see!
Man: Undistracted.
GCG: You always do this!
Man: Focused on work. No flirting allowed for GCGs. Shame on you.
GCG: [sends lingerie photo]
PJ – “Why did you ex wife have to “talk herself into having sex” with you?”
It’s a long story, but very typical. The short version:
1. Met wife gigging in band. (Situational alpha I suppose)
2. Dated (lots of hot sex)
3. Married. (Still decent sex)
4. About 4 years in she started complaining that my “band hobby” was taking too much time away from home. Newborn son was stressing her out, and I thought the right thing to do was quit gigging and be home more. (Stupid critical mistake among many to follow)
5. She started getting bored with me because I stopped being interesting.
6. Eventual “I love you but I’m not in love with you” speech. By this time sex was at best once a month. (And I can guess where she was in her cycle that one day a month…)
I pussed out, but only because I was clueless about what made me attractive. I never put any faith in the band thing, because “good girls don’t go for bad boys” and all that. I actually thought the attention I got playing out was because of my talent. Lol (not saying I suck, but 90% of people that see live music have no idea how much talent a musician does or doesn’t have. They either like it or not.) so when my ex started complaining I did the dutiful beta thing and folded to her demands. Which led to a divorce, no surprise to me now.
Sorry for the book. (And I tried to keep it short). It’s complicated, but pretty stereotypical as well.
As soon as she gets her man she’ll isolate him from the group to reduce female competition. That’s where the guy is probably going to get screwed because without the group he’s no longer a top 20%
Welcome to the “tingle-go-round”. Women are supposed to love their husbands, not just do so conditionally based on tingles.
BV, re: your good Catholic Girl
Restricteds DON’T exist, not in the way that men understand it. To men, saying “I am restricted” means something definitive based on actions, similar to “I am not a murderer.”
So, we hear “I am restricted” and expect “I will not sleep with any man casually, not even George Clooney or Ryan Gosling.”
To a woman, “I am restricted” is subjective and feeling-based, and really means “i am not a S-L-U-T.” That’s arbitrary. That means “I will not sleep with any man casually, UNLESS it’s George Clooney or Ryan Gosling.”
What I will suggest is that women are actually approximately right on this one. Sort of. It’s not just hamstering. Women exist on a continuum, and some will want to jump off a cliff and some will want a gentle stroll down a shallow hill.
Essentially what I will submit is NAWALT, and religious attendance is not a perfect correlate with restrictedness.
I know, I know, cop-out!
HOWEVER, I think this is funadmentally true. With respect to socio-sexuality, women are heteregenous: some spread their legs quick, some are hard to persuade. An Alpha guy will have an easier time with all women and be able to escalate quickly, but below some ROI threshold, they don’t engage a PRIG, and those PRIGs end up in casual relationships with lesser guys.
I should reiterate that my point is not to spout the Blue-Pill, but really to show how the Red-Pill is NOT dependent on a world taht resembles a midnight meat market and NOT disproven by our current world (UMC Beta marriages apparently being proof that this world is Not Red).
Nor is it to make PRIGs look good. PRIGs are still riding the carousel. They are just riding a slower version with less attractive horses, because they can only handle 2 Gs and not 12. That’s proven every time you start a relationship with an expiration date (carousel riding), want to date a guy on Saturday and then kiss a guy the following Sunday (carousel), etc.
Doesn’t matter if you made out with 10 guys last weekend or screwed 10 guys last weekend, you’re still on a carousel . Doesn’t matter if you had a one night stand last weekend or just hooked up with your ex, you’re still on a carousel. The dynamics aren’t different, just the actions and the players, and the answer is still the same, guys need to Alpha up to have a chance.
“To a woman, “I am restricted” is subjective and feeling-based, and really means “i am not a S-L-U-T.” That’s arbitrary. That means “I will not sleep with any man casually, UNLESS it’s George Clooney or Ryan Gosling.””
What’s funny about this — and true — is that the last time I went to a strip joint and burned some money on a private dancer this is exactly how she spoke. She was wearing a G-string and nothing else at the time, while sitting in my lap and trying to get me to buy another bottle of $20 sparkling wine for $150, and blowing in my ear.
So we’re in Minneapolis, its 20-below, 11:30 in the morning, she’s wearing a g-string and shaking herself six inches from my nose, we’re drunk, and she just wants me to know “she’s not that kind of girl.” Then she showed me pictures of her cabin (this was an ambitious stripper: she had a second home in Wisconsin), which I have to say, was damn nice.
I actually enjoy talking with strippers but the part about “I’m not like that” was uncompelling. She was telling tales about the Vikings. Alas, no one will confuse me with an NFL cornerback.
Did I mention the story of an art dealer friend who “fell in love” on his winter vacation in Barbados, and brought a nubile freak home with him? Two children later, she’s dancing in West Virginia strip joints for money just to liven up her day. Not that I ever stumbled into her nude presence. The county attorney calls him when she’s busted for turning tricks in the parking lot, and says, “Jesus, Malcom, what is going on here? Come and get this woman.” Their children were both under five. Crazy times. My buddy just wasn’t sure what to do about that situation. Very puzzling. Ambiguous. Wouldn’t want to make the wrong decision and just divorce her ass and send her home. Of course, NAWALT.
“The county attorney calls him when she’s busted for turning tricks in the parking lot”
Maybe he was not being sensitive enough.
@ 383
“Women are supposed to love their husbands, not just do so conditionally based on tingles.”
Rollo’s article on love suggests exactly the opposite. That women can’t/won’t love unconditionally her love must be purchased in daily installments based on tingles. Because women love the tingles the man providing them is irrelevant to to equation. This is why there is no point to a man investing/committing/sacrificing for a relationship. The best tingles are a byproduct of a man’s life not the focus of it.
Somehow this is a good thing. Which although how it is good is never explained, we must accept it as reality.
Best I can figure is if Rollo’s description of opportunistic love is reality it means I am free from the burden having to worry about it, because it’s not worth the anxiety and effort. Thus I can focus on other things.
ADBG:
You’re on fire these past couple of days.
It’s often overlooked that the carousel is a lot bigger and has a lot more riders than just the most promiscuous 20% of women engaged in never ending cock hopping. Girls who are in relationships with defined expiration dates or who aren’t married, are carouselers.
The following are also carousel riders:
1. The typical college girl with N=7 consisting of a couple of Serious Boyfriends, three STRs with high status guys, and a couple of ONS with athletes
2. The Christian “virgin” who’s never done P in V but who has “made out” with 15 guys (“making out” consisting of open mouth kissing, heavy petting, fingering and handjobs)
There’s also this tendency of certain folks to hold up UMC beta men getting married as QED proof that the world is blue. They point and shriek: “See! SEE! Women want betas! Women want to marry betas! Women LOVE betas!”
(It’s a bit like the post-parade riot scene in “Animal House”, where a very young Kevin Bacon portrays a National Guardsman waving his hands futilely and wailing “Keep calm! ALL IS WELL!!!”)
One wonders how many of those beta men will be on the receiving end of a frivorce after 10 years and 2 kids. One wonders who many of those beta men will survive on IV drip sex or in clinically sexless marriages.
@deti #388,
It’s often overlooked that the carousel is a lot bigger and has a lot more riders than just the most promiscuous 20% of women engaged in never ending cock hopping. Girls who are in relationships with defined expiration dates or who aren’t married, are carouselers.
What woman isn’t a carouseler, then? The orthodox virgin muslim girl who’s spent her public life in a burka and has never even held hands with a boy? Your standards for “carouseler” includes any woman who has engaged in any mating or sexual behavior, however limited and tentative.
BV: “Did I mention the story of an art dealer friend who “fell in love” on his winter vacation in Barbados, and brought a nubile freak home with him? Two children later, she’s dancing in West Virginia strip joints for money just to liven up her day. Not that I ever stumbled into her nude presence. The county attorney calls him when she’s busted for turning tricks in the parking lot, and says, “Jesus, Malcom, what is going on here? Come and get this woman.” Their children were both under five. Crazy times. My buddy just wasn’t sure what to do about that situation. Very puzzling. Ambiguous. Wouldn’t want to make the wrong decision and just divorce her ass and send her home.”
Change the art dealer to a pilot, and move him to the guest bedroom in a completely sexless marriage (they went to a therapist and the therapist told him that just because he paid for her tits, didn’t mean he could touch them) and I know this family! (this woman was our stalker)
could someone fix the quotes above so that only the first paragraph is in italics please?
“What woman isn’t a carouseler, then?”
A woman who doesnt do casual sex and doesnt do casual relationships.
Liz,
Jiminey Christmas! That “stalker” story has to take the cake for the month.
I was feeling really sorry for myself being single until i read that..
Re: the carousel
Being a carouseler is not like being a murderer. One or two rides isn’t sufficient to make it a lifestyle and warrant permanent condemnation. Conversely a life spent waiting in line to the ride and only riding once or twice is probably not much better than the express ticket.
I know, that’s a shocking amount of nuance from me. But everyone makes a mistake or two. The question is if one’s life was spent actively and willfully making the same mistake time and time again and avoiding the responsibility for those mistakes.
Yeah, she’s a psycho Fuzzie!
We seem to have scraped off that sticky booger. I’m sure she has picked another target…but I’m still ever vigilant. Better to be single.
But really, the handwriting had to be on the wall with that one. He met her on a TDY when he was a pilot in the navy and that’s when he shacked up with her (and left his first wife). There cannot have ever been a single day that she could have been sane enough to appear sane in her entire life. If she were sane, she’d be unstoppable…like the uber-alpha meanies Bastiat describes. But she’s so crazy she makes you want to back up slowly. Very slowly…and get far far away.
@ ADBG,
I like your definition of a Plain Restricted Introverted Girl (PRIG). That’s my type of woman!
An Alpha guy will have an easier time with all women and be able to escalate quickly, but below some ROI threshold, they don’t engage a PRIG, and those PRIGs end up in casual relationships with lesser guys.
Yes. PRIGs require too much effort relative to their attractiveness for the alphas, but they respond well to confident betas with relationship game. In my experience, PRIGs tend to be risk averse and reluctant to risk the man they have by attempting to upgrade. They also tend to require relatively less dominance behavior and more comfort behavior than a hot extroverted unrestricted girl. They can be loyal and affectionate girlfriends and wives.
Nor is it to make PRIGs look good. PRIGs are still riding the carousel. They are just riding a slower version with less attractive horses, because they can only handle 2 Gs and not 12. That’s proven every time you start a relationship with an expiration date (carousel riding), want to date a guy on Saturday and then kiss a guy the following Sunday (carousel), etc.
Doesn’t matter if you made out with 10 guys last weekend or screwed 10 guys last weekend, you’re still on a carousel . Doesn’t matter if you had a one night stand last weekend or just hooked up with your ex, you’re still on a carousel. The dynamics aren’t different, just the actions and the players, and the answer is still the same, guys need to Alpha up to have a chance.
What’s the difference between “riding the carousel” and “dating”, then? It seems that any mating behavior where a woman engages in mate choice with more than one partner is “riding the carousel” by that definition.
“Guys need to Alpha up to have a chance.” Certainly, especially if your answer to my previous question is yes. When mating involves female choice, then men have to display attractive masculine qualities. Women are going to try to get the man with the most attractive qualities – that’s what female mate choice is all about.
I think a lot of confusion is introduced by what it means to “Alpha up”. It is commonly claimed a guy has to be in (or pass for) a top 20 percenter in terms of male SMV. But that’s often not necessary – standing out in the local crowd is usually sufficient. As you said in #375, “their casual experience is going to be with situational alphas who aren’t actually in the top 20%”
So I agree with your description, but am puzzled by its negative tone. Do you feel female mate choice is a bad thing? Because it’s a been basic part of the evolutionary process for, oh, 1.2 billion years or so.
A woman who doesnt do casual sex and doesnt do casual relationships.
Where do we draw the line on casual sex? PIV, blowjob, handjob, touching, kissing, or holding hands? How about casual relationships? The college boyfriend she had that she thought was totally “the one” sophomore year, until he moved away to law school – casual or not?
” Better to be single.”
I meant, better to be single than with someone like that.
I like being married.
“But everyone makes a mistake or two.”
Mistake is a funny word.
From my beta days I dont remember making the mistake of fucking hot girls.
When I snapped out of beta I fucked hot girls. In some cases it was a mistake – because they were batshit crazy. It was not a mistake in the sense of “I thought we were going to get married” mistake, but “I only was thinking with my dick” mistake.
If you mean that everyone (every woman) is totally thinking with her clitoris at times and will fuck one or two hot guys when she shouldnt have, then we’re on the same page?
Another thought on PRIGs – I think these women are more or less invisible to Alphas. They are neither hot enough nor immediately receptive enough to pay attention to. So the mating dynamics described by the likes of Roissy tends to overlook their existence entirely. They may be riding a carousel, as ADBG asserts, but it’s not the same one Roissy is on.
Meanwhile, a lot of the non-alpha men are also overlooking the PRIGs and competing for the same bodacious babes the alphas are going for, and losing every time. Then they go cry in their beer about hypergamy and 20-80, and resolve to “Alpha up” more. So they try again, and lose to the real alphas again. And again.
The answer for these men is to change carousels, to one where they can be a situational alpha. As Yohami put it above, “Girls are still going to enter social circles where they have a chance of competing for the top 20% males of that circles, and then have sex with them.”
For those of us who are not in the overall top 20% of the SMV, situational positioning is everything.
Ciaran,
“Where do we draw the line on casual sex?”
Any sexual activity from that comes from lust and is not part of a committed – serious – relationship is casual. A one night stand is casual. A summer boyfriend is casual. A college boyfriend is casual. If it has an expiration date it’s casual. If the reason for the relationship / sex is lust and convenience, it’s casual. Anything that is not mixed up with lifelong commitment is casual.
If I can hit on a girl that is with a boyfriend and turn her on and make her question her relationship – her relationship is casual, which means it’s just a one night stand extended enough to play “make believe” or play the house or play as if, a simulation, an entertainment, something that will end when its stops being fun and / or as soon as a better opportunity arrives, like a summer job or an intership. Casual, not formal, non serious, etc.
I dont mean any of that from a moral point of view. It just is what it is.
@399
“If you mean that everyone (every woman) is totally thinking with her clitoris at times and will fuck one or two hot guys when she shouldnt have, then we’re on the same page?”
Sort of.
@401
In light of this I’d say we are on the same page.
“sort of”
I was totally thinking with my dick at times. That didnt give me the sympathy nor understanding from women. I was a pig period. Why is now fine that women make “mistakes” and why would you think these are any sort of “oh I totally thought he was the nicest dude and we were getting maarrrieeed so that’s why I fucked the shit out of him though I knew he was on it for the fun plus he’s married”
I mean sure they are mistakes – but not based on confusion. They know what they are doing. AKA the clitoris is in control. So they are all carouselers. So a better man than you can fuck them. Even if you’re in a relationship with them. Always.
Ciaran,
At work still (
), so this will be a little short. Thanks for your thoughts.
In regards to this:
What’s your concern with drawing the line? There’s always a bit of a blur, who cares?
Take two girls, Veronica and Betty. Veronica only goes to bars with hot minor league baseball players. She goes up at the start of the night, feels attracted to one, holds his hand, and flirts a bit, until she gets bored or he says something stupid, and then she runs across the bar to the next guy and holds his hand, until she gets bored or says something stupid and…
Repeat to the Nth iteration.
This is definitionally carousel riding, even if she isn’t pulling down her pants. This is still carousel riding, even if she NEVER pulls down her pants. She is using men disposably for her own fun and hops on to the next one whenever it suits her fancy.
betty goes to the bar, she finds a guy she really likes, makes out with him, doesn’t talk to any other guys, goes out on a few dates, gets the D, goes out for a few more months, gets married.
She may score higher on the unrestricted scale, but not the same mind-set.
In terms of dating, it’s hard to decipher, but that’s why a lot of girls love it: plausible deniability, and a sanitized imperative. “We dated.” What the hell does that even mean?
But that’s the point. It doesn’t mean anything, and because of that it couldmean anything.
Girls love those Blurred Lines!
That’s not really meant to condemn girls morally, it’s a difficult to control part of human nature. My bigger point is that these girls think they are Disney Princesses, when they are just a PG-13 version of American Pie.
But I think these PRIGs are a good market opportunity, for many of the same reasons you’ve described in the last couple comments. Hopefully I get the chance to add a bit more tonight, we’ll see, budget night….
Although it might be during half-time. I really want to watch the Pack get crushed. Especially since the In-Laws are all from Wisconsin.
*Always* …
unless they are actually in a committed lifelong relationship, but that’s something I’ve never seen so what do I know.
The closer I’ve been is when I was fingering and making out with a girl and she wanted to stop because she felt she was crossing the line because she had a boyfriend. If that’s where she draws the line you know what I think of her relationship.
Liz,
I saw this last night. Lots of crazy here. Terrance Popp tells of his ex-wife. First, she has the Chocolate Lab euthanized. Then , she tries to set up the local SWAT team to kill Terrance so that she can collect on his insurance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoOUIlgxpgM&list=UUkhakammPmSa4EvMPhEVN-g
However, you stalker is way up there.
@ ADBG,
This is definitionally carousel riding, even if she isn’t pulling down her pants. This is still carousel riding, even if she NEVER pulls down her pants. She is using men disposably for her own fun and hops on to the next one whenever it suits her fancy.
So do you call all female mate choice carousel riding? Because what you’ve described is simply the process of women evaluating their options. Some will evaluate their options promiscuously, and some selectively, but all who can will do it.
Ciaran, if she’s doing it for the fun, she’s a carousel rider. If she’s screening specifically and with the only and intentional purpose to get a lifelong partner and then sticks to her choice, she’s not.
So do you call all female mate choice carousel riding? Because what you’ve described is simply the process of women evaluating their options. Some will evaluate their options promiscuously, and some selectively, but all who can will do it.
For me, carouseling is dating/screwing men whom the woman could or would never have an LTR/marriage with. It’s Sandberging it — dating/screwing the bad boys until later on, and then selecting a sensible/equalist husband (aka “stepping off the carousel”).
If a woman is seeking out guys who would actually be good long term mates, and are open to that, then that is mate selection, rather than carouseling.
“dating/screwing the bad boys”
How else is a high-quality woman going to get her confidence?
How else is a high-quality woman going to get her confidence?
Haha. I think Sandberg was suggesting it as a kind of “enjoy it while you are young and get it out of your system”, but, yeah.
By the way, I was never suggesting that most women are *continually* screwing one of the top 20% of the men. I do think that more do end up doing that at least *once* than we think, provided that they are over a certain looks threshold (let’s say the high end of 5 with the 19th-20th percentile of men is probably where it breaks off). And the impact is then there of five minutes of alpha outweighing a lifetime of beta, as Roissy used to say.
But more commonly, what we have is carouseling, which is generally having sex for fun with guys who are either unsuited for longer term relationships or unavailable for them — and having the “fun” , sexy short term thing anyway. That’s the essence of the carousel, whether it’s with one of the pareto 20 crowd or otherwise.
I know morality is a dirty word these days, but it’s almost sad that we have to debate on what is and is not casual. My take:
Anything short of serial monogamy is carousel riding. Serial monogamy can be carousel riding “on the down low” if those relationships are short, and tend to come one after another in quick succession.
A woman that has an N of 5 by 30 may have taken a spin, or she may have had 5 LTRs. (Her LTRs would average around 2.5 years long with some gaps between, assuming her first sex was at around 16 years old) A woman of 30 with an N of 10 has either blatantly ridden the carousel, or hidden it behind many short “relationships”.
In my neck of the woods that N5 woman probably had a few shorter LTRs, one or maybe 2 ONS or FWB, and a current or ex-husband by their early to mid 30’s. By no means a total slut, but certainly not my definition of restricted either. And the devil is in the details of who the men in her life before were.
@ Ted d true it is sad, especially when not so long ago casual meant premarital sex period. As a woman facing the “by date three” rule who doesn’t play that way it’s still easy to see in this smp how some gals end up high n just trying to deal with the smp expectations these days. Saying no is akin to being some kind of freak, oddly enough! It’s kinda damn if you do, damn if you don’t.
And as farm boy has pointed out before, we have feminism and the sexual revolution to thank for that.
How else is a high-quality woman going to get her confidence?
Wait a minute there. She isn’t high quality until she has that confidence.
“The confidence makes the woman”
“She isn’t high quality until she has that confidence.”
True, therefore the alpha cock is the responsible for turning a dirty whore into a high quality woman. Just a little touch here and there.
She’s looking for the perfect man but it’s all the in-between men who made her come (pun intended) into the confident woman she is.
She’ll likely keep needing these men for her self-confidence-reassurance-high-quality-cristalizer after she finds the perfect man but lets cross that bridge when we get there.
@Ted D
“A woman that has an N of 5 by 30 may have taken a spin, or she may have had 5 LTRs. (Her LTRs would average around 2.5 years long with some gaps between, assuming her first sex was at around 16 years old) A woman of 30 with an N of 10 has either blatantly ridden the carousel, or hidden it behind many short “relationships”.
Nowadays, any decent looking woman that says she has a N less than 10 is probably lying. We are too well connected, there are too many opportunities and there are no moral consequences for it. That’s why I don’t go for that N theory. I go for what that woman is worth to me and what level of trust I have in her. You can’t verify her N count anyway, so only what you can tangibly see matters. She has to prove she’s worthy, not some mythical count…
Because what you’ve described is simply the process of women evaluating their options.
I think the issue/question is when does a woman stop this process of evaluating their options. Presumably, it should absolutely end at marriage, although it is probably from a rare occurence that a woman “trades up” while married if the opportunity presents itself. Hell, in that “Christian” movie Fireproof (I think) the wife seriously entertains advances from a doctor in the hospital. I think what Yohami is partially getting at, and I’ve seen it myself is often a girl with a “boyfriend” is just “casual” by another name. The default is to want a boyfriend for status, but the relationship isn’t serious in any way that we would consider the word. She’ll switch horses immediately if a better deal comes along, and if a higher SMV guy rolls in offering just casual cock she might jump on that to while keeping the “serious boyfriend”
This is a more common attitude women have toward “alpha” males than what the posters here believe:
http://rooshnme.blogspot.com/2014/08/alpha-male-shit.html
(Bonus: your blog is talked about.)
@ anon #421,
I am quite confident none of us care much about those womyn’s attitudes.
“Which is why I agree with Morpheus that for the data to be useful it needs to be broken down into sub-categories. I don’t care what the median N is for all woman alive.”
Very good point. It means very little other than “there are a lot of low-N women” if <3 is low.
"I’m very much interested in that stat for a subset of all women though."
Good thing the CDC report breaks them down into subcategories. Age, sex, race, education, marital status. All there. Which is why I say read it, end to end, before y'all debunk it.
BTW the highest-N cohort is divorced men, IIRC.
Agree with Ciaran’s/Ted’s take on casual — it’s anything outside of serial monogamy. A college bf/gf isn’t casual, even if it has an expiration date, though, I do think you might as well give up and just *go* casual if you have that mercenary attitude.
“BTW the highest-N cohort is divorced men, IIRC.”
Which is just another reason why they should be avoided.
And let’s not forget that no small number of divorced men are on the downlow as well, at least in the US and particularly in and around Atlanta.
“And as farm boy has pointed out before, we have feminism and the sexual revolution to thank for that.”
The demographic that benefited most from the Sexual Revolution was gay men. They also suffered the worst fallout from it.
“Take two girls, Veronica and Betty. Veronica only goes to bars with hot minor league baseball players.”
Baseball players?! LOL.
Don’t you mean basketball or football?
Ted, do you think if you would have ignored her complaints about you being away with your band that she would not have divorced you? How would her stress over her baby have lightened?
“How satisfying is self-stimulation compared to the real thing for the average guy?”
From what guys have told me, not nearly as satisfying as self-stimulation is for the average woman.
(Editor’s note); so why aren’t you hard at our right now instead of trolling us?
“I need ALL DAY to get turned on.”
– When I told my partner that he thought I meant I needed sex in the day time and he said, “We don’t have time for that. There are other things that need to get done”!
I explained to him that it meant keeping the spark alive by doing something spontaneously romantic or sexy so that by the time night rolls around, the feelings are positive and charged.
For example, if the guy is out somewhere in the day he can call her up just for a quick and sexy “howya doin’?” or send a “can’t wait to see you when I get home” text.
@ Bastiat,
“because of the almost inevitable shift to a hygiene factors-dominated sexuality from the male POV.”
-What on earth is a “hygiene factors dominated sexuality”?!
#335
In other words, maybe she’s mostly a carousel watcher, not a carousel rider.
OTC, Ciaran, Ted
“casual — it’s anything outside of serial monogamy. A college bf/gf isn’t casual, even if it has an expiration date”
Can you elaborate? why is it not casual?
PJ – “Ted, do you think if you would have ignored her complaints about you being away with your band that she would not have divorced you? How would her stress over her baby have lightened?”
Not exactly but partly. It wasn’t any one issue, it was my overall beta approach to the whole marriage. Up until the baby, I still “did my own thing” and if that cause a little grumpiness from the ex I blew it off. But after my son was born and the same complaints came, I felt like I owed her my time and extra effort, and of course the advice from my family was “grow up!” I took it to extreme and basically gave up all outside interests including my friends. (Although to be fair it was the gigging thing that got me out with them at all. I’m not naturally very social). So quitting the band thing wasn’t THE factor, but it was the first of many to follow.
Yohami – I differ with OTC. If you have a “relationship” with a set end date, I believe it is casual being masked as serial monogamy. And I still don’t understand why college relationships must end at graduation. Unless your degree is in something very specialized, it can generally get you a job anywhere. So after graduation, see who in the couple gets a job first and then both can move wherever. Why do people have to part after the diploma is in hand?
See, to me what this implies is that a relationship is NOT important to people in college. If it was, they would make it a priority and figure out how to fit it into their lives. Yes that may mean taking a job somewhere you didn’t intend to live. Or maybe at a lesser salary than you could get elsewhere. But what is more important: the career or the relationship? If the answer is career, it was never a relationship to start with.
Keith Swanson – stats show that N is a factor in marital satisfaction for women. The higher the N the less satisfied. But that is outside the scope of the topic. My point was to illustrate how an average woman of decent looks can and often does take a ride on the carousel. The idea that only the top 20% of women take a ride is simply rediculous.
Ted: “And I still don’t understand why college relationships must end at graduation. Unless your degree is in something very specialized, it can generally get you a job anywhere. So after graduation, see who in the couple gets a job first and then both can move wherever. Why do people have to part after the diploma is in hand?
See, to me what this implies is that a relationship is NOT important to people in college. If it was, they would make it a priority and figure out how to fit it into their lives. Yes that may mean taking a job somewhere you didn’t intend to live. Or maybe at a lesser salary than you could get elsewhere. But what is more important: the career or the relationship? If the answer is career, it was never a relationship to start with.”
+1000
If the career is more important than the relationship, the relationship isn’t going to work. People lose their jobs and change careers. Course I do apply a double standard on this…the woman has to (primarily) be the one to sacrifice on that, barring significant exceptions.
My mother in law turned down a Rhodes Scholarship. I left school and finished my last bit elsewhere.
Serial Monogamy is the correct line(IMO), but it’s a blurred line. That means a girl engaging in serial monogamy MIGHT be filtering her options, or she MIGHT be entertaining herself with various men. You can’t tell what’s she doing and thinking, just with a glance.
I am going to jump back to my Summer vs. Jessica dichotomy (Zoey Deschnael Characters from 500 Days of Summer and New Girl respectively).
Summer is quite clearly on the carousel and uses guys casually, despite her apparent moderate N (perhaps 5 by 24 or 25?). She hooks up with a lead singer GIRL just to have fun (does that count as a N?) When Summer studied in Italy, she dated a man for a few months, exclusively for fun, exclusively for sex. Her relationship with Tom is specifically casual, from her point of view.
However there is no sign of concurrent relationships,nor sign of any one night stands. If she says she was “looking for love,” there’s nothing distinguishing this from “restricted” serial monogamy. Even though it’s clear she’s carouselling.
That’s different from Jessica in New Girl. Jessica actually racks up MORE N faster than Summer. However, she legit tries to make all of her relationships work and does not hop from them lightly. The show goes through great effort to show how “restricted” she is (she can’t even say the P-word! She’s never taken a nude selfie before! She’s never done a strip tease!)
So she is serially monogamous and also not a carousel rider.
OR IS SHE?
The show starts with her getting cheated on and then trying to meet guys. At one point she tries to have a one night stand and fails. At one point she nearly sleeps with her narcissistic room-mate, only interrupted because someone catches her (and it turns out her best friend was already sleeping with him!) Her only actual PIV casual was after a break-up, where she sleeps with a different EX, a guy so Beta he makes me look like Conan the Barbarian.
So is she carouselling?
I would submit, NO, she is not carouselling, but she is employing obvious dualistic mating strategies and is quite open to short-term casual, just NOT from a new guy (only from an ex or a guy she has already “gotten to know”)
And from the outside, who do you pick? I give you one girl with a N of 5 since she turned, say, 17, one being a “summer love,” and one being an “experiment.” At least two of her N confirmed are sweet Beta guys. She did not concurrently sleep with any and had long breaks in between.
The other got cheated on by her boyfriend. She promptly moved in with 3 other guys. She “tried” to have casual, but was so awkward she just literally failed and couldn’t even kiss the guys, but she has racked up 4 different boyfriends (all +1N!) since her break-up, and only had one casual “screw-up” with one of them. She never dated two guys at the same time.
See the blurred lines? You can’t obviously tell who the carouseller is and who is the legit girl from a quick description, you literally have to delve into her whole life, and even then the “legit” girl is still open for some casual and still practices dualistic mating strategies. If you’re a Beta without a lot of experience with girls and thinks delving into a girls past and N is inapproriate, and not your business, you are walking into a minefield blindfolded.
If you pick the wrong girl, you get munch-munched. Even if you pick the right girl you are taking a huge chance.
Any non-virgin and non-threesome woman who hasn’t had a couple of men on the sexual go at once (pretty low bar, isn’t it?) is by definition a serial monogamist…why are we giving that term any respectability?
If I were a low N woman I’d run from that label, I’d be being used as cover for other, less-picky (let us be kind), women. This is sluts trying to (ab)use the non-sluts. The non-sluts would be wise to distance themselves from such women.
Is it entirely normal in a girlfriend that she’s had previous partner men?
Yes, if she’s in her twenties. Pretty lucky and pure woman that guessed right first time.
Should you marry a non-virgin/slept with another guy…?
With every N other than you, the odds for a happy, long marriage decline. Every man should remember that. As should every woman; self-control in a woman is a quality that sensible men should value and that is justified scientifically. If there’s any justice in the world, good girls should definitely not finish last.
“If you pick the wrong girl, you get munch-munched. Even if you pick the right girl you are taking a huge chance.”
nicely put ADBG
See, to me what this implies is that a relationship is NOT important to people in college. If it was, they would make it a priority and figure out how to fit it into their lives. Yes that may mean taking a job somewhere you didn’t intend to live. Or maybe at a lesser salary than you could get elsewhere. But what is more important: the career or the relationship? If the answer is career, it was never a relationship to start with.
Yes. This was the case with probably 90% of the college relationships I knew when I was in college myself. The other 10% ended up married for the most part. But the 90% (of people who were in relationships to begin with, which was not a large percentage at my university because quite a few people were reluctant to have a relationship for similar reasons) mostly broke up sometime in the second half of senior year. Now, these were exceedingly ambitious people at a top-tier school, and were almost all very focused on the “next phase” of their education/career trajectory, which was priority one. The college relationship was not, for this group, a priority when compared with that prime directive.
Note this was the case for the men as well as the women — the men also didn’t want to be attached after graduation for the most part. Again, the 10% group (not 10% overall, but 10% of the people in relationships) were probably folks who fell in love and in many cases one of them explicitly subordinated their future plans to the other one — something exceedingly uncommon to do in my college cohort. I did know 1-2 cases of people who decided to maintain the relationship long distance (I mean seriously long distance, as in coast v coast), and at least one of them eventually ended up married (situation involved one of my college ex-GFs and the guy she left me for).
This is a more common attitude women have toward “alpha” males than what the posters here believe:
http://rooshnme.blogspot.com/2014/08/alpha-male-shit.html
(Bonus: your blog is talked about.)
Haha….looks like I have a fan club:
*While describing his partnership of equals marriage, one particularly virulently misogynist manurespherian, who goes by the handle Morpheus, admitted, without any hint of self-awareness,
Yay, our blog has creepers!
“Yay, our blog has creepers!”
Creepers who parse their pieces with priceless peckerwood pejoratives!
“Again, the 10% group (not 10% overall, but 10% of the people in relationships) were probably folks who fell in love and in many cases one of them explicitly subordinated their future plans to the other one — something exceedingly uncommon to do in my college cohort. ”
And this IMO is the issue. If a relationship is not a priority, don’t have one and pretend it is. Also, personally that would spending my college years without sex, because hooking up is the worse of two evils.
I’m a firm believer in doing something for thermite treason. Being in a college “relationship” for convenient sex is nothing more than a FWB setup, and that is definitely casual.
Of course someone has to sacrifice. BOTH have to sacrifice for the relationship, although exactly what is sacrificed varies from man/woman/individual. Making that sacrifice is exactly what makes it a real relationship. It prices the relationship means more to you than anything else. Otherwise it’s just a form of laying “house” with someone else.
Oops. Right reason* above.
No treason here…
Thermite treason. Sounds like an episode of Burn Notice or similar spy show. Lol but seriously kids, don’t mess with Thermite
The rooshnme link is very interesting.
In general, I think online communities self-organize themselves very, very quickly. They start out with the idea that they will be wild and wooly free-thought experiments, and within a year they function is to parrot the in-group and roast (this sustains the in-group sense of belonging) any dissent.
Once this happens, off-center statements or ideas are met immediately with personal abuse, censorship if moderated, plus lots of instantaneously validated comments about the miscreant’s motivation (“you’re so cynical/bitter/tired of losing” etc.).
We do it here too. Note what happened in a recent thread when a couple of guys noted that, well, in AfPak men fuck boys for sport, before later getting hitched to some XX wearing a black tent. Not permitted. It does happen to be a factual report, however.
Or look at the outbursts from “Guest” in 38 and 39, above. (Same person lost control of herself over on Rollo’s place, and decided Liz was an insecure man who couldn’t get any.) This is how a 16 year-old writing a paper her teacher has already explained will earn an “A” gets on her game. She’s explaining that subject matter that she doesn’t agree with should be censored.
I’d say that virtually every woman I know would be much more comfortable on rooshnme instead of J4G. But I am more popular with women than most men, as I am something of a sigma pain in the ass. This supports my suspicion that we should best consider ourselves a secret society and always *show, not tell*. The rest will take care of itself.
I spend more time writing on football than intersexual stuff this time of year, incidentally. The same dynamic operates with some subject as benign as football culture and strategy. I just think it’s how online communities function and organically evolve.
“Yay, our blog has creepers!”
Can I just check that ‘creeper’ (which sounds like a word that a five year old might use) is actually a ‘power-word’ to
pre-pubescent girlsstrong empowered women?Maybe it’s a cultural thing, but to me using ‘creep’ as a shaming word is something to be mocked. ‘scawy’, ‘fwightening’, ‘cweepy’ are words for children. Don;t give these
moronswomen power.Nice to see wimminz scared of Roosh’s social power though.
Question, how does a man in a medium to large city determine a woman’s N whose past 21? Do women come with notch counters? Or is there a test where the indicator turns blue if N>5? Breakups, ONS, cheating (60% of women have cheated) all have to factor in.
Secondly, from stats the most likely to divorce are young couples ,18-21, presumably when a women’s N is at it’s lowest. How do y’all reconcile that? hmmmm…
@441 —
Of course someone has to sacrifice. BOTH have to sacrifice for the relationship, although exactly what is sacrificed varies from man/woman/individual. Making that sacrifice is exactly what makes it a real relationship. It prices the relationship means more to you than anything else. Otherwise it’s just a form of laying “house” with someone else.
True. But not what a lot of people do. It does vary depending on the college and so on, quite a bit, I think. Many of the people I knew in college who were not in relationships sort of chose not to be (often by deliberately keeping things casual), precisely because they knew they had no intention of putting anything at all in front of their prime directive priority in the next several years. Most were not completely celibate, of course, however.
==
@439 —
Haha….looks like I have a fan club:
I noticed one of the classy commenters over there expressed hope that Dalrock’s wife would leave him. And yet, we over here are the nasty bunch. Lovely.
I noticed one of the classy commenters over there expressed hope that Dalrock’s wife would leave him. And yet, we over here are the nasty bunch. Lovely.
I suspect a decent percentage are
“bitter losers”spinsters447,
Not relevant.
Secondly, from stats the most likely to divorce are young couples ,18-21, presumably when a women’s N is at it’s lowest. How do y’all reconcile that? hmmmm…
See:
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/03/promiscuity-data-guest-post.html
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/08/more-promiscuity-data.html
TL;DR: It would appear that the risk skyrockets once you get past 1-2 partners, which likely most of the young bride demographic have. The isn’t necessarily to marry someone young, but to marry someone with a low N. You would think that they correlate, but not really for the very low Ns we are talking about based on the studies SP has linked and discussed on his blog. It isn’t the difference between N=5 and N=10, but rather the difference between N=1-2 and N>1-2. With people starting to have sex in the mid-teens, it’s likely that quite a few of the very young brides have N>1-2, and therefore fall into the high risk category for marriage.
“How do y’all reconcile that? hmmmm…”
By saying that getting married young is (perhaps) an even greater bad move than getting married when older…hmmmm…
that work for you?
Or maybe
Perhaps some of the women that marry and divorce when young are the type of women that (if they had not married so young, would maybe) grow up to be a little less entitled and deranged than when they were young. And thus are the type of women that once grown up are slightly less likely to divorce?
TL;DR maybe divorce rates drop a little because some women can grow up to respect their marital vows and move beyond their wilder impulses…sounds plausible to me.
Spawny,
I respectfully disagree.
I think it is both amusing and effective to coopt their own terminology and idioms. It turns the mirror on them, and shines the light that they engage in the very same behavior they would castigate others for. For example, many women are highly fond of using the term “creep” or “creeper” to shame certain behaviors such as following a blog and its posters and then having lengthy conversations about it elsewhere. Truthfully, I could care less. It is funny to me that I occupy that much of their mental space and energy, but by referring to it as “creeping” I am calling attention to their hypocrisy and double standards.
I’ve learned something in the last few years of online discussion. I consider myself are a very logical thinker capable of reasonable, neutral tone, logical debate/discussion even with opponents, dialectic if you will, but I can do acerbic sarcasm and inflammatory ridicule as well. What I’ve learned is with those prone to the latter, you have to come at them 10x harder with the same stuff.
“Most were not completely celibate, of course, however.”
Right. And that leads right to a persons character and moral compass. So back to the beginning, it’s these women (and men) that drive much of the carousel, not the top 20%. Oh sure, those top alphas are living it up riding around, but they alone wouldn’t be enough to make the whole thing go round and round for the vast 60%ers.
So being “restricted” sexually does NOT necessarily mean no casual. It means less casual for many, probably more on the female side. (Which makes it almost useless as a descriptor IF the goal is to avoid women that do casual completely) Why? Because average to below average guys can’t punch above their weight very often. Women can and certainly do so when it comes to a casual fling.
Kieth Swanson – we can discuss the inclination of women to lie about N, but I find out by asking. I’ve asked every one of my LTR mates what their N is, and asked them to give me a bit of insight into what those men were about. I can’t help it if she isn’t moral enough to be honest, but I do my due diligence all the same.
And to be fair, my sexual past is an open book for any woman that wants to be coupled with me. I have nothing to hide.
I noticed one of the classy commenters over there expressed hope that Dalrock’s wife would leave him. And yet, we over here are the nasty bunch. Lovely.
I think some of them are befuddled by the puzzle (in their eyes) that some of us “virulent misogynists” can have attractive women that love being with us, while such awesomely awesome women cannot land or retain a man.
So being “restricted” sexually does NOT necessarily mean no casual. It means less casual for many, probably more on the female side. (Which makes it almost useless as a descriptor IF the goal is to avoid women that do casual completely) Why? Because average to below average guys can’t punch above their weight very often. Women can and certainly do so when it comes to a casual fling.
On the female side, I think that’s right. I think there are a lot of women who, by the time they marry around 30ish, have had maybe 2 or 3 serious relationships they have slept with, and maybe 1-3 “in between guys”, the latter being the carousel. Since they have been having sex, on and off, since the mid to late teens, they don’t consider N=3-6 a high N by age 30 (and it isn’t, compared to other women, so they describe themselves as “restricted” — that is, they are thinking of Suzie the Floozie when they think of the word “unrestricted”, and not the 1-3 “in between guys” in their history.
—
I think some of them are befuddled by the puzzle (in their eyes) that some of us “virulent misogynists” can have attractive women that love being with us, while such awesomely awesome women cannot land or retain a man.
They assume that the women all have low self-esteem or are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Oh well.
@451
N’s can’t really verified, it’s self reported. Women tend to under count their number. Age is age it’s a hard fact. The census has reported this over and over since 1970 and it only gets worse. Dalrock , who is pro young marriage, struggles with this fact.
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/are-young-marriages-doomed-to-divorce/
This supports my suspicion that we should best consider ourselves a secret society and always *show, not tell*. The rest will take care of itself.
I completely agree. Like I said over on Rollo, I think it is a mistake to have “Red Pill” type discussions. Don’t explain, simply be. That said, the exceptions I do make I generally avoid explicating and instead will ask a series of leading questions. I want the person to arrive at the conclusion and verbalize it.
My wife has a close friend who is single who recently had a guy out of the blue who hasn’t been in her life for a long time basically show up and profess his undying love and how he wants to be with and marry her. As we all know, this sort of devotion and love out of nowhere (they were involved a couple of times in the distant past) isn’t likely to be received well. I asked my wife how does she feel about that, and continued asking questions finally arriving at the point where my wife stated it seems like desperation on his part.
I have found that whenever these convos come up, I like to play the role of spectator who simply asks lots and lots of questions. I almost always get confirmation of what I already know, but I rather the people say it instead of me telling them it.
Dalrock gives the best logical answer for lower divorce in later marriages and it’s one I happen to agree with… the odds of remarriage is vastly lower for a woman in her 40’s and beyond that it is for a woman in her 20’s…
@457 —
Well, that’s fine if you just want to discount N’s importance because you can’t prove it in the case of a specific woman short of putting her polygraph. It is a huge risk factor to be ignoring, however. There *are* ways to suss it out, based on environment, family, friend circles, her own attitudes towards sex expressed in interacting with you and on and on. Of course those don’t land on an *exact* number, but will get you in the ballpark, and if asked directly she very well may lie (and some are also able to deceive in other ways, too). But, you have to become a bit better at detecting deception from other people in general (and women in particular). In any case, Keith, if you really want to ignore N go right ahead — it’s your life. But be aware that there are numerous studies which suggest that it’s a huge factor in marital risk assessment.
As for Dalrock, as far as I can remember, he has never suggested, from all I have read of him over the years, that everything is fine if the girl is simplyoung — that is, it doesn’t matter if her N is high, or what kind of girl she is, or how she behaves and so on, as long as she is young. What he has said is that it becomes very hard for Christians in particular to expect their children to be celibate until age 28 if they are all following a life script that precludes marrying younger than that. He’s talking about a specific group of people, and not the garden variety 22 year old girl who already has a significant N (he has a post from several years ago about what to look for in a wife, for example, and it isn’t “if she’s under 23, it’s all good, but if she’s over 23, keep looking”).
Kieth Swanson – “N’s can’t really verified, it’s self reported. Women tend to under count their number. ”
And I said I can’t be responsible for a woman’s lack of moral fiber to simply tell the truth. However, unless she is very good at lies and deceit, her “lower” N will show it’s true colors at some point in her attitude. Also, asking about the sitations with her past partners will either:
1. Give you an idea of what types of men she found attractive
2. Give you the impression she’s trying her best to paint a pretty picture.
Either one is useful info when trying to establish a woman’s moral character.
Keep this in mind: I am not condemning women with an N>5 completely. She can certainly qualify herself by demonstrating she is indeed what she claims to be. (Seriously relationship oriented). However, the man deserves to know she is an increased risk, and be able to make his decisions about her based on all the facts. Not disclosing N is hiding pertinent information, and in a way fraud.
And I think much of the “all women are sluts” extremely in the sphere stems from this simple truth: it’s damn rare that a woman will honestly discuss her sexual past. So, in some ways the smartest “safe bet” is to assume all women rode the carousel until otherwise proven. Is that unfair? Absolutely. But if a man can’t get reliable information his best bet is to play defense.
I spend more time writing on football than intersexual stuff this time of year, incidentally.
Way OT but,
BV, I’m a basketball guy myself, but I am curious about something I’ve noticed in football that I am hoping you can explain to me. Why do so many star college quarterbacks go bust in the NFL. What is it about the skill set in college that a guy like Manziel or Vince Young that just doesn’t translate at the NFL level. You don’t see that in basketball really. If a guy is a prolific scorer in college, he’ll be a scorer in the pros with the exception of being the pure jump shooter who needs double screens set to get his shot.
BTW personally my longest relationships were with women with high N’s, go figure
:-/
@ 447
Her smp value is the highest. That’s when she stands the best chance of landing a bigger, better, deal.
Dalrock gives the best logical answer for lower divorce in later marriages and it’s one I happen to agree with… the odds of remarriage is vastly lower for a woman in her 40′s and beyond that it is for a woman in her 20′s…
That makes sense for marriages in the late 30s or early 40s, provided it’s a first marriage.
Keep in mind that the upper middle class highly educated demographic which tends to marry earlier than that (but not “early”) in the 27-32 range also has very low divorce rates, but there are demographic-specific factors that explain it working for that demographic. The same low divorce rate effect for people marrying in that age range who are less educated and of a different SES class are not observed.
@ 462
It’s not the qb’s skill set per say…..
It’s about the extremely high level of play by their opponents. College ball is only a close proximity to what they face in the NFL.
@462
It’s the same with all sports, it’s the speed of the game. The guys are faster and the tolerances are tighter in the NFL. You have to read quicker, deliver faster, and be far more accurate very few plays are going to have an”open” guy. BV can probably co-sign that
#389
Our pal Novaseeker once observed that sluts have an instrumental view of human sexuality instead of a sacramental one. That’s the hedonistic mentality carouselers have. A non-slut views sex as a unitive and reproductive act that takes place within the context of marriage and is theologically endorsed. A slut views sex as an act intended for pleasure and not subject to any external norms and regulations.
Why do so many star college quarterbacks go bust in the NFL. What is it about the skill set in college that a guy like Manziel or Vince Young that just doesn’t translate at the NFL level. You don’t see that in basketball really. If a guy is a prolific scorer in college, he’ll be a scorer in the pros with the exception of being the pure jump shooter who needs double screens set to get his shot.
I’m sure BV will answer better than I will, but here are my $0.02:
One is that college is simply a lot easier in terms of the speed and size of the players. A QB in college can pile up stats even with some mechanics problems (e.g., holding the ball for too long), because he will have more time, full flat, than he will in the NFL. The NFL requires you to be able to drop back, do your checkdowns and get off an accurate pass in very few seconds — almost no college QB is subject to that in college, even against excellent college defenses. So some guys have the skillset to deal with that and other guys who were very good when dealing with college defenses, just don’t have enough to deal with the step-up required in the pros.
A second, and also very important, issue is what kind of offense did the QB play in college? Colleges run very different systems, often, than what is done in the NFL — basically lots of spread offensive schemes, lots of option-based schemes, sometimes all of that smushed together (like, say, Oregon does). A QB who plays on a scheme like that, where the offense he is directing is a spread/option style, is going to have to adjust a lot when coming to the NFL. Now, the NFL is getting a bit better with mobile QBs and working them into the scheme, but really it will likely never be a spread/option league. You can try to run the spread/option, like the Redskins did a few years ago, and you’re running a risk of your QB getting hurt, which is exactly what happened with RG3. Kaepernick also ran a lot less last year than he did in 2012, because the NFL defenses adjusted to what needs to be done to defeat the read option, among other college-type schemes that some NFL coaches have been toying with. Generally, a QB who comes from a school which runs a more pro style offense, like some of the SEC teams do, or like Stanford does, will have an easier transition than someone like RG3, who ran a more college-style offense (and who did very well when the Redskins ran a similar offense in 2012, but physically it wasn’t sustainable given the greater force of NFL hits).
@Morpheus
“I think it is both amusing and effective to coopt their own terminology and idioms. ”
Hey, no skin off my nose…disagree away. But in fact, I don’t disagree with you in a strategic sense, I see a variety of valid tactical approaches:
* ridicule the word
* ridicule the user of the word (use their words back)
* ridicule the lies of the enemy (debunking feminists and leftoids is a low return approach though. they have little reasoning, no logic and absolutely no shame over lying, or being caught lying. you might affect some of the audience, but it’s time consuming to counter a crazy person / liar. and you’re relying on the audience being smart enough to understand who is making good points vs who is lying)
I’ve openly laughed at women for using ‘creepy’ (online, this word is not a UK term outside kindergarten (which is itself not a UK term)) for using such babyish shaming language. Women don’t handle ridicule very well at all…it’s great. Feminists, in particular, do not have a sense of humour, nor any discernable wit. Just how many amusing comidiennes can you name…? thought so.
Another term to use on hateful women is…duh duh duh…’ugly’. As in, that idea of yours that you’re projecting on males is really ugly. That is some ugly thinking that you have. You must have an ugly mind to think that. Such words strike deep in a being obsessed with social standing in the fem-herd)
The thing about shaming language, an attack that women lurve to use, is that it works much, much better when turned on them. Hence the campaign against slut-shaming. Their assuming that shaming language works on men is, in fact, projection over what they themselves fear. Shaming does work on the blue pill guys, a wise red pill guy just agrees and amplifies.
I am (as you have probably worked out) very clear on the fact that feminism (and women as passive acceptors of feminism) have declared war on men. I am firmly of the opinion that in war (especially as the aggressee) one is dumb not to fight back with all available weapons. Fifty+ years of women getting away with every outrageous lie they can dream up has finally caused increasing numbers of men to turn up to fight. I wouldn’t bet on feminists in men vs feminists (with the majority of women waiting to see who wins).
I am not very critical of others fighting in different ways (e.g. your views on what works), I’m happy that we fight on every available front. From each according to their strengths, moods, whims whatever. Spread the red pill and/or debunk the feminist victimology…it’s all good.
#397
“Where do we draw the line on casual sex? PIV, blowjob, handjob, touching, kissing, or holding hands?”
Holding hands doesn’t count as sex. Touching counts as sex if it’s done for sexual stimulation. The rest are all clearly sexual acts.
A relationship is casual if it’s assumed to be temporary i.e. not resulting in traditional marriage. So yes, if a college girl enters a relationship she knows has an expiration date for whatever reason, it’s a casual.
Having said all that, shouldn’t all this be entirely obvious?
“the odds of remarriage is vastly lower for a woman in her 40′s and beyond that it is for a woman in her 20′s…”
Hey Keith, we agree!
But why does that mean that a woman’s N is not something to be considered? Both can be real factors…sallimsayin.
“BTW personally my longest relationships were with women with high N’s, go figure”
I fuckin’ lurve an anecdatum added to an argument where official stats show that increasing N increases the chances of unhappy marriage and divorce.
#396
If dating is done for any purpose other than eventual traditional marriage, then yes, it obviously counts as carousel riding. It’s serial monogamy, which is the same thing – sexual promiscuity, as preferred by women. Such relationships are assumed to be temporary and hedonistic in nature.
“So I agree with your description, but am puzzled by its negative tone.”
What negative tone? Our pal ADBG was simply making factual and dispassionate observations about female promiscuity.
“Do you feel female mate choice is a bad thing?”
Bad for what? The majority if men? The future of human civilization? It probably is, which isn’t surpirising considering that it’s something that was meant to be practiced on the African savannah.
“Having said all that, shouldn’t all this be entirely obvious?”
Oh H’hound! You and your
ability to reasonmale mind privilege.#462, Malcom Gladwell also wrote about the inability to predict NFL performance from NCAA results. Per usual, Gladwell doesn’t really know much about his subject, but he did get one thing right: it’s hard to scout a QB.
My take:
a. the NFL is great at measuring tangibles. But QB requires tangibles and intangibles.
b. the NFL is poor at measuring intangibles.
Intangibles that matter more in the pros as follows:
a. leadership, personal habits, study skills, media skills. They’re all required.
b. ability to get pummeled and not become afraid. The NFL is the most violent game played.
c. intelligence. They measure intelligence but continue to draft guys with 90 IQs (Vince Young). 90 IQ guys make poor QBs.
d. winners (vs. the underwear trophy). The NFL is a groupthink league and a 6’5″ statue with a six pack (half of QBs drafted) gets drafted ahead of Brees, or Wilson, who are 5’10”. Half of all QBs drafted bust, and all of the bustees look absolutely fabulous in their underwear.
e. NFL teams have “systems” and until recently never adapted them to their QBs native advantages. This is changing, what with Wilson and even a middle-aged Peyton. It should allow Manziel to succeed. Manziel will not succeed in a traditional pro-style O. (Neither did Fran Tarkenton, Joe Namath, or Warren Moon.)
All of that said, you still have to be able to throw an 15 yard out. Few people really can. You can’t loft that pass. Iowa had the runner-up in the 2002 Heisman, a QB who did everything. The Redskins released him after 15 minutes — 15 minutes — because he didn’t have the arm. He never played anywhere.
Throw in the fact that College Coaches have much more control over the kind of guys they recruit, and can look for guys that fit their system.
Most NFL coaches don’t have that luxury. They get what the GM gives them.
I also find in the NFL there’s less willingness to adapt the play book to the players, and many times coaches are trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
And until recently most of the play calling around the league was very vanilla.
Kieth Swanson – “BTW personally my longest relationships were with women with high N’s, go figure”
And of my partners, 75% had an N of 2 or less when we got together. The shortest of those relationships lasted 4 years.
And yes, I know it’s exactly 75%. My N is low enough to easilymdomthe math.
So do we cancel each other out?
Nova, Seattle runs a lot of spread/option and they did last night. As Collingsworth noted, one of their touchdowns was a true Malzahn/Auburn spread option pass. Where I agree with you is that the QB cannot run a true, college-style spread triple option (inside zone, QB sprint, or QB pass) without getting the QB killed. So Seattle is running a double spread/option — run and pass. Wilson seems to have been coached out of a lot of the ad hoc playmaking he did in the past two years, and rightly so. He’ll be finished, owing to the size/speed/violence of NFL defenses if he continues.
So a lot of NFL teams are picking up the spread-option concept, but I predict next to zero will actively run their QB.
The spread is just a version of the single-wing, anyway. It’s not that innovative.
My educational background makes me distrustful of the eyeball test. If you can verify it fine. It’s easy to spot the high N’s but those in the middle and lower are hard to separate. If she’s attractive, even harder. I’ve seen to many women who I thought were very conservative, faithful women cheat ( I’ve notched a few of them) so I’m jaded.
BTW for Spawny, NOVA, and Ted, what’s the over/under of the eyeball test N =5? lol
@478 —
That’s a better way of saying it, I think. It’s a different kind of option offense than what you often see in college (although that play in yesterday’s game was great).
@ Ted
It’s not a matter of cancel out. It’s just these theories without verification for me hold less weight. The cultural atmosphere that you are brought up in has way more relevance in marriage success than N count. That much I know from personal experience. I’ve talked to former “club” women who’ve been married for 40 years and brag about how many guys they slept with before marriage and adore their beta husbands. I know many low N women that got divorced more than once.
N is a factor, but he biggest factor I’ve observed is skin in the game. Educated UMC couples who remain married and even blue collar couples who stay together do so because they have to much invested to break up. I’ve heard that hundreds of times from both sides of the isle…
Keith Swanson – the eyeball test sucks. But without the ability to get an honest answer it’s all many men have to go on.
Not sure what over/under is (I don’t gamble) but like I said above, n>5 does not a slut necessarily make. It increases the chance she won’t be happy with me long term, but IF she brings a lot to the table I may still give it a try.
When I found myself single at 39, I quickly realized I had no chance of finding a woman with an N under 2 or 3. Outside of strict religious circles such women mostly don’t exist. (Of average to better SMV) And I’ll admit that kinda irked me. I made efforts to keep my N low (mostly for moral reasons) and found that pretty much no one else did. I’m not religious but I am highly spiritual (and it is based off of my Catholic upbringing) so the problem is no woman from such strict faith would want me, and few women outside those faiths share my strict spiritual code.
I didn’t leave the Church because I didn’t believe. I left the Church because it is a corrupt and power hungry organization that has little to do with the actual faith. So I’m viewed as “religious” by true seculars, and viewed as a heathen by churchians. And low N among secular people is rare at best.
“BTW for Spawny, NOVA, and Ted, what’s the over/under of the eyeball test N =5? lol”
The stats are clear. The fact that you don’t like the facts, and most men hate the fact that women’s Ns make them a high risk of divorce are neither here, nor there.
One can only lay out the facts and let all sides make their own decisions based on the best available data. I’m not saying women are evil, I’m saying that men (and women) should look at the stats and then all should act according to their judgement.
Why would you see this as a reason to LOL?
Keith Swanson – “N is a factor, but he biggest factor I’ve observed is skin in the game. Educated UMC couples who remain married and even blue collar couples who stay together do so because they have to much invested to break up. I’ve heard that hundreds of times from both sides of the isle…”
Down here in the LMC is tough to get a woman to put enough skin in the game I guess… Especially if they can walk away with half the mans skin and all of her own intact.
At any rate, simply “staying together” does not mean those folks are happily married. I stayed married for 11 years and the last 5 were pretty much sexless and miserable. I stayed because I didn’t think I had a choice, and because morally I did not want to destroy my children’s family. Eventually my ex pushed divorce and frankly there was nothing I could do to stop it.
I don’t want to just be “married” again. I want a happy, healthy, sexually active relationship. Being married for the title alone isn’t worth it, and I believe many modern “long haul” marriages are far from happy and sexually healthy. Many are simply in the position of not being able to afford a divorce.
It’s been a long time since I needed assistance interpreting a woman. Breaking with this thread’s primary theme of AWESOME ITS FOOBAWL SEASON YAH BRO, tell me if I am interpreting this correctly.
Text comes after some banter with an old friend. She’s the only woman I would, at present, consider settling down with — but I haven’t seen her in 18 months, since the infamous “where is this going?” business. She’s very low N, got burned in her marriage to a fuckwad wanna-be Jobs, and she sent me unsolicited birthday greetings this week when I haven’t heard from her in a year. She was calling me “nice” and “sweet” and shit, and I was going, “Please God anything but sweet and nice. Maybe hot and scary and a good driver but not “sweet and nice”.”
I think I’m in the friendzone, what think you?
***
Woman:
“BV:
Charming – yes
Wound up – yes
Hot – definitely
Scary – no
Sweet and nice – still go with yes
A little bit of sweet and nice makes a man hotter and more charming!”
BV:
“Haha. In the friendzone, definitely true. Otherwise, yikes.”
***
Then, no reply from the girl.
To me this is friendzone all the way. She’s previously indicated that she’s alpha-widowed, her boyfriend is “kind” and the rest of that AFBB crap. She might be on the fence, but there’s always the matter of BV being “wound up” (high alpha, in finance terms, meaning high risk).
Oh, since this is an EMK thread, she’s “high quality”. I’m on topic!
Has anyone *ever* met a woman who wanted to sleep with “sweet and nice”? I haven’t. Attractive v. desirable problem. (Now, I know she wants to sleep with me, but she only sleeps with relationship prospects. Seriously, she’s a unicorn. Doesn’t do casual.)
“she sent me unsolicited birthday greetings this week “”
She wants dick, she also wants to put you in a relationship
“A little bit of sweet and nice makes a man hotter and more charming!”
You’re already a man in her eyes – she’s seeing the good in you
“Haha. In the friendzone, definitely true. Otherwise, yikes.”
She probably doesnt understand how to interpret that and might even interpret “yikes” as a rejection from you.
My take: text her to meet for drinks.
Plain Jane 429 (self-stimulation) “From what guys have told me, not nearly as satisfying as self-stimulation is for the average woman.”
Are you saying it is as good or better than the “real thing?” Because if so, I don’t think so, don’t think most women do, either. Aren’t we supposed to be the gender that needs emotional attachment, cuddling, etc?
It can be a release, but it can also remind you what you’re missing.
Spawny I have little love for new theories that have not been time tested. Age is a fact. Education is a fact. Income is a fact. Number of children is a fact. N count is a guess just like infidelity.
I treat N count like a criminal record. Your record only shows how many times yoo’ve been caught, not how many crimes you’ve committed. Can you spot a shady character without a record, well kinda. Can you spot a reformed slut without a visible shady background, well maybe…
Hey Keith,
don’t forget to keep out an eye for suddenly arriving, or suddenly more frequently commenting, antagonistic types…PJ and Obs have had a falling out.
Same goes for Keyhole, or whatever her name was. And Star Child.
And so Keith, one should not bother trying? What are you insinuating that you fear to clearly state?
If you’re pushing the line that men shouldn’t bother establishing her N, well then, my indubitably penis wielding friend, I must demur. Even if it’s just a case that her equivocation and evasion over the subject raises unprovable suspicion.
Man-logic would say differently, men would use it as a tool regardless of what can be suspected but not proved. He’s taking the risk in marriage, not her. Caesar’s wife was not only required to be innocent, she had to be provably innocent.
Anyway, social media and women’s innate desire for attention will increasingly be their Achilles heel. Things are going to get better (for men seeking honesty from women).
“I treat N count like a criminal record. Your record only shows how many times yoo’ve been caught, not how many crimes you’ve committed. Can you spot a shady character without a record, well kinda. Can you spot a reformed slut without a visible shady background, well maybe…”
In the case of criminal activity being caught once is enough for me to say next.
In terms of “reformed slut” I don’t believe in them. (Assuming you mean slut and not a woman with a lower N that took a spin or two). Those women that dabbled in The carousel aren’t sluts, but perhaps have some slutty tendencies. In those cases, other indicators must be used to try and figure out where on the curve she is from slut to prude.
Oddly enough, I don’t care at all about age. You keep bringing it up but I don’t see how it relates to the subject. How does age figure into if a woman is a higher risk for divorce/being unhaaaappy unless you are looking at woman across a board range of ages? I’m 44, so logically if I was on the market I would be looking at women mid 30’s to 40’s. I don’t imagine age plays much factor over those 10 years. But N very well might.
Yeah, I suppose being older they would be less likely to divorce me later, but I want more than a marriage in name. Truthfully I wouldn’t stay married to a woman that wasn’t enthusiastic about being with me again. I’ve already been divorced once so it isn’t like a fresh blotch on my spiritual record or anything. So for me, N is very much about trying to determine how sexually content a woman will be with me long haul. If her N is high, it’s less likely. If she had a few “alpha” runs, less likely. If she used to bang douchebags but now wants to settle down, less likely.
And it was mentioned being a great lover is a learnable skill. Sure to an extent. But no matter how good you become, you can never be the guy she screwed on the beach in Cancun on her last night there, because unlike that guy, she lives with you and sees you at your best and worst. He’s nothing but a memory of manly sexiness. You are the guy that forgets to out the cap on the toothpaste…
I’m asking how do you verify it, all the answers I get are fuzzy. I have 2 grown daughters and verifying there N is a guess with some surprises. If O or any of the others bloggers think that I’m trolling or being combative they can speak on it. Allsimsayin is in my 50 years I’ve never been truly able to tell a woman’s N, which is the reason I gave up long ago. I don’t know how y’all do it this connected age. My 25 year old daughter also has a healthy distrust of a woman’s supposed N…
#486: Done. I acknowledged that the ‘yikes’ could cut both ways and attempted to clarify. I’ll let you know what happens. Thank you.
BV, good luck!
Keith Swanson – we can’t “verify” it. But a woman with an N of 20 that’s says she has an N of 4 is probably going to rat herself out eventually.
That being said, a woman with an N of 7 may say 5, and in those cases the difference may not matter enough to be obvious, so other methods of qualifying her are more important.
None of us believes 100% that the N we are given is true. But there is a vast difference between not counting a hand job and not counting guys banged while on vacation, especially if she travelled a lot. It isn’t a hard/fast measurement, but it can be used to ferret out behavior that doesn’t jive with presented facts.
I’m on the road and cannot get to the links but basically……
The mental and physcial speed of the game has a much greater curve when going from college football to the NFL vs college basketball to the NBA & other sports. I cannot recall their reasoning why but I do recall them saying a basketball player takes in data and makes short term decisions ( like micro seconds ) at a faster rate then any other athlete, but does so in series while football players do so in parallel. Like in bb it’s pretty much one on one or tops one on three data input/ decisions. The qb needs to be aware of damn near everyone on the field. Officials included, but has more time ( though still done in seconds and micro seconds)
A qb takes in more data, and has to do more with it, make more reads, predict more possible outcomes etc. further into the future. This takes more time to develop and I reckon is a more rare talent (though the authors didn’t say so)
Iirc, the only athlete with more mental requirements/ demands on his micro second decision making skillz are Olympic level wrestlers
Another thing at issue is, the nfl no longer takes the time to develop raw talent. Kind of a bummer to my reckoning.
Really interesting stuff to me, but I am more interested in athletes themselves and how they do what they do then any particular sports.
It’s funny to me reading guys, whom I like and respect, try to figure out some modern version of sexual morality when none of it is particularly moral. The old standard of no sex before or outside of marriage is clear and easy to define. Everything else just comes down to personal preference.
BV“Has anyone *ever* met a woman who wanted to sleep with “sweet and nice”?
Yes, yes, YES!!!
Yohami is right.
When she says you are sweet and nice she doesn’t mean that in the way you’re interpreting it…especially with your description of her.
A different woman (like my stalker) might say you’re vulgar and juicy and that would be her subtle art of seduction.
I am absolutely sure she doesn’t mean sweet and nice in a cuddly-wuddly-woo context.
Buena Vista,
That she doesn’t do “casual” is a good sign. I think her feelers are genuine. However, you do “catch and release”. Unless you’re willing to explore a relationship, wouldn’t you be the wrong guy?
#497:
Christ, another unicorn. This is like taking career advice from Turing. Like all I have to do is be as smart as Turing. But thanks for slumming with such as I, Liz. Remember: you need to suborn your guy’s maintenance chief. Before someone else does.
She’s picking up her kids at school now, hope she doesn’t crash. Of course, if she does, I’ll know the door is also cracked.
@Höllenhund #473,
“So I agree with your description, but am puzzled by its negative tone.”
What negative tone? Our pal ADBG was simply making factual and dispassionate observations about female promiscuity.
All ADBG’s long comment at #384 comes down to is that women are not naturally and purely monogamous. (The same can be said for men, although the sexes differ in their preferred styles of non-monogamy.) That’s the factual and dispassionate part. What is neither factual nor dispasssionate is the colorful language such as “riding the carousal,” which the context of all these discussion show entails a negative value judgement.
If we’re going to be factual and dispassionate, why not simply say “female mate choice is not monogamous”, and save 500 words of exposition?
“What is neither factual nor dispasssionate is the colorful language such as “riding the carousal,””
True there’s some passion in that phrase.
“female mate choice is not monogamous”
That’s more factual but too brainiac.
I propose “female mate choice is slutilicious”
Ciaran – I’m an INTJ. I’m nothing if not judgmental…
Woman replies after a few minutes:
“Wow! You like to surprise me like this. Just made my afternoon carpooling more interesting.”
So, immediate response (< 10 mins, she's driving etc). Second, non-denial denial. Means at least a contingent yes.
Yohami: I take this to mean you were right. Because she would have ignored me if she were locked down with the BB "he's so kinda kind and very kind" man. But she didn't say "yes" immediately because she is still dating him, just bored to tears or something. This woman lacks guile. She has discretion, but no guile. She's a Liz.
@Liz, BV,
When she says you are sweet and nice she doesn’t mean that in the way you’re interpreting it…especially with your description of her.
I read it the same way. You’re sweet and nice (for an alpha). That’s like the icing on the cake.
BV, enjoy!
Buena Vista,
As for women liking “sweet and nice”, it doesn’t work for me. Maybe, I need to go to youtube and watch some fierce bear videos until I have it down.
@ BuenaVista #444,
We do it here too. Note what happened in a recent thread when a couple of guys noted that, well, in AfPak men fuck boys for sport, before later getting hitched to some XX wearing a black tent. Not permitted. It does happen to be a factual report, however.
I disagree. What we don’t want is comments like “Muslims are pederasts”. It’s unspecific and unsupported. Discussing something like the dancing boys of Afghanistan, an organized form of pederasty, is fine. It’s specific and supported.
Rural muslim men in AfPak *are* pederasts, which was Ton’s original comment. They’re other things too (glad I’m not a goat). I’m not talking out of … my ass here. These are facts. It doesn’t matter if the facts piss off CAIR. It’s your blog and you own the rulebook but you missed this call. It’s still 850 AD in a lot of places. People act like it in those places.
@Yohami,
I propose “female mate choice is slutilicious”
Works for me!
@TedD,
Ciaran – I’m an INTJ. I’m nothing if not judgmental…
You and most of the others.
I guess the reason why I’m objecting to the judgmental aspect is that it suggests a lack of acceptance of the situation on either the intellectual or emotional level. Like one is upset that the world isn’t how one wishes it was, or women aren’t as one thinks they should be. But this isn’t a Disney film, and wishing things doesn’t make them so. If ABDG’s analysis is correct, factual and dispassionate, then one should accept it and move on to what one can do.
@BV,
Rural muslim men in AfPak *are* pederasts, which was Ton’s original comment.
I may have missed the call or not – I’m not going back to the tapes to find out. But if Ton’s statement was as particular as that (rural and muslim and AfPak), I don’t have a problem with it.
They’re other things too (glad I’m not a goat).
PJ might claim that the goats wanted it.
It’s still 850 AD in a lot of places. People act like it in those places.
I don’t deny it. I read the news!
“None of us believes 100% that the N we are given is true. But there is a vast difference between not counting a hand job and not counting guys banged while on vacation, especially if she travelled a lot. It isn’t a hard/fast measurement, but it can be used to ferret out behavior that doesn’t jive with presented facts.”
Agreed.. It’s not a hard and fast rule so much as a rule of thumb. 5-10 is a good number for a woman around 30. She’s 30, good looking and has 3 or less my radar goes up. She’s lying or I need to see her shrink… LOL ijs
PJ’s a talking goat? What kind of keyboard works when she’s hoofing it?
moslem men, rural or city, rich are poor are pederast. These things go back to the beginning, are 100% supported claims through out history and observations made by Western and Eastern observer but for the liberal minded here, its more important to be nice then accurate
which explains why the West is being ground to dust and why the man o sphere will never actually be effective beyond waking men up, letting men know they aren’t crazy or alone in their assessment
Re: 850 AD.
I had drinks with a very elegant, soft-spoken, multi-lingual well-dressed man, in his late 30’s, in April of this year. He was in town because the USG gave him money to run underground media (internet, tv and radio) in areas of Syria not controlled by Assad.
I’d never had drinks with a condemned man before, so I wasn’t sure how to handle it. (Condemned: as if, who wasn’t going to kill him, Assad or ISIS?) We spoke about how Washington follows a Parisian street plan, or some such bullshit. A friend of mine was working, at the time, on being a bag man to his operation but fortunately he got sidelined by something else.
He’s ‘disappeared’ now. I have no idea, and no one else does, if he was just shot, or crucified and shot, or crucified, shot and beheaded. The impulse that killed him wasn’t “aberrant” Islam or “perverted” Islam; it was Orthodox Islam. In April, Americans had no idea what ISIS was; today it borders on an existential threat, if not to us to countries we care about. (Like to be running Jordan right now?) These things should be discussed plainly.
I guess the reason why I’m objecting to the judgmental aspect is that it suggests a lack of acceptance of the situation on either the intellectual or emotional level. Like one is upset that the world isn’t how one wishes it was, or women aren’t as one thinks they should be. But this isn’t a Disney film, and wishing things doesn’t make them so. If ABDG’s analysis is correct, factual and dispassionate, then one should accept it and move on to what one can do.
Most of us *have* moved on to what we can do. What that looks like, however, depends on the man. I’m like Ted in that I have very strict *moral* rules around sex — which apply to me, first and foremost, and also to anyone I will be involved with. N count is not just a risk management issue, it’s a moral one for me, so I won’t deal with significant N count women, period, because it represents a clash of values when it comes to what sex is, what it signifies, what its appropriate context is, and so on. Obviously, this makes the pool I fish in tiny, especially since I am in my mid 40s and divorced. Yet I did find a fantastic woman who fit that standard, and the reason is that she has the same values/approach/understanding about sex that I do. But … it’s a very, very small pool of women in 2014 in the US. Very small, even in religious circles.
For guys for whom it is not a moral issue, it comes down to (1) deciding what you want (LTR, STR, ONS, etc.), (2) making a risk assessment based on whatever personal tolerance level you have for what you think is too big a risk in light of what kind of thing you are looking for and (3) optimizing yourself to be the attractive one to the women you are fishing for in the type of context of relationship you are looking for (and if that’s women with significant Ns, then by all means focus on what improves your odds with that kind of woman). You can use N for that, or you can use Keith’s “background assessment” regardless of whether she brags about her stint as the town bike, you can do what Yohami has done, etc. Different approaches for different people with different perspectives/values and different goals in the game.
#500
It’s too simple and misleading to say “female mate choice is not monogamous”. In many cases it’s indeed monogamous, because women prefer serial monogamy. It’s also true, though, that it’s common for women to engage in other forms of sexual behavior that are also different from lifelong monogamy. It seems to me that’s the main argument of ADBG’s comment.
The “cock carousel” is simply an accurate metaphor, nothing else. It’s factually true that many women ride cocks for fun, just like young children ride the carousel at the amusement park for fun. There’s no reason to not use such metaphors.
moslem men, rural or city, rich are poor are pederast.
I know that pederasty is common among moslems in a number of the middle east countries. But stated as you did, it applies to about 800 million people, living across the world, of a wide variety of ethnicities and cultures. There are very few statements that are true when applied that broadly.
It could still be true – I don’t know one way or the other. But I would like to see the evidence.
for the liberal minded here, its more important to be nice then accurate
For the skeptically minded here, it’s important to establish accuracy with evidence.
A light bulb went on for me today.
Background: Mrs. Gamer has been throwing fits in my social circle. It was all based on her fantasy about a particular dance.
It would be nice if I could read Mrs. Gamer’s emotions when she’s at my social circle, but she hides them like a champ and stores them up until they explode into a tantrum. I’ll try interviewing her periodically–she’ll likely tell me what I need to know.
Anyway, the light bulb is that Mrs. Gamer is likely not circumspect about her behavior in my social circle because she’s not invested in it. The key is to get her invested in it. It’s the same Game principle as getting a woman to invest in you by chatting a lot. More investment means more interest and more concern about protecting the investment and seeing a profit on it.
#509
One doesn’t have to accept all that. The Church Fathers didn’t accept all the decadence and immorality that surrounded them either, because their moral and intellectual judgment wouldn’t allow otherwise. We’re also free to renounce it and isolate ourselves from people whose behavior we find unacceptable. We have to make clear and also keep in mind what we oppose. In that sense it’s useful to repeat what one believes in, because it sharpens your resolve and keeps you the path you have chosen.
Another aspect of it is that it’s an integral part of the feminist agenda to oppose and delegitimize any so-called “judgmental” attitude towards feminist women. Anyone who opposes feminist ideology needs to make clear that this is not acceptable. At the same time we also need to make clear that moral judgments are legitimate, but also that not everything dismissed as moral judgment is indeed such. See my example above about the cock carousel.
There is also good work to be done awakening passers by to the reality of even modest N on marriage risks and the fact that there are concrete reasons for the innate preference of most men for low n women for relationships.
Men and women are brought up believing that women can boink like men can without effect on their ability to bond…isn’t so.
Men need to recognise the marriage risk.
Women need to know:
A) it has an effect
B) men know that
C) it affects men’s decision on who/if to invest in.
Then women and men can make their choices as they see fit. I have no interest in shaming women, I want men to be aware of the effect of her N on marriageabilty and would prefer women knew this stuff before they end up as high risk material. Sounds fair.
Ton #496:
I would be very interested in reading anything on the similarity of high-speed QB-ing and olympic wrestling, if you have a moment to set down the M-4 and send on a link. I had never heard that. (I was basketball, not wrestling.)
In terms of human factors, I have no idea how NFL QBs do it, given the speed of the game, but it must be the development of the world’s most robust heuristic, or rule structure, combined with visual intelligence that is off the scale, combined with Olympic athlete level strength and agility, combined with simple bravery. All of this is pretty hard to quantify.
Heart surgeons are pretty self-impressed, but your average 737 monkey flying an instrument approach on the needles (instead of the new all-in-one graphic displays) is supposedly processing 10x as much information.
So again, human factors beyond athletic ability seem to be what you have to measure to understand QB ceiling. They can’t do it, obviously, yet, without just throwing them out on the field. Therefore half of them fail.
#224
This notion was discussed on PMAFT’s site. It’s apparently based on shoddy research (namely a small-scale Italian study) and fueled by nothing but the usual misandrist narrative. It’s basically part of the Man Up Campaign and has little basis in reality.
#519,
I agree with that. The fact that I was suggesting needs to be accepted is the innate proclivity of women (and men) to non-monogamy, which includes serial monogamy. One can’t wish that away. One can, perhaps, modify how those tendencies are expressed.
As for women liking “sweet and nice”, it doesn’t work for me.
Me neither. My ex once said to me, “Farm Boy you are the most intelligent and the nicest guy that I know”. After which, she divorced me.
Farm Boy,
Every time I see a new revelation about your ex-wife, it’s like I get a tummy ache.
Earlier today, I saw Vox Day quote from some survey, about two thirds of women would rather do something solitary and mildly fun than have sex with their husbnds.
That was my WTF moment for today.
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/09/why-low-n-matters.html
Farm Boy,
I stumbled over this while looking for that Vox Day link. Your ex-wife should have been shown this by divorce attorneys before she filed. Lots of charty goodness from Dalrock, dated last May.
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/smoking-gun/
I’ll bet you a honey glazed doughnut that she hasn’t found a new beau.
@ 517 wrong again; and another demonstration of the liberal mind set
Its more important to protect your people and culture. Which is the polar opposite of the liberal mind, which is the kind of thinking that leads to the death of a people.
@ 521
Sorry BV, all such links are back in NC. I’ll see if my girl can wrestle them up. Right now I am in Nashville, somewhat hiding out from the lawdogs and somewhat working on an issue for my employers regarding a new Customs policy.
The expert talking about the differences was this Russian guy who has been the S&C coach for 260+ Olympic medalists. Them is some bona-fide’s. Any rate he is Russian, never played football and is ( or was he might be dead) amazed by football players, routinely saying it is the height of athletic achievement regarding physical, mental, tactical and technical skills, only matched or slightly exceed by Olympic level wrestlers ( I think he said professorial MMA fighters as well but cannot recall) According to him, defensive ends are the near pinnacle of physical demands while QB’s are the near pinnacle of mental demands.
IIRC, the Olympic wrestler has the most mental demands simply because he has the most to win or lose on any fast past/ micro second decision, with the most complex skill set and tactical issues. The most mentally tough/ disciplined as well. Combined with the highest demands for every aspects of physical powers; strength, speed strength, aerobic and anaerobic conditioning etc.
He is the one who clued me in on the decision making speed of athletes. and a shit ton more stuff. IIRC, basket ballplayers make the fastest decisions in sports, but I have always wondered how that stacks up to guys hitting MLB fastballs.
@ 517 wrong again; and another demonstration of the liberal mind set
So you are suggesting that accuracy and evidence imply a liberal mind set? And by inference, those that aren’t liberal lack the capacity for either? You’re giving the liberals much more than they deserve.
Its more important to protect your people and culture.
I do agree that it is essential to protect your people and culture. But if you lack the accuracy and evidence required for understanding, you will fail. This lack of understanding and the consequent failure to effectively defend their people and culture is the story of contemporary Western conservatism.
What societies are actually protecting their people and culture? Those orthodox Muslims you’ve been disparaging are doing it better than most.
Continuing #528: Actually, all the orthodox religions are better at protecting their people and culture than Western so-called conservatives.
“…but out of the desert, from the dry places and the dreadful suns, come the cruel children of the lonely God; the real Unitarians who with scimitar in hand have laid waste the world. For it is not well for God to be alone.” – The Romance of Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton.
@sfcTon
NBA players depend on being highly gifted athletically. There is a mental aspect to it that you gain from repetition and skill sets, but height, speed and quickness, leaping ability can’t be taught or developed. Tactics and plays only help so much.
Guarding someone with a great quickness is mind blowing, you can know the guys moves, and follow him mentally but your body can’t react fast enough to make the play
Has anyone *ever* met a woman who wanted to sleep with “sweet and nice”?
From what I could decipher, my Mom was like that.
Ciaran, they are doing a much better job of that then we are; but they don’t bother to ask the sort of questions you do. They value it simply because it is theirs, and by proxy, evil is winning.
530, true but I think you are dismissing who rapidly they take in data, predict likely courses of action and react. Through training, its happening faster then deliberate thought. Which you know, is kind of the point behind training. NBA, NFL or how I ear my bar tab money
#528: “Those orthodox Muslims you’ve been disparaging are doing it better than most.”
Oh, so now you’re saying Shia’a are not real muslims?
ISIS is slaughtering any Shia’a and any Sunni who interacts with Shia’a. Shooting on site, heads on pikes, slaughtering them. These guys don’t protect anyone but their own. The west collaborates by saying, “… shhhhh.”
Re: accepting and moving on
I’ve accepted that my grandparents have passed, but that doesn’t stop me from missing them on occasion.
I’ve accepted that the vast majority of people in the US don’t view sexuality as I do. I’ve found a woman that is reasonably close, (in terms of general morality) but being secular (another former Catholic so she understands my POV) she doesn’t really see the spiritual components at all. Sometimes I miss the idea of that deeper connection. My “beef” with the carousel and casual sex is it is depriving everyone of the opportunity to make that deeper connection. All in the name of “equality” and “independence”.
In the end acceptance is bitter sweet. it allows you to move on and grow, but it doesn’t necessarily help you get over missing what you lost and/or can’t find.
Just linking this here because it is relevant to the discussion last week in this thread about the relevance of Ns.
“Alpha widowhood” is yet another concept discussed in the ‘sphere that the mainstream is now acknowledging (although, of course, not using that term).
See: http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/09/ghosts-of-alpha-widow.html
Emphasis, lol.
Men in these parts understand “the carousel.” If I say “Heather is on the carousel,” they understand that pretty quickly.
This isn’t judgemental, it’s descriptive:
I am, in fact, judgemental of this. Why wouldn’t I be? Unrestricted mate choice has been, in my eyes, an unmitigated disaster. But I am trying to keep that out of the above passage, to whatever extent I can, and mostly trying to remind people that I am NOT arguing NAWALT but actually AWALT (but do have different enviromental constraints and internal tendencies).
I think that was communicated clearly enough. HH understood me.
“I think that was communicated clearly enough. HH understood me.”
We’re not just writing for the old lags, we’re also writing for the less familiar with the manosphere and its theories, terminology and concepts.
I’ve heard about this eyeball test a few times now, can somebody explain what it is please?
535 Novaseeker, on “Alpha Widows”…I’ve read about this on several blogs lately and wonder…does sex really have to happen for this to occur? 150 years ago, weren’t there girls who carried a lifelong fantasy of a man who had courted them, or just flirted with them, even though things didn’t go any further than chaste kissing, if even that far?
“Eyeball test”?
You check her eyes to see if she has ‘the thousand cock stare’ (google will deliver), it exists IMHO. Maybe not everytime, but if you see it…run
Yet another jolly consequence of female mate choice:
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/08/post_529.html
#541: Jesus. Stellar people, these are.
Maybe the perfect pickup non sequitur these days would be to answer a question with “not since prison”
For instance:
Her: “Would you like a croissant?”
Him: “No, thanks. Not since prison. We ate them every day there. It was a French prison.”
*tingles*
Stellar people, these are.
Talk funny you do.
“Talk funny you do.”
Speak Yoda fluently, I do.
…But not since prison.
(couldn’t resist)
Speak Yoda fluently, I do.
True this is not.
Yodish the correct word is.
Liz,
Better yet but, sadly, out of date.
…not since the War.
…I was in the Resistance.
Ah, Yodish it is. Rusty I am.
Fuzzie, that’s probably too honorable for the pulse of the (female) public these days.
Side note: Another day, two more (false) rape accusations at the base. Good times. My sons will not serve in the military. Too risky these days. I want their prison stories to be fake.
Liz,
I tried to find a good clip with Grace Kelly and Cary Grant without success. You get the idea. I think our own Buena Vista can move in those circles.
With the false accusations, are careers ruined? If these guys have no defense against Potiphar’s wife, the country will run out of Josephs and none will want to be him.
Ah ha! Here you all are… I am way behind on this thread…
“With the false accusations, are careers ruined? “
Of course. Careers aren’t only ruined for the wrongly accused, they are ruined for those who attempt to exonerate them. The wrongly accused themselves suffer far worse than that. They go to prison, then have trouble obtaining employment forever after, since a lifelong stain accompanies their felony conviction.
Elimination of presumption of innocence, elimination of the burden of proof for the accuser, eliminate accountability for false claims, add politically-motivated influence over the courts martial process where any commander who exercises authority after reviewing the facts in favor of the accused faces career ending consequences and public ridicule, and you get a system that supports false claims and politically motivated prosecutions.
Very true Liz, accusations are easily made and even if dismissed, the “did he or didn’t he?” questions can linger on, follow him long after. A reverse scarlet letter, some doubt always there, life under a microscope ever after.
“Yo! dish! the correct word is.”
again with the street harrarsement? Shame on you, especially at your age.
Thanks Swithy, I needed that this morning.
My pleasure Liz. It occurred to me last night, I struggled manfully against my tendenancy to post poor qualidy humour…but in the end, the outcome was inevitable
It seems I also make words up, my bad.
Liz,
About the false charges, if they’re so obvious that you can see them as such, one has to wonder how much resentment is building up as they go all the way to conviction and lives are ruined for the innocent.
I’m more familiar with the information than most, Fuzzie. Most of this stuff doesn’t make the papers…and when it does it’s completely inaccurate.
I’ve only just seen the acusations against the Sons of Guns tv show. I note that his reputation is over, as is his business interests before any evidence has been waved. Most bizarre to me are the actions of his co-star daughter and his son-in-law (the pet jack-ass on the show). The whole thing stinks, I hope that true justice is done.
http://www.nola.com/crime/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2014/09/sons_of_guns_star_faces_addito.html
@ BV, YOHAMI
Women don’t call betas “sweet and nice” even if they are 95% nice and 5% jerk. Women call alphas “nice guys” even if they are 95% jerk and 5% nice.
“Women don’t call betas “sweet and nice” ”
Women dont call betas at all!
Women dont call betas at all!
They call them when their car does not work. When the pipes break. When the furnace won’t turn on. Etc.
@Ms.(?) Guest:
“This is a joke, right?”
O: I certainly hope not…
“Yours is among the worst misogynist sites in the sphere. That you cannot see it is either astounding blindness or astounding lie — don’t know which is worse.”
O: Well now, that’s a pretty strong claim – and strong claims, require strong evidence. To date, you have offered none. Hmm….
“Not only you are awash in derisive comments about women every day on each thread (and don’t start with the “show me where!” challenge, because if you cannot see it, then, well, you cannot see it even when it’s pointed out to you),”
O: Well, what is “derisive” certainly is in the eye of the beholder, now isn’t it? And besides, why hasn’t the lady regulars of this site – of which there are quite a few (many more lukers than active commenters, I might add – taken this view you hold? Please explain?
“but you also blithely endorse such peaches of ideas like “rape is a feminist conspiracy” (Fuzzie Wuzzie came up with that doozy a month or so ago — yes, it is in your comments, do your own homework and find it for once yourself — it is on your own site and you approved it),”
O: To be honest, I’m not aware of this comment; you would kindly link me to it, I’ll look into the matter. Thanks!
“or stop (very) short of endorsing rape for those unfortunate women who “deserve it,” as revealed in the recent discussion about whether you’d help a woman being assaulted or not (of course for the non-misogynist gents here the collective answer is NOT).”
O: Again, I’m not aware of any such comments, though I will be happy to investigate the matter if you would kindly link said comment? Thanks!
“You also endorse violence against women in your comments (eg., Mr. Grey, or the famous Arevo — see below — not to mention regular violent posturing against women by your thug-in-residence, SfcTon, and a few others).”
O: What has Ton said, that was an endorsement of violence against Women? Again, please provide links to his and other putatively offending comments, and I’ll be sure to look into it.
“Ms. Lindsey’s description of your place as “the blog equivalent of a few guys (four, perhaps) angrily ejaculating into a shared slop bucket and then proudly applauding themselves for what they’ve contributed’” is entirely correct. You are the only ones who cannot see it, but that’s not a surprise.”
O: Hmm. OK, so let me get this straight – you wholeheartedly endorse the most disturbingly sexual verbal/written attacks by someone who holds herself out as an advocate AGAINST sexual assault and harassment, but you hold J4G in general, and yours truly in particular, in contempt – even though I have never, ever, said anything remotely coming close to what Ms. Lindsey said to us as per your quote above? You gotta be kiddin’ me, right?
“BTW, I challenge you to post this comment, and without your editorial “assistance,” and then let it stand on its own. You are not only deeply misogynist and in complete denial about it, but you are (unsurprisingly) cowardly and thin-skinned, unable to deal with criticism in any rational manner (hint: shooting the messengers — censoring critical comments and/or deriding the critics, and denying the obvious are NOT rational responses to criticism).”
O: This comment by you is now roughly three weeks old, and as you can see, has not been deleted, edited or altered in any form whatsoever; additionally, as I said when you firt posted it, we do indeed plan to take things a step further than any of your ilk on the other side of the divide have done – stay tuned…
“You cannot seriously expect people who have a modicum of self-respect and concern for their personal and professional reputations to be openly associated with your site.”
O: Dr. Jeremy Nicholson, Mr. Jeb Kinnison, Mr. Evan Marc Katz himself, Mr. Paul Carrick Brunson, Dr. Helen Smith, Prof. Janice Fiamengo, Ms. Susanne Venker, Prof. of Law Glenn Reynolds…need I go on?
“If your regulars were to start posting under their real names, you can bet your non-adjourned arse that they would either change their tune ASAP, since most of them know quite well that what they say is both wrong and socially unacceptable, and it would cost them their careers and relationships if their real names were attached to their words; or would stop posting here altogether.”
O: Perhaps; but those who know me very well know exactly what it is that I write and why, and even if they disagree with me, they respect both my right to be heard and my right to hold the views I have. But they possess something that would be alien to you and yours – Tolerance.
“You are toxic and willfully blind of your toxicity. Deal with it.”
O: At present, J4G is coming up on 1.5M site views, having broken the 1M mark one week before our first birthday, Jun 13, 2014. We have experienced nothing but month-on-month growth of the J4G brand. More people are hearing about and reading us and sticking around, all the time. And this is being done with a bare minimum of social media presence, virtually no promotional budget, etc. If we are indeed “toxic”, it’s a “toxicity” that others have no problem with.
http://www.justfourguys.com/black-women-do-not-respect-boundaries/#comment-57184
O: Fixed! Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Much appreciated!
O.
There are truths which are not for all men, nor for all times.
Voltaire
It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.
Voltaire
In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
(Editor’s Note): Tru Dat…