[By deti]
(Thanks to Liz, Morpheus and Buena Vista for helping me refine and understand the concepts expressed here.)
At the tail end of the very, very long “Skeptical at First, A Girl Tries Girl Game” thread, valued commenter Liz mentioned how she met and married her husband. Paraphrasing, she described that at first, she wasn’t at all attracted to him. She said he exhibited some “dealbreakers”. This somehow metamorphosed soon into Liz’ opinion that this man was the “most attractive man [Liz] had ever seen”.
Liz described meeting this man who would be her future husband and feeling “meh” about him. The two were in a class together. Liz felt she wasn’t’ sexually attracted to him at all. But, he was gregarious, easy to talk to, and “very interesting”. She felt she wasn’t doing well in the class and was going to drop it. The future “Mr. Liz” talked to her for a long time, and convinced her to take the exam and not drop the class. She got a B+ on the grading curve. He got the highest score and “led the curve”.
Liz eventually said that she was attracted to him after that. She said it was that he was persuasive and had a “take-charge” attitude. He was dependable and liked that he encouraged her. She talked of seeing his “boyish face” and his inability to grow a beard which turned her off because she likes scruffy men. But then, she says he showed “demeanor and conduct” “over time” which convinced her he was a very masculine man. (Importantly, we don’t know what that demeanor and conduct was, and she doesn’t say how much time was involved).
The estimable Morpheus took note of all this and described it in terms of “Paths”.
Path 1 is where she feels instant attraction for the man. There’s an instant spark and it’s plainly sexual in nature.
Path 2 is the route Liz described – where the woman denies sexual attraction, she kinda-sorta notices him, but he does something to come within her line of sight and she eventually comes to view him as attractive.
I want to offer these thoughts and practical advice for men dealing with Path 2, because I think it’s common. There is also a great deal of unstated ambiguity and confusion. With this post I am not saying by any means that I have all the answers. I want to put it out there for discussion and maybe a followup post. The issue of men dealing with Path 2 is pretty important, so we need to explore it and flesh it out. Men will have to address Path 2 issues repeatedly, and thus, strategies for navigating and addressing it are useful.
THOUGHTS AND ANALYSIS
1. Path 2 Is Real. Because this comes from Liz, a trusted commenter here, we take her description at face value. There’s little doubt that the so-called “Path 2” is a viable way for men and women to meet and marry. In fact, Path 2 looks something like how men and women used to connect pre-Sexual Revolution and before Path 1 gained official cultural and social approval.
There’s no doubt that for nearly all women, attraction exists on a spectrum. There are a few men/types of men she’s really attracted to. There is a slightly larger number of men she could be attracted to but doesn’t notice for whatever reason until something happens, either with the man or with her situation or something else, and then attraction is sparked. There are a very, very large number of men she’s not attracted to at all. I think it’s this second group of men that women put on Path 2.
2. Path 2 Is Not “Beta Bucks.” This isn’t just a fancy description of the “Beta Bucks” settling that happens so often. This is something different. Liz describes actually evaluating the man; and the man doing something or saying something that raises his status/appearance/estimation.
3. Path 2 Is Not Attraction Created from Nothing. This looks like a woman noticing the attractive qualities in a man when she didn’t see them before. A woman putting a man on Path 2 is not creating attraction from nothing. I have gone back and forth, round and round with others on the issue of whether attraction can be created from nothing. I believe in the negative; that one cannot create attraction from nothing, and I’m pretty sure I am correct. You can’t marry a woman to a man she feels no attraction for whatsoever, and expect her to grow into or develop attraction to him, even if they are of roughly equivalent sexual market value. But then again, Liz isn’t describing that either.
4. Path 2 Is (or At Least Can Be) Attraction and Comfort. Liz described her husband being take-charge and persuasive (alpha confidence/dominance–attractive); and dependable and encouraging (beta comfort — desirable). Men who combine and show both suites of traits seem to be more likely to find themselves on Path 2.
PRACTICAL ADVICE FOR MEN DEALING WITH “PATH 2”
If You Can’t Be “Attractive”, Start By Being “Not Unattractive”. Don’t Do Things to Help Her Disqualify You. Path 2 seems compatible with the idea that a woman can very easily disqualify a man within a few minutes of meeting him. But a man can stay in the running as long as he doesn’t get disqualified. So what happened here initially with Liz and her husband is that he survived the first few minutes without her actively disqualifying him. He also spent the next several weeks managing not to say or do anything to disqualify himself with Liz. So this is evidence for the proposition that you at least have a chance if you don’t get disqualified. It’s also evidence to support the notion that at least some of intersexual relating involves NOT displaying unattractive behaviors.
On Path 2, She’s In the Know; You’re In the Dark (At Least Initially). She has the advantage. If her attraction to you is budding and growing, only SHE knows that – you don’t. And, if she’s still “meh”, only SHE knows that — you don’t. (This is where you have to look for IOIs.) You’re attracted to her and she knows it. If you weren’t, you wouldn’t be sitting there on Path 2 paying attention to her and letting the clock tick.
Path 2 lets her play her cards very close to the vest. She can hang back and watch you, evaluate you, and judge you. She’s waiting to see if you’ll do something to disqualify yourself; and she’s in fact searching for disqualifying information. Path 2 gives her time to do this. She’s in the “not really attracted but not really unattracted, going to wait and see how this goes” mode with you. You, on the other hand, don’t really know much of anything. You don’t know if she’s attracted. All you know is she is, or might be, “interested”. You don’t know what information she has; you don’t know what she’s looking for; and you don’t know what criteria are being used to judge you.
It’s Better to Be on Path 1. If she’s not feeling it right away, you’re on Path 2. The only way you stay on Path 2 for a while with a girl is if you really like her and she’s high value. It’s likely that if she isn’t attracted right away, she probably won’t ever be. I hate to say it, but I think Liz’ experience isn’t all that common. More specifically, it’s very, very unusual for a man to go from “Barely Noticeable, Has Dealbreakers” to “The Most Attractive Man I Have Ever Seen” with the same woman. It’s more common for a marriage or LTR to go the distance when she was sexually attracted to him from the outset.
I get a sense that a woman’s attraction to a man reaches a hard upper limit, or a “ceiling”. So if she reaches a certain level of attraction for a man, I don’t believe anything can be done to increase it. This is less of a problem when her attraction level is high to begin with. If a man has had to wait for it and “work for it”, that suggests a lower attraction “ceiling” which could be problematic in the future.
Don’t take my word for it. Take a look at every married female blogger around these parts. Almost all of them were very strongly sexually attracted to their husbands, and were from the very beginning. This finds support even from those on the blue pill side of the ideological divide, where it’s said that a man should know if a woman is falling for him because he should be able to see her “light up”. And if she’s not “lighting up” whenever she’s around him, then, well, she’s just not into him, according to our friends on the other side.
Even blue-pillers seem to be telling us: If you have to choose between a Path 1 girl and a Path 2 girl, you choose Path 1. Every time.
Most of the Time, You’re On Path 2, If at All. If she’s not expressing immediate sexual interest, you’re on Path 2. If she’s not “lighting up” around you, you’re on Path 2. If she’s not crawling over broken glass to want to see you, you’re on Path 2. Or you’re Beta Bucks. Or she’s not interested.
Spin Plates. Never put all your eggs in a Path 2 basket. If you’re getting to know a girl like Liz’ husband was, you date other women, and you do it openly and notoriously. You’re not exclusive until you are satisfied you have her undivided attentions and attraction.
Put a Hard Time Limit on How Long You Will Stay on Path 2. While you’re in the “evaluation” phase, you will be called on to invest time and resources. Limit that investment by imposing on yourself a hard time limit. You need to see clear, unmistakable IOIs, sexual attraction from her to you, by X date, or you move on. And if those IOIs aren’t there, unelicited, you break it off and move on. And you make that time limit known only to yourself, not to her.
I don’t know how long you stay on Path 2. I’d say a couple of weeks at the outside.
Limit Investment. This is basic Game 101. Don’t spend lots of time with her. For Pete’s sake, don’t spend money on her. If you’re on Path 2 with a girl, she doesn’t get $100 steak dinners, and she doesn’t get gifts. She gets Dutch drink dates, cheap lunch dates, ice cream dates, hang out dates at each other’s houses/apartments, and rented video/popcorn dates. Path 2 girls don’t get daily contact. No calling or texting a girl every day when you’re on Path 2 (or even on Path 1 for that matter).
The IOIs Have to Be Crystal Clear. If you’re on Path 2, she needs to be making it VERY clear to you that she is sexually attracted to you, within the aforesaid time limit. The IOIs need to be consistent, unmistakable and unambiguous.
At Some Point, You Have to Escalate Aggressively, and Accept the Outcome. By the end of the “hard time limit” you’ve imposed, you will have to get a bit aggressive and make it very clear to her your intentions are sexual/romantic in nature. You are pursuing a sexual and romantic relationship with her. You are gently and firmly guiding her toward a Decision Point, which will mark the end of Path 2. This will either move on to a sexual and romantic relationship, or it will not. She either wants a sexual and romantic relationship with you, or she doesn’t. If she does, great. You will move on together. If she doesn’t, you end things right there. No further contact. Be cordial, but be firm – “I’m not interested in ‘just friends’.” No friendzone, no “friendship”, no orbiting. She’s made her decision; it was her right to make it; and that’s the end of it. Drop the plate, let it break, and go your separate ways.
None of this has to be expressly stated, and it probably won’t be. You probably aren’t going to come right out and say “OK. Time for you to make a Final Decision about whether we will have a romantic/sexual relationship”. More likely, you will escalate with her physically; she will accept and respond, and you’ll move on together. Or, she will rebuff your physical advances; in which case you have your answer. And then when she says “let’s just be friends”, you say something like “Thanks, but no thanks. You and I don’t want the same things.” And then you end all contact.
If she responds with shaming along the lines of “You’re not really a nice guy – you just wanted to get in my pants!” or something similar, just say something like “Look, we want two different things. You say you just want friendship. I’m being honest with you. I want something more. You don’t. Can’t make that work.” And then cut off all contact.
You’re not entitled to anything from her. By the same token, she’s not entitled to anything – including “friendship” — from you.
Avoid Negotiation at All Cost. The minute you start trying to figure out if you’re “doing something wrong” or why she’s not showing signs of attraction, you’re negotiating and deal-making, and it’s over. You’re already being evaluated and judged on criteria unknown to you. Attempting negotiation is only going to kill whatever’s there. You’re not qualifying yourself to her; you need to look for signs that she’s willing to qualify herself to you. You’re not trying to prove yourself worthy of her attraction/love/sexual attention. All you’re doing here is giving her a fixed amount of time to figure out in her own head/heart whether there’s attraction there, or not. If it’s there, great. You move forward. If it’s not there, OK. You move on.
Let’s open it up for comments. What do you think? Am I on base, or all wet? What suggestions do you have for men on Path 2?
Tagging. Well done Deti.
I have long thought this was real, and as unlikely as you do. This anecdote from my youth might apply.
The first girl I dated in college (don’t want to admit how far into college this was) had me on Path 2, I think. Our relationship started because we had the same class. I was sitting down on the first day when she paused in the doorway, looked around the whole room, dismissed everybody in it, and went to sit by herself. That somehow lit a fire in me, that I just had to make her SEE me.
I didn’t have any game, but I was starting to learn how to at least appear confident. I eventually asked her out, she said yes, and we had a 2 year relationship (skipping lots of details). I asked her one night why she picked me (total beta move). The conversation went like this.
Girl: (conversation led up to her saying) I never talk to people in class. It’s usually just guys trying to hit on me anyway. I’m just there to learn.
Me: Uh, that’s exactly how we met. Why did you talk to me then?
Girl: (gives it some serious thought). You said “please”.
Me: I did not! (thought she meant I said please when asking her out, like “please oh please go out with me please”)
Girl: Yeah, you said “excuse me” too. It was when you asked to see my notes, you said “Excuse me, can I please borrow your notes? I was out sick on Wednesday.”
Me: Wait, we’re together because I used the bare minimum politeness when asking somebody for a favor?
I think what happened in the framework of this post is something along these lines:
– I didn’t disqualify myself on looks to begin with.
– I made sure to sit next to her in the lab section, where we could talk if possible.
– I don’t remember, but I would have floated a small joke here or there and helped with the work if she asked.
– Being polite was, in her mind, being a gentleman. When I said please, that tipped the scales in her mind and pushed me into “approved” status.
I want to say I asked her out after the third or fourth week of class, so that also lines up with the idea of there being a limited window for Path 2.
Liz is lurking….
I think this is well said, Deti.
I agree my experience is kind of unusual…but it might not be “freakishly” unusual. Keep in mind regarding those “dealbreakers” that women often don’t know what they really want (especially the young ‘uns). I obviously didn’t.
And there were other things we had in common that sparked conversation and led to interest. My father (20 years older than my mom) was a fighter pilot all the way back to WWII, so he asked what planes he flew (which I didn’t know at the time, I called home and found out he’d flown everything from the P40 to the F100). He pulled out a book from his backpack on WWII planes so I knew he was serious. We talked about everything from family to politics but never discussed relationships at all.
We didn’t meet anywhere but the library and/or classrooms to study. It wasn’t like he was at my place making brownies (he’d never been to my house and I’d never been to his) or painting my toenails.
Right before finals, at the end of the class, we met at Perkins to share a bottomless pot of coffee and a piece of pie (sharing that pie was actually pretty hot), and that was the first time we’d ever shared a table at all. He asked if I wanted to go shooting at the range after finals the next day because he had a new 45 he wanted to try out. I’d never been to a shooting range (I’d only shot for target practice in fields near my home) so I agreed and that was the day he first expressed a real interest (there were some capers, but everything turned out very well). By that time, yeah, the chemistry could light the room on fire.
Said this on the Guyland thread but this bears repeating here to continue the thought: I would never try to dispute the “80% of women go for 20% of men” paradigm, having seen it up close and personal as all of you have for years and years. But I think we can allow for a little nuance, which this Path 2 essay illuminates. There are, among what we call the 80% of women, more than a few who might be plain-pretty or such, but have their own shyness, artistic temperament or other social hesitancy so they never get on the 20% of alpha men’s radars. I would suspect that at least some of the audience for “The Rules” and HUS would be these sorts of women. They can be found, they can be approached, they can be gamed. Though such gaming would probably have to be done via “Path 2″ here, so you as the Gamer would have to carefully observe and set a fixed limit so as not to waste your time and hers if nothing’s developing.
Secondary pathways only come to the front when the primary pathway is blocked.
I only ever pursued Path 2 because it was the only path open to me, and to a LOT of men. It’s basically the defining characteristic of betas, that they cannot pursue Path 1 because for them Path 1 doesn’t work.
“Secondary pathways only come to the front when the primary pathway is blocked.”
This. Plus when you’re in path 2 you see path 1 fuck your girl 80% of the time.
Just thinking further, we might have discussed prior relationships…keep in mind this is over 20 years ago, hard to remember details.
I also think I stopped taking hormonal contraception (I’d been on since I was about 16 for amenorrhea) at some point during that time so that might explain a lot, physiologically.
Whenever I hear of a path 2, I’m reminded of the software logic flow from hell, in which a blizzard of functional blocks are somehow connected by an amorphous cloud-like object in the center, labeled “And then a miracle happens.”
My experience and observations: in all probability, a guy on Path #2 is really a placekeeper (or a beta bucks prospect) until someone who qualifies for Path #1 arrives. So as a practical matter, a man who suspects he’s Path #2 should assume the friendzone condition until a woman demonstrates otherwise. My friend in MSP is quite open about her other ‘dates’ being place-keepers, time-fillers, “trainees”, and “walkers” (guys who escort unattached women to events). She tells me all about them, using only diminishing terms “He’s a great guy, drives a Range Rover, but …” They’re buying the drinks and dinners and proposing lavish vacations and offering to help with the shuttling of children, etc.. Meanwhile I’m getting the sexts.
The only woman I have allowed to friendzone me in the past 10 years texted me at 3:40 a.m. this morning, relating a horrific event in Manhattan last night (she was beaten up on the street when she interceded in another woman’s beating, and was told she’ll now need facial plastic surgery). She said (she’s an Iowan, never married, who has lived in the NYC fashion fast lane for 15 years), “I’m done, I’m too old for this, I’m ready for chicken and pigs and pie.” So I got the call, after a couple of years of frustrated investment by me, and three recent years when I broke contact save for polite holiday greetings. I guess you could call this Path #2, potentially; but I am extremely skeptical I’m more attractive to her today than three years ago for any intrinsic reason, much as I wish I were. Her brothers and parents have been urging her in my direction for years but I have been in the bucket she calls “men who think they still have a chance.”
So I have never witnessed a successful Path #2 relationship actually develop, but lightning does strike, I guess. Rather than wait for lightning, I always test matters by forcing a first date kiss. I’ve gotten a false negative exactly once in my life.
My ex- and I met when I was 21 and it was Path #1 from the first 10 seconds. I left the kitchen where she was visiting one of my housemates, and the housemate was upstairs within an hour saying to me: “You should know that as soon as you walked out, C**** said, ‘Who *is* that guy? You’re telling me he’s a student here?” Within two weeks we were coupled up. The irony of that is that, two years previously when I was a barely pubescent, late-blooming guy and had yet to put on the 35 pounds in my chest, shoulders and quads that the weight room and sports provided, we were neighbors on the same hallway of the same coed dorm, with bathrooms that were adjacent. For 23 years after we “met”, she denied ever seeing me when we were neighbors. She not only “saw” me, she saw me in a towel walking to the shower. Thus I was invisible until I changed, and then I wasn’t.
Usual disclaimer: I accept Liz’ story at full face value and I’m happy for the two of them.
It can go the other way as well. My husband was path 1, and it scared me so much that it took me 9 months to agree to go out with him.
These things are rarely cut and dry and frankly, I think path 2 is probably the safer bet for a stable marriage with fewer growing pains.
@ Liz:
The more I read of you, the more I like you. I know we’re the same age but you remind me of my oldest daughter.
Some further points.
1. Most single women are not very horny, at all, most of the time. They couldn’t care less, really, at the moment if the guy that approaches them is a 7 or a 3: he’s going to get “No!” regardless. Path 2 seems a reasonable approach to wait a half-cycle (couple of weeks) to see if she starts to feel something.
2. I would bet a huge fraction of happily married women who claim to have been “immediately” attracted actually mean “After I turned him down the first time and he kept pursuing me.”
Aw, thanks Elspeth! I like you too.
I gotta run, but I’ll respond to Mr. jf12:
I would bet a huge fraction of happily married women who claim to have been “immediately” attracted actually mean “After I turned him down the first time and he kept pursuing me.”
My husband didn’t keep pursuing me after I turned him down. He was intrigued, but he moved on to some other chick and that was that for a while.
I meant exactly what I wrote: Tummy flops, weak knees, the whole nine. We had a very memorable first meeting. Frankly, I think that women who experience scenario #1 should proceed with extreme caution in such instances or never proceed at all.
This notion that women don’t have strong sex drives or are like *slow cookers* is extremely exaggerated. That’s women who have been married a good long while, and even then it can be overcome if she wants to overcome it.
We all should remember our high school biochemistry. Aerobic respiration is the primary pathway that efficiently converts food energy into available energy for the body (e.g. ATP). But when energy is needed but oxygen is limited, such as due to muscle overuse, then secondary pathways including the anaerobic processes of glycolysis inefficiently produce a little energy, better than nothing, at the expense of building up lactate and other unwanted products.
Path 2 is an inefficient way of building attraction, nothing more, nothing less. But better than nothing.
I would add that any man investing in a Path #2 situation had better invest heavily in self-improvement during his purgatory.
Some of your best work Deti.
Assuming a Path 1 man (and I’m going with deti on this: the ability to use Path 1 depends mostly on the man) does want only a LTR, is there any disadvantage to him pursuing Path 2 even though he could have pursued Path 1?
Elspeth, 13:
“I meant exactly what I wrote: Tummy flops, weak knees, the whole nine. We had a very memorable first meeting. ”
It’s better to be on Path 1.
“is there any disadvantage to him pursuing Path 2 even though he could have pursued Path 1?”
Yes. If you have a strong impression but dont follow up or act beta its a big letdown, and it also creates a big beta impression.
or:
If you’re going path 2 is better to go slow but steady: forward.
If you’re going path 1 she should feel that if she’s left alone with you she would drop her pants without being able to control herself – and you better make sure it happens or you’re disqualified as the man she thought you were.
@ Liz, SfcTon, Yohami:
Thanks for the compliments.
@ Shades:
Yeah, I suppose that could be a “Path 2″ scenario. The key to understanding Path 2 is that she’s not really attracted but not unattracted, and then the man does or says something (or a series of somethings) that causes her to sit up and take notice, and causes sexual attraction to germinate and grow. It’s not “well he’s nice” or somesuch other thing.
The more I think about it, the more I think Path 2 is Path 1 in slow motion. The key here is that the “something(s)” he says or does trigger SEXUAL attraction.
Maybe I’m also rare, also an outlier, maybe not. But the only time I was surely Path 1 when pre-redpill (I remember it like it was yesterday) the (highly attracted, will go into a few details) woman pulled back because, she said, she was scared it was moving too fast.
I was long divorced and, at the time, reasonably wealthy and well-connected, and she was recently divorced and a not-yet-famous singer. Our first “date” started as playful huddling in the midst of a crowd, talking together for a half hour without once breaking eye contact after being formally introduced at a function, and it was she who suggested us getting out of there. We ended up at her suite very late, and made out on both couches. We had a whirlwind romance to the total shock of my friends, and she canceled several concert tour stops to be with me (she didn’t want me coming with her), but she broke it off after I asked her to marry me.
#20 ” Path 2 is Path 1 in slow motion.” Yes! The key concept is that there isn’t a wide spectrum of in-between paths. As Yohami emphasized, Path 2 is slow and steady progress like shuffling forward in a crowd. Shuffling forward remains a useful strategy anytime the crowd is dense enough, until a critical point is reached and you can walk fast through the thinned crowd: you don’t actually half shuffle half walk on a sort of Path 1½ when the crowd is in-between, because there is a phase transition.
I agree w eps etch, I tend to sideline path 1 guys and shit test that situation mercilessly, assuming he’s a cad until proven otherwise. (And often he is and I am glad I passed on that) Path 2 seems more “authentic” to me, not sure why… I have a huge player radar though. If a guy comes off as a player, game over. At least for me.
I really hate to be the cold bucket of reality here, but lets consider a few things:
1. This sweet story of attraction (not arousal) was facilitated primarily due to a regular proximity (school, work, etc.). Engineering the “occasion” to plead your case often enough and well enough is a different comparison from having a somewhat captive audience to be receptive to it. Path 2 is the long con, and often requires far more effort, planning and improvisation – energy that would simply be better applied toward making oneself more physically arousing.
2. The long con is inherently Beta Game. It will always be working back from a deficit since it places comfort and rapport ahead of arousal and sexual tension in the “flow”.
http://therationalmale.com/2012/02/24/the-flow/
Essentially, as with all forms of Beta Game, the sale is convincing a woman to buy the relationship before she’s bought the prospect of sex with him. As endearing as that may seem, it has to fight against the natural order of tingles first, security second.
Depending on the degree of arousal deficit a guy needs to account for, confidence and Alpha dominance can sometimes make this work (i.e. bulletproof Game), but understand that all of this effort in Alpha (real or contrived) to convince her into comfort-first only has equity insofar as a woman doesn’t have other more arousing options to choose from.
Example: My friend in Good Girls Do –
http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/10/good-girls-do/
He wasn’t the best looking guy in the world, but he had a lot in common with Mr. Liz, dutifully playing the Path 2 script, had the proximity, working back from the arousal deficit, investing effort and himself in the path. Then she met the tour manager guy, “he was cute, she was drunk, and well,…one thing led to another,..” Almost 6 months effort (not to mention another 3-4 of dealing with her constant self-concerned apologies) of ‘convincing’ trumped by right guy, right place, right time.
3. Women’s capacity for a ‘convincing’ of attractiveness is greatly dependent upon the priorities she places upon a man’s convincing characteristics as necessity dictates for her during her various life phases. A 32 y.o. woman looking to consolidate on a long term security will place a higher priority on intrinsic qualities for attraction (again, not arousal) rather than the extrinsic qualities she had for men when she was 22.
I don’t know what Liz looks like now or when she first met Mr. Liz, but I have no doubt that her self-awareness of her SMV influenced this process. The higher the SMV, the more intersexual opportunities are available to a person, and thus the more opportunities to disqualify a guy play the long con who’s working back from a deficit his rivals don’t need to.
I don’t know that Liz’s SMV was particularly low enough to limit these opportunities (or her awareness of her own SMV), but SMV, even unacknowleded SMV, is still an important variable. As women reach the point of decline in their SMV and men experience their SMV ascendance, impressions of a man’s overall SMV (and former memories of what it was) are prone to change for a woman. I have no doubt Liz feels her husband is the most attractive man she’s ever known, but that was probably not the case until she invested her future with him. She wouldn’t be the first woman in the manosphere I’ve read this from.
A declining SMV (while her husband’s accrues) inspires all kinds of new appreciation for his ‘attractiveness’ to a wife, making her necessity his virtue.
Nice one, Deti. My only comment would be that in practice there should probably be exactly zero further mental effort expended if you find yourself in a path 2 situation. My policy is that if I’m on path 2, I’ll find another girl, and if her mind changes it’s the path 2 girl’s job to come knocking. No analysis needed, and I wouldn’t even advise guys to “set a hard date” to force some escalation or even date other women with any notion in their heads that they are in some competition over a half-interested girl. Do what you do because YOU want to do it. I would tell them to forget about it altogether and let the chips fall wherever as far as going out of their way to interact with a path 2 girl. Trust me, women can figure this out for you IF it becomes a “Liz” situation and she all the sudden wants you- let her figure it out and do the legwork. High value men do not chase, neither literally, nor in the mental sense.
“Path 2 seems more “authentic” to me, not sure why…”
Perhaps because the attraction is based more on character traits rather than purely aesthetics?
Also, and maybe Liz could verify, I wonder if his not making a move right away allowed her to build comfort in him, kind of “he’s not just trying to get in my pants like all those other guys, he actually likes ME.” I bet if he had escalated hard it would have ended there. Based on how Liz described herself, physically, and the discomfort she had w such overt sexual attention.
It’s a personality thing I bet, other girls would be working that attention for all it’s worth…but Liz wore baggy coveralls
@liz bingo!
This is probably your best work yet Deti.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with going down path #2 (as some have noted, for the vast majority of guys, it’s likely their only option).
But it’s important for guys to understand the inherent risks and disadvantages it poses, so they can go in with eyes wide open and adapt their strategy/behavior accordingly.
I think the best course of action is to put yourself in the best position you can to have path #1 as an option, but at the same time be open to path #2 while minimizing its risks and costs.
“Perhaps because the attraction is based more on character traits rather than purely aesthetics?”
No. Let’s get disabused of that nonsense right now.
Liz, if the “attraction” isn’t sexual, “I want to f**k him right now”, it’s not attraction. Women get sexually attracted to confidence and dominance (or, if you must, “prestige”). Women are NOT attracted to a man’s internal character traits like loyalty, dependability, kindness, bravery, integrity, etc.
or fill in the gaps with more comforting ones?
#27 yes, I think that is right. In accord with what deti and all are saying, Liz (for example, not picking on her) DID have a lot of Path 1 options, but any potential Path 2 guys were disqualified on the basis of disattraction, except for Mr. Liz. He was able to pursue Path 2 because he never got disqualified, which made him rare.
#27: Bloom: “Also, and maybe Liz could verify, I wonder if his not making a move right away allowed her to build comfort in him, kind of “he’s not just trying to get in my pants like all those other guys, he actually likes ME.”
Yes, this. I was not comfortable with people staring at me, and there is no way whatsoever that I would run away with Rollo’s hypothetical “tour manager guy” (though that was an interesting rundown and he’s probably right for the majority of cases). It doesn’t bother my husband that I wasn’t attracted to him at first (probably because I’ve been completely smitten since).
re: shooting range game. Makes Bloom’s hunter guy’s game seem reasonable.
Bloom 23:
“Path 2 seems more “authentic” to me, not sure why”
There’s nothing fake or inauthentic about Path 1 attraction/arousal. It’s just as real as Path 2.
Path 2 is the best beta game there is, I think. reference
http://www.justfourguys.com/guyland-angry-white-men-an-interview-with-prof-michael-kimmel/#comment-23828
“What ever happened to a guy going after a girl until she agreed to give him a chance?”
Path 1: Pre-ovulatory, proliferative menstrual phase Game. Alpha Fucks.
Path 2: Secretory, menses phase Game. Beta Bucks.
Deti: “Liz, if the “attraction” isn’t sexual, “I want to f**k him right now”, it’s not attraction.”
That is the type of attraction I had…AFTER getting to know him.
“Women get sexually attracted to confidence and dominance (or, if you must, “prestige”). Women are NOT attracted to a man’s internal character traits like loyalty, dependability, kindness, bravery, integrity, etc.”
Well…he was confident (or at least appeared to be confident) and dominant. Those too are not traits that are readily apparent in a physics class though. And I wasn’t the type of girl one would meet at a bar or club.
@Bloom:
It seems pretty obvious to me that most long term boyfriends and husbands are on path 2, even if they started out on path 1. Thing is, they should still be on path 1 in parallel to that, ideally. This is not a one or zero situation. You can start out on path 1 and end up boyfriend/husband material (path 2) in addition to being desirable on the surface, or vice versa (rare). A guy who gets into a relationship is likely on *both* tracks at some point.
Liz 33:
The more I hear from you, the more I question Path 2.
The attraction was “persuasiveness” and “take charge attitude”. When exactly did that appear? How long after you met him did you see attractive (NOT desirable) traits?
Ladies, all of you are making a category error here.
Let’s go back to Manosphere 101.
Attractive: Confidence. Dominance. Prestige. Displays of authority, mastery, and power.
Desirable/comfort: Fidelity. Bravery, Industriousness. Encouraging. Dependability. Reliability.
See the difference?
Attractive is hawt guy.
Desirability is major appliance.
Throwing my full agreement behind both Rollo and Jakes. While these situations can happen, I personally don’t believe they are worth putting any work towards.
If a woman is going to be attracted by “slowly getting to know your intrinsic qualities” then she is perfectly capable of doing so on her own without you wasting time and effort trying to force it.
Im wondering about the timing involved here. How old was Liz when she got involved with Mr Liz? And by involved, I mean either having sex with him or committing to exclusivity with him…”I started becoming attracted” doesn’t count. How old was he at that time?
Also relevant: did they remain faithfully monogamous until marriage, or were there “breaks” or cheating (or incidences of “well this other guy doesn’t count because…”)?
I understand that these are extremely personal questions, but they must be answered truthfully if one wants to assert that path 2 is somehow different from Beta Bucks.
@ Liz
Huh? Confidence and dominance is readily apparent in a physics class. The Mr. Know-It-All of the class is displaying both confidence and dominance in physics.
Liz:
“Well…he was confident (or at least appeared to be confident) and dominant. Those too are not traits that are readily apparent in a physics class though. And I wasn’t the type of girl one would meet at a bar or club.”
I want to know at what point you concluded he was confident and dominant or when he displayed those traits. How long from the time you first laid eyes on him to the time he showed you those traits?
Tagging…BOOM!
Oh, Deti – you’ve done it again…
O.
@jakes yes that is likely too…
@deti “Women are NOT attracted to a man’s internal character traits like loyalty, dependability, kindness, bravery, integrity, etc.”
Why not? Those are highly attractive qualities!
#38 “he was confident (or at least appeared to be confident) and dominant. Those too are not traits that are readily apparent in a physics class though.” I beg to differ. Nerd competitions and oneupmanships are ubiquitous, but women don’t like nerd game in general.
@ Liz:
“[Sexual] is the type of attraction I had…AFTER getting to know him.”
How much time passed between the time you first laid eyes on him to the time you “got to know him”? How long did it take you to get from “I know Mr. Liz” to “I want to jump Mr. Liz’ bones right now”? How long did it take?
How old were you when you met him?
How old was he?
#42 exactly right. One can fiercely and triumphantly derive implications of the Dirac equation ansatz.
Bloom:
“Why not? Those are highly attractive qualities!”
No, fidelity, bravery, dependability, and industriousness most certainly are NOT attractive qualities. They are qualities that women want in a man; but they do NOT foster sexual attraction. Those qualities are not inherently masculine.
The qualities which are inherently masculine are confidence , dominance, and displays of authority, mastery, and power.
#39 correct. In keeping with my shuffling/walking analogy, it is always possible to shuffle along slowly when there is no crowd.
Confidence: The ability to press on and forward, being assured of one’s own own abilities.
Dominance: The ability to impose one’s will on one’s surroundings and to use or shape one’s surroundings to one’s liking or benefit.
Authority, Mastery: The display of knowledge and ability at a proficient level.
Power: See dominance, also can be displays of physical strength.
These are masculine qualities and are ones women find attractive.
Pellaeon, I was 19 and he was 22 (we were engaged very quickly).
Sir Nemesis: “Huh? Confidence and dominance is readily apparent in a physics class. The Mr. Know-It-All of the class is displaying both confidence and dominance in physics.”
Hm. Perhaps your physics experience was different from mine. We were in an auditorium filled with people and the professor lectured pretty much the entire time. There wasn’t a lot of interaction or any real speaking parts for the students.
Deti: “I want to know at what point you concluded he was confident and dominant or when he displayed those traits. How long from the time you first laid eyes on him to the time he showed you those traits?”
The closest I can come up with is about the first test time. Maybe two weeks? It’s hard to pinpoint. I just remember a time when I felt really ‘into him’ when we studied in that empty classroom or library…and I also remember not being “into him” immediately when he first asked me about the homework/studying.
Poor Liz! Don’t scare her off now.
I get it Liz. I know exactly what you are saying and it does exist and is possible. It might not be common but it does happen.
If a girl ever says “just friends” that’s a no. That’s friend zone.
Liz had to at some point want to keep meeting to study for a reason… Note sHe never friend zoned him.
If that were true, then the Jenny Ericksons of the world would not be such a cliché.
Sorry, Pellaeon, I missed this portion: “Also relevant: did they remain faithfully monogamous until marriage, or were there “breaks” or cheating (or incidences of “well this other guy doesn’t count because…”)?
No breaks, no cheating.
@Bloom, attraction is not arousal.
No woman in the history of planet earth spread her legs for a guy because his loyalty, dependability, kindness, integrity, etc. got her wet.
Lol Bloom. Don’t worry…I’m not scared. It’s actually kind of fascinating to me to think about and dissect this.
Well that certainly defies the stereotype. I’ll have to give it more thought before I can say I’m fully convinced that it’s not beta bucks …but that is rather persuasive.
#45: If those are the qualities that drive a romantic LTR, the man will shortly find himself locked down — and DTF. It’s a disaster scenario for any man seeking more than a Friendzone relationship with the only woman he’s “allowed” to sleep with. He’ll be a puppy to her within a few months, not a man, and they’ll snuggle a lot and watch TV in bed. It promises a sexual desert and a lifetime of metered, rationedtransactional sex — not validational, sex.
Perhaps it’s just me, but I don’t see why being honest, trustworthy and true is anything more than the ante in a much higher stakes game. (I speak only of LTR dynamics.) It’s like finding value in someone because he doesn’t piss in the sink or pass out at the in-laws. Pretty low bar for anyone with self-respect: “my guy is a stand-up guy.”
[Absent some more masculine traits, incidentally, life has a way of crushing nice guys who go forth with the expectation that they’ll be rewarded in any competitive environment (e.g., the entirety of life on earth). So there too, qualities such as stone-cold dominance-on-demand (“tactical virtues) are the qualities that *make possible* the softer virtues.]
All women I have known ‘like’ Gregory Peck, which keeps society’s wheels from falling off, but they are only motivated if Keith Richards shows up after dark. Sexuality, of course, exists across an analogue spectrum rather than a neat binary divide. I’m sure there are low-libido, asexual women (the ones, e.g., who prefer food to sex) but I sure wouldn’t want to be yoked to one.
@ Deti maybe those secondary qualities are what are being sussed out on path 2? Is he trustworthy?
You guys made me post this, I hope you’re happy,…
http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/23/wait-for-it/
Iron Rule of Tomassi #3
Any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait.
When a woman makes you wait for sex you are not her highest priority. Sexuality is spontaneous chemical reaction between two parties, not a process of negotiation. It’s sex first, then relationship, not the other way around. A woman who wants to fuck you will find a way to fuck you. She will fly across the country, crawl under barbwire, climb in through your second story bedroom window, fuck the shit out of you and wait patiently inside your closet if your wife comes home early from work – women who want to fuck will find a way to fuck. The girl who tells you she needs to be comfortable and wants a relationship first is the same girl who fucked the hot guy in the foam cannon party in Cancun on spring break just half an hour after meeting him.
If a girl is that into you she’ll have sex with you regardless of ASD or having her friends in the room videotaping it at a frat party. All women can be sluts, you just have to be the right guy to bring it out in them, and this happens before you go back to her place. If you have to plead your case cuddling and spooning on the bed or getting the occasional peck on the cheek at the end of the night, you need to go back to square one and start fresh.
@56 how do you know? Are you a girl? You guys are projecting some inherently male stuff onto this. I do not immediately size a guy up sexually, but it seems men truly do so w women. Hence my surprise yesterday about the can men be friends w women thing…
@ Liz ok cause I have missed you!
don’t leave me here alone…
Bloom, 60:
No, those “desirable” qualities are NOT being sussed out on Path 2. She either (1) already knowsn he has those qualities or (2) doesn’t care.
What’s being sussed out is ATTRACTION. Confidence, dominance, power.
@54 I think the Jenny Ericsson story is not the norm. Maybe in sorority culture or a girls gone wild video or something. I would not say “most girls” do anything like that. Or not most girls I know anyway…
And @ rollo, not trying to argue w you, I respect your opinion.
@ Bloom:
“how do you know? Are you a girl? You guys are projecting some inherently male stuff onto this. I do not immediately size a guy up sexually, but it seems men truly do so w women. Hence my surprise yesterday about the can men be friends w women thing…”
Rollo is right. No girl ever got wet panties with Mr. Dependable. She might have sex with him, even marry him, but NOT because she loves him or is sexually attracted to him.
Path 2 is Path 1 in slow motion, or else it’s not “Path 2″ as Morpheus conceived it or as I fleshed it out here.
If it’s not Path 1 extended for a couple of weeks, then it’s Beta Bucks.
Bloom 65:
Sorry to disappoint, but you’re wrong. Jenny Erikson resonated with the manosphere, especially its Christian wing, precisely BECAUSE her story IS so common. The former Mrs. Erikson is literally living breathing proof of everything the ‘sphere talks about.
Tagging…
“Any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait.:
Lol Rollo! My husband would disagree with you. Maybe he was just a starving man in the desert. And I was that glass of water and cracker. But, um…no he wasn’t.
#62: because we watch what women do more closely than listen to what they say. Also, any woman who leaves a man for someone “more upstanding” never does so save for his material qualities (beta bucks), or if she’s trapped in an objectively dangerous relationship.
(The two leading explanations hypergamous women offer for ditching their families are a) “my emotional needs were not met” and b) “he was abusive!” The amorphous nature of these explanations, in the main, just mean she was bored with her puppy-dog mate, tired of being poor, or some combination of the two. They are summarized in The Stepford Wive’s (the remake) reality game show that Nicole Kidman invents: “I can do better!” Or, women leave *because* their husband is a failing Boy Scout, not because there’s a better beta Boy Scout next door.)
@ Deti I guess I get that, mr dependable also has to be attractive to her for it to equal “love.” A guy can seem more attractive w time tho. I know bc I have personally experienced it. Maybe not from “eww never” to “I want him” but from neutral, yes.
@70 I believe that!
@ Bloom:
“I do not immediately size a guy up sexually, but it seems men truly do so w women.”
Yes, we do size up women sexually. Every single one of them. And we can do it in a split second. An average man can sexually evaluate an entire room of around 100 women in about five minutes. I hate to burst your bubble, but every man who has ever seen you has evaluated your physical attributes in under a split second.
That includes your coworkers, your bosses, your friends’ husbands, your gynecologist, your real estate agent, your lawyer, that guy working at the sandwich shop where you bought your lunch today, that waiter who served you and your date, the cabbie who drove you to the airport, the doorman at your office building, that guy who rides the elevator with you, and EVERY SINGLE OTHER MAN WHO HAS EVER SEEN YOU SINCE YOU WERE ABOUT 14 YEARS OLD.
He does it without thinking about it. Any man who tells you otherwise is either lying to you or completely unaware.
“Hence my surprise yesterday about the can men be friends w women thing…
No, they can’t, because the sex thing always gets in the way; unless he is not at all sexually attracted to her. Then, and only then, they can be friends.
@ deti
You need to add “social/interpersonal” in front of every one of these. Otherwise these would all be applicable to people in physics class.
@Liz #70, what was your N count before you got with him?
@Bloom- Just to clarify my comment #39
When I say “most boyfriends and husbands are on path 2″, I mean that in the sense that their girl is attracted to them not just for the path 1 initial attraction, but that she’s also noticed his other qualities that are more “path 2″, like character, etc. that make him a relationship prospect. I made that comment in response to you saying that path 2 “seems more authentic”. The discussion here seems more about what bucket he falls in up front. I agree with deti, though. Neither bucket is more objectively authentic than the other, but the path 2 bucket is really problematic for the laundry list of reasons the guys have already pointed out.
#76: One.
@ Liz:
“Lol Rollo! My husband would disagree with you. Maybe he was just a starving man in the desert. And I was that glass of water and cracker. But, um…no he wasn’t.”
Getting closer…..
OK Liz. Fess up. Did you make him wait for physical intimacy (not necessarily sex, but did you rebuff a physical advance)? Did he make a move on you and did you say or manifest “not yet”?
Because if you did, then you are not “Path 2″. It might not be “beta bucks”, but it would NOT be Path 2.
#61 Rollo, for a laugh, in the followup to the woman in my lone Path 1 anecdote, she eventually married her Path 2 tour manager.
@ Liz
Ah yeah the lower-division mega-classes have that problem.
I’d still contend that the extreme confidence and dominance displayed by an uber math/comp-sci/physics/chess nerd contributes only marginally to his SMV, when compared to the confidence and dominance displayed by an athlete or hipster bass player.
The prosecution rests your honor.
Bloom, here’s a scenario test: you are on a date with a guy you decide to put in the neutral bucket, and therefore you are on the fence as to whether or not he’s attractive. It’s time to say good night and he leans over to give you a quick kiss on the lips. You a) turn your face away and give him the cheek; or b) let him kiss you on the lips.
If you kiss him on the lips you are attracted to him and not neutral, yes?
Surely you don’t kiss a man on the lips if you are simply “neutral.” Surely, his attractiveness may only be 60% or 70% of what have told yourself you want. But at 50% (neutral) you are thinking more about having some chocolate alone in your pj’s than thinking about him as a potential romantic match, I am willing to bet with five nines of confidence.
Yes, we do size up women sexually. Every single one of them. And we can do it in a split second. An average man can sexually evaluate an entire room of around 100 women in about five minutes. I hate to burst your bubble, but every man who has ever seen you has evaluated your physical attributes in under a split second.
Yes, EXACTLY RIGHT. Basically, every guy I know works this way. Maybe there is some small fraction of guys who don’t operate this way, but I’ve never known one.
So, deti, what suggestions do YOU have for men who seem perpetually stuck on having to slog through Path 2, other than “be more attractive”?
@ Deti I have sidelined someone for several years who is amazingly physically attractive, I mean carved from marble attractive, bc I know he is trouble. He doesn’t hang about but he keeps tabs and pops in here and there, tries, gets the no, pat on the head,, and off he goes. If I asked he would be here in 10 minutes or less. Not bragging, just illustrating women can have self control. On the other hand in case of zombie apocalypse he’s already told me he’s coming straight here, w guns, and in that case it would be a yes and a warm welcome! Until then, Hercules can chase all the skirt he wants. And he does!
Rollo 82:
* Raps gavel *
Not so fast, Mr. Tomassi. The Court wishes to hear an answer to its last question to the witness. It will be asked again:
“OK Liz. Fess up. Did you make him wait for physical intimacy (not necessarily sex, but did you rebuff a physical advance)? Did he make a move on you and did you say or manifest “not yet”?
“Because if you did, then you are not “Path 2″. It might not be “beta bucks”, but it would NOT be Path 2.”
The Court respectfully directs the witness to answer the question.
Path 2 seems to me to be highly contextualized DHV with the requirement of not being physically repulsive. From the man’s POV this is mostly a passive game. He simply is who he is rather than actively doing anything for her benefit or notice. His attractive qualities are not immediately obvious, but he doesn’t display unattractive qualities.
He also displays what might be construed as abundance mentality by virtue of not being distracted by/focused on her. Where as men automatically sort women into the do or do not piles I think women sort men into different piles, perhaps intriguing/ not intriguing. His lack of overt interest is intriguing so long as he is not dismissive, and so long as doesn’t become unattractive.
I would like to submit the The Book of Ruth as the best literary, and biblical example of path 2.
#75 “You need to add “social/interpersonal” in front of every one of these. Otherwise these would all be applicable to people in physics class.” too true! Also, directly applicable to rabid Call Of Duty basement dwellers.
#88 “Path 2 seems to me to be highly contextualized DHV with the requirement of not being physically repulsive.” Yes. It’s the best game we betas can muster.
Deti: “OK Liz. Fess up. Did you make him wait for physical intimacy (not necessarily sex, but did you rebuff a physical advance)?”
Never. He never made one until our first official date.
“Did he make a move on you and did you say or manifest “not yet”?”
Nope.
Followup your honor: #78, how long did he have to wait?
#92: The first guy? A year.
Witness not answering the question!
Comforting note to women regarding the side discussion on men instantly rating women. Yes, it’s true essentially all men are rating you continuously, automatically “She’s a 6.2, she’s a 4.3, she’s a 5.5, etc” On and on it goes. But it doesn’t make us think less (say) of a 6.2 than a 7.1; the only thing that really matters to us is that you’re ok *enough*.
@ Bloom
It’s not so much about whether you experience sexual attraction immediately as what causes you to experience sexual attraction.
And note that finding a guy to be an appealing partner and even desiring him romantically is not the same thing as being attracted to and desiring him sexually. The latter is due to confidence, dominance, and looks, whereas the former is due (in part) to kindness, loyalty, etc…
Bloom 86:
What does any of that commendable sexual restraint have to do with Paths 1 and 2?
#88 don’t you hate it every time you wake up from a good drunk with a strange woman inside your bedclothes?
#93, did you initially find him attractive or was it another Path 2 experience?
And maybe I just proved Han’s theory about safe/unsafe environment? Sort of…
@98
It’s disconcerting if only because it happens so rarely.
Sizing up:
I am in line at the bookstore. Out of 7 women, there are 2 fuckable. I haven’t even seen the faces of four, but I can DQ cause they are too old.
slight revision. I heard one talk. She has a sweet feminine voice. Early 30s, so the voice pushes her into fuckable range.
One was attractive enough to consider a relationship. The other was worth it if she is kinky.
7 women, evaluated that quick. They can’t do much to change anything now.
@ Deti I have sidelined someone for several years who is amazingly physically attractive, I mean carved from marble attractive, bc I know he is trouble.
Bloom,
Actions do NOT equal state of mind/feelings. Conflating the two here is going to lead to confusion. What you are doing (sidelining him) is irrelevant to the question at hand as to whether attraction exists or not. So, despite him being trouble and you admirably exercising restraint of avoiding trouble, are you still in fact attracted to him?
RE; Sizing up, from The Threat
http://therationalmale.com/2012/02/10/the-threat/
It’s not about “shallow” it’s about assessing subconscious priorities.
#97, 103. Bloom does seem to misunderstand that a guy doing Path 2 is going slowly out of self-restraint or something. He’s doing Path 2 because he’s not getting IOIs for Path 1 from her.
@ Badpainter
This. Path 2 isn’t so much “making him wait” as “I’m not sure how alpha he is yet”.
There is a 2.5 rummaging through the bargain bin. A 5 gave me a mocha latte. There is a 4.5 upstairs reading amongst a group of men. I sat in the cafe area, but there was a 4 eyeing me and I was close to a 3.5. So now I am in the corner upstairs cause all these women are damn uggo. I wish the 7 didn’t leave. She was eye candy. The 5.5 is working and has a long line so I won’t bug her.
I’m moving for a dismissal of all charges. Prosecution has failed to demonstrate its case.
@Morpheus #103, being in the liquor industry I have on several occasions entered into
stripgentlemen’s clubs and been surrounded by stunningly beautiful, gymnastically skilled, young women wearing nothing more than g-strings and managed to maintain my self-control and not Game a select few into returning with me back to my hotel room.You see, some of us men can do this.
I should also note that it is entirely possible for a woman to choose to partner off with a man whom she finds personally and romantically appealing, but isn’t overwhelmingly sexually attracted to.
Nemesis:
Motion held in abeyance until the conclusion of evidence.
#94: Lol BV. I answered, I answered.
#99: We weren’t friends before we started dating, but (clearly) it went a lot slower. I wasn’t anywhere near as attracted to him as Mr Liz. But, I didn’t know what that felt like until I got together with Mr Liz.
Spartans are handy in war but trouble during peacetime.
If Hercules showed me he could be true? Yes. But I do not see that.
Post zombie apocalypse, I would likely procure women for him to keep him around if need be!
Everything is relative.
@ Liz:
“OK Liz. Fess up. Did you make him wait for physical intimacy (not necessarily sex, but did you rebuff a physical advance)?”
Never. He never made one until our first official date.
“Did he make a move on you and did you say or manifest “not yet”?”
Nope.
Follow up, Liz:
What was the move he made during your date? Were you receptive to it or did you rebuff it?
Did you at any time during that “first official date” apply the brakes to any sexual advances?
Did you at any time apply the brakes to any sexual advances by him?
#106: I think that’s a good assessment, Sir Nem and Badpainter.
#112, so your sexual experience for over 20 years has been limited to a total of two men, both of whom had no better option than to wait for you (up to a year in one instance) to become comfortable enough with them to have sex?
SEcond follow up, Liz:
How long passed between the time when you were first met Mr. Liz and your first “official date”?
How long passed between the time when you first were attracted to Mr. Liz and your first “official date”?
Deti: “What was the move he made during your date?”
First move, we were walking on the beach and he put his hand on my shoulder and I took his hand (he was on the left, hand on the right, I grabbed it with my left hand). Then he kissed me.
“Were you receptive to it or did you rebuff it?”
Receptive, definitely.
“Did you at any time during that “first official date” apply the brakes to any sexual advances? Did you at any time apply the brakes to any sexual advances by him?”
No and no.
#108 seconded. It’s nice having the jury be able to make motions, ain’t it?
#118 seems to illustrate the definition of Path 2 we’re postulating: slower Path 1.
I once again move for a dismissal of all charges. Prosecution is wasting the court’s time by grasping at straws.
#121 but, I’m still claiming Path 2 is beta, to be clear.
“How long passed between the time when you were first met Mr. Liz and your first “official date”?” I think about three months.
“How long passed between the time when you first were attracted to Mr. Liz and your first “official date”?
Since it is difficult to pinpoint exactly when I was attracted to him this one is difficult to answer. I might be contradicting myself if I’ve answered it before (can’t recall). To the best of my recollection, about two and a half months passed from first attraction. But the attraction built over time, it wasn’t a stagnant thing.
Rollo: “#112, so your sexual experience for over 20 years has been limited to a total of two men, both of whom had no better option than to wait for you (up to a year in one instance) to become comfortable enough with them to have sex?”
I can’t speak to the motivations of the first guy. He was good looking, and I’m sure he could have gotten laid somewhere earlier…just not by me. My husband was dating until we actually got together. Then we exclusive. Immediately.
“Then we exclusive”. Excuse me, then we were exclusive immediately and from that time on.
Based on the prosecution of Liz I offer the following observations.
Path 1 girls only good for fucking.
Path 2 girls possibly good for LTRs.
Lane changers are fake Path 2.
jf12 @ #11 “1. Most single women are not very horny, at all, most of the time. They couldn’t care less, really, at the moment if the guy that approaches them is a 7 or a 3: he’s going to get “No!” regardless. Path 2 seems a reasonable approach to wait a half-cycle (couple of weeks) to see if she starts to feel something.”
I’ve found this to be completely false, and this seems to be a go-to excuse on a man’s part in order to dismiss rejection. Now, girls aren’t horny in the sense that men are, but from the super sloot to the shy, quiet church girl, they are all actively looking for a man to ignite the tingles, and if you do it properly you can turn the girl into a nympho.
“Perhaps it’s just me, but I don’t see why being honest, trustworthy and true is anything more than the ante in a much higher stakes game. (I speak only of LTR dynamics.) It’s like finding value in someone because he doesn’t piss in the sink or pass out at the in-laws.”
Good point. Honesty and trustworthiness are just the entry level price of admission for LTRs. If you can’t do either of these, then you can’t pay the price of admission and you should go back to the “unrestricted 20%” or something.
All, we are NOT talking about desirable traits like loyalty, fidelity, kindness, integrity, and having a job as affecting the dynamic here in Path 2. Desirable traits are completely irrelevant to what’s going on in Path 2 (to the extent that it exists, because the esteemed Mr. Tomassi is making a convincing air, sea and land assault on it). Folks, those are NOT attractive traits or attributes. At all. If you believe that these things are “attractive”, then you haven’t been listening, frankly, and you don’t understand the issue.
I know that my dad pursued my mom, who was not interested at first. After she found out more about him (his professional success and confidence most likely) her view changed. They’ve been married almost 40 years. So he was on track 2 (she was also a traditional Catholic girl so probably didn’t want a track 1).
There’s no doubt the dating game has changed since 1974 in many ways. However, people mostly seem to meet through convenience and contact. School, through friends, etc. Track 2 probably still works in those contexts. I know people who met through the summer shore house community. Often times, they knew each other for a while before getting together. If it was an instantaneous attraction, nothing was done about it. The best way to work track 2 is by developing social networks that include attractive women. Then show the qualities which might cause one to take notice, even if it’s not instantaneous.
Messrs. Tomassi and Nemesis, the Court will hear argument on your motion. Proceed.
The Court considers evidence closed at this point. Messrs. Tomassi and Nemesis, your argument?
As a side comment, I’d note that ADBG being in line and sizing up the ladies around him consumed less than 10 seconds of his time. Most of that time was consciously spent only because he decided to comment on it.
ADBG, being a normal man, does this all the time, everywhere, all day long. He’s capable of that level of sexual evaluation without even consciously thinking about it, and it happens without his even being aware of it.
And truly, to go back to the point I made earlier, I never have gotten a sense Hercules’s passes were about “me” in particular, beyond my being female. I think it might be novel for him to get rebuffed but does he pine for me or long for me, as in “me” in particular? I doubt it. I could be wrong but I doubt it. Obsidian thought I should date him! Who knows…
“My husband was dating until we actually got together. Then we exclusive. Immediately.”
Preselection works.
@Morpheus #103, being in the liquor industry I have on several occasions entered into strip gentlemen’s clubs and been surrounded by stunningly beautiful, gymnastically skilled, young women wearing nothing more than g-strings and managed to maintain my self-control and not Game a select few into returning with me back to my hotel room.
You see, some of us men can do this.
Rollo,
I’m confused. I agree, men are capable of self-restraint. Somewhere out there is a husband whose wife I didn’t fuck when it was served up on a silver platter. Did you think I was saying men are not capable of self-restraint?
#126 “girls aren’t horny in the sense that men are” I’m glad you agree.
#128 sure. This is what I observe as normal, not ” isn’t all that common” as deti put it.
@ Jack
Have you seen the story about Judgy Bitch’s husband?
http://judgybitch.com/2013/05/07/rape-culture-didnt-kill-rehtaeh-parsons-slut-culture-did/comment-page-1/#comment-10714
[Fixed blockquote]
As a slight tangent, for the non-religious, I would argue that path 2 is not worth while as a primary, conscious pursuit. By all means, if you find pursuing your interests coincides with establishing a network of hotties and one seems open…go for it.
But I would caution against foregoing spinning your plates. As Obsidian often reminds us: the thirst is real. Consciously pursuing path 2 without any path 1 contenders on the back burner is a slippery slope towards betatude. I believe that some are capable of doing it…but I would never bet money on it.
Path 2 seems like waaayyy to much work… I would rather go to a club and hit on 100 girls until I find one to put me on the first path… I don’t care how hot a girl is none are worth being put on path 2… and if a guy isn’t attractive enough to get on path 1 from any women then he should just hire escorts.
Things might become clearer if we stood on our heads. What is the female equivalent to a Path 1 guy vs a Path 2 guy? I think (calling them Path A and Path B) the “fast” path for a female is to be so immediately intoxicating attractive that the man wants to pick her up right off the bat as soon as he meets her. In the “slow” path, the man wants to pick her up right off the bat right now, but he remembers she just seemed like a nice girl but not all that attractive when they first met a couple of weeks ago.
@ Deti ok so what adbg describes is not something I do as I go about my day. Largely I pay no attention, the hottest guy in the planet could be in the room and I may not notice. What makes me notice? He approaches or makes contact in some way…. That’s when he gets sized up. If he approaches in a non sexual way (and maybe that’s a ruse) then I may not size him up immediately even then…
jf12: “What is the female equivalent to a Path 1 guy vs a Path 2 guy?
Path one is the look of the female after the fog of liquor. Path 2 is the look of the female in the morning after the fog has passed.
#141 Bloom wraps up the case, excellent witness that she is. “That’s when he gets sized up.” Path 1 guys get sized up immediately, Path 2 guys’ evaluations are deferred.
#142 I have drunk only with mine eyes. A lot of times, though.
Bloom 141:
I disagree. I think women instantly notice the one or two hottest guys anywhere they are. In every place I’ve ever worked, there have always been a couple of very good looking men. The contrast between these men and all the other men is stark. Without fail, at every workplace or social situation, the women at this place chatter, giggle, snicker and pickalittletalkalittle about these two attractive men CONSTANTLY. All these men have to do is simply show up, and they garner almost all the female attention.
LOL at how women at 32 will evaluate ‘other’ qualities about a man besides arousal… seriously want man REALLY wants to marry a girl over 30… by then it doesn’t even matter b/c she has lost most of her looks
@ Deti less often I may notice a guy before he notices me, not sure what triggers that. Usually they are shy loner very attractive types who unfortunately for me do not seem to notice women much at all, like zen monks! I suppose they eventually notice women but I am not sure…
“My husband was dating until we actually got together. Then we exclusive. Immediately.”
Mine too. He dated quite a bit after I said, “Nah. I don’t think so. You’re trouble.”
I like Rollo’s comments about how time shapes what we remember. I had wondered if that’s what was happening to me. And then…again…one of my husband’s brothers said recently, “I saw [Lisa Smith] at the mall and she asked me about you. Said she’s always looking for you on Facebook but it’s like you dropped off the face of the earth.”
A common experience, so I’m fairly certain he is exactly as I remember he was. But I am thankful he is yet husband who has retained enough of who he was that he isn’t a supplicating pushover.
Liz, you were even younger than I was when you got engaged. How long before you married? Or did I miss that somewhere? I didn’t read all the comments, just skimmed.
@deti yes in a situation where those guys are there repeatedly I agree. In the store or coffee shop or in passing not always.
“Liz, you were even younger than I was when you got engaged. How long before you married? Or did I miss that somewhere? I didn’t read all the comments, just skimmed.”
We were married less than a year later, Elspeth. We were really young…actually this thread is a bit ironic, since everyone who knew us then thought we got serious too fast and it would never work out. Heh.
I agree about time shaping memory, too. Hard to say. Important things I remember, but specific details not so much.
Emily:
WADR, you don’t understand the paths, or what’s being described as the difference between Paths 1 and 2.
Go back and read the article again.
I think it’s also important to note that Path #1 doesn’t necessarily have to be “wants to jump his bones the second she sees him.”
There’s a different between “growing on her over time” and “simply becoming socially visable.” My standard is, it’s path #1 if she’s showing clear signs of attraction during the first significent amount of time you spend together. My reasoning is, the vast majority of guys are invisable, rather than straight up unattractive to most girls. Displaying just a little bit of alpha behavior can suddenly make you visable and trigger her attraction. IMO, that’s not path #2.
When I was in undergrad, there was a girl who was a friend of some friends. We had briefly crossed paths at a few parties, maybe even had a few classes together… but never really had any social contact. I knew who she was and she knew who I was, that was about it.
But one night she came with some friends to a party I was hosting at my house. It was one of those nights where I was just unexplainably in the zone, and alpha behavior was coming easy & naturally. After a brief conversation early on, this girl just happened to start popping up wherever I was the rest of the night, and showing obvious IOIs.
Long story short, we hooked up that night. Even though I vaguely knew her for a year or two, that was the first significant amount of time we ever hung out together. In my mind, that’s a case of path #1… I didn’t have to grow on her over time. It was just a matter of me being able to break out of the faceless crowd, and her behavior immediately changed.
Point is, just because she doesn’t want to jump your bones the second she sees you doesn’t mean path #1 is closed.
@ 141
“He approaches or makes contact in some way…. ”
MAKES CONTACT IN SOME WAY.
This is difficult truth for us men because it’s not exclusive to direct overt communication. Indirect contact can also apply. It could mean:
-Making a thoughtful well delivered statement in a classroom or a meeting not directed at the the woman.
-Body language that communicates both dominance, and confidence in a tense situation not directly involving the woman.
-A show of unexpected kindness while maintaining dominant frame.
-Being singled out for public praise by an hierarchical authority figure.
-Remaining a calm rational actor in a situation where the woman is anxious and under stress.
While Bloom singles out the approach the ambiguity of “makes contact in some way” leaves at of opportunities for a oblique subtextual approach, that even if not intended as such, will have the same effect as the direct approach in terms of being noticed.
I think this what is meant by “putting out the vibe.” Which works best when it is a natural, unaffected, element of the man’s outer frame. Done properly this should attract strong IOIs from Path 1s regardless of context, and IOIs from Path 2 when the context is deemed correct.
Keeping in mind these are paths for a man to garner attraction to him from women, then Path 1 is the alpha path. It is also the fast attraction path, which means if he isn’t alpha enough to pass her alpha attraction threshold then he can get rejected quickly. Path 2 is the beta path, but it is also the slow *attraction* path, NOT the slow “oh well” path. He is beta enough to slip through her fast alpha rejection, but soon (this is time sensitive) something clicks and he becomes alpha enough. She can have husband-goggles for him ever after.
In the same way, a too-good-looking-to-be-true woman could certainly be (what I called) a Path A fast rejectee by men. The men may think she’s not worth trying for, looking stuckup for example. So the Path B woman is ordinary-enough looking to slip under his radar but soon (this is time sensitive) something clicks and she becomes beautiful enough. He can have wife-goggles for her ever after.
And I think this is common, not rare, although not common enough.
Applied to TV shows.
Path 1: House of Cards, Farscape, Hannibal, Fargo, Sherlock Homes, Game of Thrones. Hooked since the first minute on episode 1.
Path 2: Spartacus, Breaking Bad, Walking Dead, Dr Who. It took me over a season and a half or more to find the substance, now I like some of these shows more than a few others from Path 1.
Beta Bucks: Orphan Black, Person of Interest, The Following – almost-good but still “meh” shows. I can settle to watch them and I remain somewhat interested, path 1 and path 2 still take preference as long as I have a choice.
* * *
The point of this is something can be real and still take time, and once you’re there it doesnt matter how long it took. Path 1 presses all the buttons at once, Path 2 presses some at once and some other eventually and may even press buttons that you didnt know were there.
Beta Bucks just fails and is filler, may be nice, might be good looking, but it’s still a waste of time.
We were really young…actually this thread is a bit ironic, since everyone who knew us then thought we got serious too fast and it would never work out.
Two days before the wedding, my FIL asked my husband, “Are you sure you want to do this, son? You are so young, and there are a lot of women out there.” My husband was 20.
Of course, my FIL was quite the ladies man himself, even while he was married. He couldn’t figure why a man with options would tie himself down so early.
Now he goes on and on about my being his favorite DIL. Heh.
I think it’s also important to note that Path #1 doesn’t necessarily have to be “wants to jump his bones the second she sees him.”
Maybe not that second (people are watching after all), but the thought occurs. A smart woman will shake that off and think first. Most women today aren’t very smart. Mainly because there is no stigma attached to indulging that thought.
re: commonness of Path B. I think it was okcupid first, but other dating sites since, that studied that characteristics of women that got the most contacts from men. These were the women that had the highest *variance* in ratings from men: some men rated them extremely high, and other men rated them extremely low. (n.b. There were no extremely high variance men.)
Apparently Megan Dodds is an example of an extremely high variance woman.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0230155/
#156 analogies rock.
@ Yohami
Perfect analogy.
And yup, this:
@ jf12
Megan Dodds seems rather plain to me.
#154 “I think this what is meant by “putting out the vibe.”” So, me rumbling inaudibly is a waste of time?
#161 “rather plain” on average …
Not my type either, but …
I thinks it’s the dot dot dot that matters here. My first impression of her would be “Odd, hmm …”
Aha! An alpha-enough man gets an immediate rating, regardless of whether he actually approaches, because he is alpha enough to trigger a reflexive “what if” approach fantasy in the woman. Case solved.
To beta bucks show:
You want me to binge of you? thanks, but Im more of a casual kind of spectator, I can watch you sometimes while Im thinking of something else (while concealing that I binged of 14 other shows, some of them I have taped so I can watch them again, and that Im excited of possible comebacks)
@ yohami yes, beta bucks is not path 1 or 2 and any woman who tells herself it is, is fooling herself. Nobody should get married just to get married. That is eventually the path of misery because its not about getting married, it’s about *being*married. Being married to someone you are not hot for is just incredibly unfair and short sighted for all involved. IMHO. But it does happen, I have seen it.
Hey, everyone. Been busy as heck behind the scenes trying to line other things up.
Good post by Our Man Deti, as per usual. But, if I may, I’d just like to throw the following monkeywrench into the works:
What if you’re on “Path 2″…and you do up the math and decide it’s just not worth it?
Then what?
Work with me on this, here – we all know very well, the seismic changes that have come down the pike in terms of the SMP across all SES levels in the USA over the past few decades. And we can start to see apparent “responses” to those changes – particularly on the male side of the aisle.
What are the incentives for the “Path 2″ guys to keep on, keepin’ on – especially in light of, say, the Obama gov’t bringing the hammer down on what it sees as an “epidemic” of “sexual assault” on college campuses and the like?
We’ve already seen efforts to criminalize(!) “street harassment. And, as we discussed to a goodly degree in the previous thread, there’s some moves afoot to “shame” guys into “acting right”.
My question is, what is the incentive for a guy, who has to work his way “up” if you will, to even be bothered in the first place? It seems to me that the tacit assumption on the part of the Cathedral, is that guys will want to mate no matter what the costs.
I’m not so sure.
I think that if you raise the costs and potential risks too high, that it can actually have an adverse effect on people, in this case Men – and can actually work to be a DISincentive to mate.
Could THAT, be possible?
Comments?
O.
Path 2 is old school and I can see why women prefer it, it keeps options open. There’s only one small problem, women want limitless options in a world where there are as many men as women.
How did we get to path 1? Dating has changed. I have to ask the ladies, would you put up with this?
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/she-needs-more-men/
Dalrock also has a few posts about choice addiction that would pertain to this as well.
@jf12 #14
To follow your textbook analogy a little further, the transition you mentioned (BB -> AF) tends to be the most volatile period… Good luck anyway.
First off- for those saying girls don’t notice and size up guys right away, I disagree. Anyone who’s sat with a group of girls and listened to them talk knows that they talk about guys and sex almost more than men do. They absolutely notice you (or they don’t at all).
@Emily:
“Jakes/25 – out of curiosity, how does it work for a path 2 woman to come knocking successfully? does that even work? if high value men don’t chase, how does phase 1 work? …or are you describing chase wrt phase 2 only?”
Ok. If you are asking me for some magical ace that will always work, save it, because there is none. Sometimes he will not take the bait after you’ve missed the boat on path 1. But basically, you already know what to do if you sense he might still be game. You have to make it clear enough that you’re interested and you have to be better than his other options. I.e. Be pretty and be nice a la the girl game thread.
Re: chasing
High value guys don’t chase in either situation. In path 1, he doesn’t have to chase, she already wants him. In path 2, he’s got options, or just plain has better things to do, than to try to “convert” that situation into a win. The girl might be cute, but if she ain’t buying she ain’t buying, and he knows this. At this point he’ll be past the point of even worrying about it at all. If the girl finally decides she wants him, she’ll have to be in his space enough to show interest and get his attention. He won’t go out of his way.
@ obsidian, then Mr. Liz would not be who or where he is today…not would Mrs. Liz. If that option is no longer an option, that would be a sad day.
If the girl finally decides she wants him, she’ll have to be in his space enough to show interest and get his attention. He won’t go out of his way.
Very, very true.
I think it’s also important to note that Path #1 doesn’t necessarily have to be “wants to jump his bones the second she sees him.”
Agreed. I don’t think the effect has to be that powerful, but I think the importance of Path 1 is that the sexual attraction is basically immediate or happens within a few minutes of interacting with the man. There is no need for attraction to “grow over time”.
BTW, Jimmy, you had an awesome comment earlier today
I want to take a step back before too much discussion gets a bit muddled with many injecting their own definitions of Path 1 and Path 2.
The reason I coined these terms was almost exclusively because of Liz’s comment in a different post describing attraction with her husband. Liz strikes me as self-aware and honest, so I wanted to start with the presumption that she is being honest and correct, and so given that what are the implications?
We know women have multiple attraction triggers beyond just physical appearance such as status. That is why ugly guys like Mick Jagger and Gene Simmons can bang thousands of hotties immediately.
But to me what is important and hasn’t been mentioned are the different timelines. Based on Liz’s description, it was clear that initially she was not attracted, but somehow somewhere over time that morphed into strong attraction. That is how I got this Path 2 concept. It isn’t Beta Bucks because there is a strong attraction present assuming this is true and in Liz’s case I have NO reason to doubt her sincerity. This isn’t Jenny Erikson trying to hamsterize her mind into reluctantly walking down the aisle to marry the “good man”. So it isn’t settling for the good beta provider. It is an alternative path to genuine attraction.
Path 1 is similar to how attraction works for a man. It is basically immediate. It doesn’t have to “grow over time” or wait to be catalyzed by some unknown variable. The only difference is for a man it would be primarily physical whereas for a woman I think it could include thing like status, or an immediate projection of confidence or charisma.
If these concepts are valid, and I think they are, the most important question for a man is how much time, energy, and effort do you spend trying to attract a woman via Path 2 vs Nexting her and looking for a Path 1 attraction? Another potentially troublesome question is whether or not one Path is more “real” than another. Is Path 2 an “inferior” attraction? If a woman goes for a Path 2 guy, and then later meets a Path 1 guy, is she going to question her Path 2 commitment if and when she meets a guy she experiences strong, immediate attraction to? Difficult question. But I’d bet my last dollar that a lot of female adultery is driven by a married woman meeting a man she experiences Path 1 attraction for.
I want to thank Liz for being cool with being analyzed under a microscope like this, and perhaps mentally revisiting the past and how things evolved.
It is very difficult often to get good info from the female POV because often it has to be discounted. The hamster is very real. Solipsism, projection, backwards rationalization of past decisions. I’ve questioned others in the past on these matters with all sorts of bobbing and weaving, and obfuscating. Getting to the real truth was clearly to painful a process.
My own view is along the lines of BV. Path 2 attraction has more risk in the long-term, and there is the potential that settling for Beta Bucks could masquerade as Path 2 for the woman who has decided she needs a sperm donor and provider to get the family she wants. This is why the friends first for years is insane to me. The first logical question the guy should ask is “Why now?” You’ve known me for years and only now you are interested in me sexually/romantically? The notion is absurd.
Path 1 makes more sense in my opinion for the route guys should pursue. That means working on Path 1 triggers such as physical appearance, the way you dress, etc. and it also might mean cutting out some women quicker who may have eventually gotten attracted via Path 2. Of course, for some men, Path 2 may be the only viable option to generating attraction.
@Ms. Elspeth 172:
In light of your response, and your other comments in the forum on this topic, I wanted to get your reaction to the following:
Would you agree with me that, among Black Women of a Certain Class (read; college educated professionals), they seem particularly adverse to approaching “Tyrone/Dexter” (they WILL make all manner of gratuitous “passes” at Mr. Bigs, but we all knew that), on the grounds that “they just don’t do that”, and that, “it’s the proper thing for a Man to approach them first”, etc; do you find this to be just a weebit problematic or not, and why/why not? Would you also agree that this seems to be something that is somewhat unique to said Black Women of a certain cohort? Why do you think that is, given the fact that their very position in the SES is due to the progressive norms of Feminism and the like – why then are they so seemingly hidebound to “tradition” when it comes to *certain* Black Men?
Your response?
Thanks!
O.
Tagging
#169 yes! I think maybe the question deti should want to ask is: How does a Path 2 man limit the damage to himself?
Deti,
You nailed it. Evaluating these women took no time at all. It takes me longer for me to type this message than for me to evaluate a room full of women. The concept of “waiting to see if I am attracted” is a foreign concept. I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean.
In terms of Yohami’s analogy?
I don’t like the Path 2 shows. They haven’t done enough to actively turn me off and they show potential, but these shows aren’t taking priority over anything.
Most of these Path 2 shows? Don’t like ‘em, get chucked. Some of them I watch and get passionate for a while, but end up dumping them.
If the analogy you are going for is that women try on men like I try out Television Shows, why are women surprised that men don’t invest any sort of cosmic significance in courthsip? You try me out like I try out “Bob’s Burgers” on Fox.
Essentially, path 2 is objectifying and dehumanizing, just as much as Path 1 is.
@ Obsidian #174:
To be frank, black women are in something of a pickle. So much so that I need some time to contemplate an answer to your question rather than just spouting out something.
I will say that the current problems plaguing black women in the dating/mating world are shared similarly by working class women of other races.
More later.
@Rollo
I really hate to be the cold bucket of reality here
Sure.
It will always be working back from a deficit since it places comfort and rapport ahead of arousal and sexual tension
I have been considering your comment to see how it relates to my own experience. My problem has always been too little comfort, being autistic. Someone like Elspeth would avoid me like the plague even though I had stopped “playing.” I would have thought that Mrs. Gamer would have, too, since she avoids P1 men who try to escalate fast.
Why didn’t Mrs. Gamer run from me? She avoided rapid-escalating men on P1 on general principles. Was I on P2? I don’t think so–just a slow-escalation P1. Mrs. Gamer was a girl of the old Patriarchy and had obsolete and eccentric ideas about sex only occurring within marriage. One of her friends preselected me–she had a big crush and Mrs. Gamer asked me on a double date for her friend and even argued logically that I should like her friend instead of her. Her other friends were always flirting with me in group situations–though not seriously. We were generally in a group situation with her gf’s and some other men–lots of dinner parties, picnics, clubbing, and dancing. Sometimes we went on dates, but I didn’t have many bucks for that, being a student–she had a ft job.
Mrs. Gamer invested more bucks in me than I ever did in her before we were married. She and her friends threw lots of parties and picnics to which I was invited. Mrs. Gamer paid her own way at the clubs. That speaks against a BB scenario. It was all about romantic attraction. Mrs. Gamer knew that I could spin plates at will–same day or night.
So, it seems that sometimes P1 and P2 might proceed at the same speed.
@ fuzzie yes that’s a good article.
#173 re: timelines. I think we’ve well-characterized Path 1 attraction as immediate, that instant spark at first meeting. Let’s say there is intense attraction within minutes, to be definite.. For Path 2 I think we kicked around “a few weeks” at the outside. In other words intense attraction develops sometime after the first day, but before the first month.
@Liz, so N1 waited a year before you allowed it to get sexual, and you met Mr. Liz at 19. Given the rough timeframe this would indicate that N1 waited get sexual with you at or around your junior – senior year of high school, is that correct?
Was N1 older or younger than yourself? Was N1 also in high school while this 1 year waiting game took place?
@Ms. Elspeth 178:
That’s an interesting remark, since I was careful to denote Class differences in what I asked you about Black Women; I am talking about the Sistas Who Matter(TM) – the ones who create and receive, all the attention from the (Black) Media, who the (Black) Relationship books and the like are marketed to, etc. Working Class and Below Sistas simply don’t rate – you and I both know this is true, although it will never be openly acknowledged as such by our Bougie Black ostensible betters.
Moreover, for all their faults – and as I’ve made clear in my ongoing “Tyrone” series, they most certainly DO have them – the fact remains, that Working Class Sistas do manage to get er done in a way that their ostensible betters haven’t. After all, you can’t fudge kids.
So, with all due respect, I would like to suggest that what I am asking you about is something that is quite demographically sensitive; I want to get your sense of that particular situation, whether you would agree with me on it, and if so, “Now What?”.
Will be awaiting your response…
O.
ADBG,
Im not trying to define the paths these shows belong to, but how I got into them. Im sure you have path 1 and 2 shows, games, books, etc, of your own.
“Essentially, path 2 is objectifying and dehumanizing, just as much as Path 1 is.”
And what isnt?
@ jakes it’s true, I am an introverted person and mostly am inner focused (inside my head) when in public. I work at home and usually alone as well. I may notice men in a socially appropriate context (a bar, a gathering, etc) but mostly I am not “looking at guys” unless I notice them bc i notice that they notice me (check me out or what not)
I graduated highschool at 17. We met that summer. I met my husband the following summer. N1 was about a year older (maybe a year and a half). I was his second. Perhaps it would help if I mentioned he turned out to be gay. So my husband was actually the only straight man I ever had sex with.
#185 “And what isnt?” I wuz gonna say anthropomorphism, but I’m not sure. Is going “Ooh, my widdle Snookums, he wants a treat! Does he want a treat? Mommy’s got a treat for Snookums! But he’s gotta give Mommy some sugar first.” subjectifying and humanizing (however improperly) a widdle lap dog?
O/T (somewhat):
I just happen to be sitting here tooling around on the Internet, and listening to some smooth sounds via YouTube.
I’m listening to the singers Avant and KeKe Wyatt, who’ve done duets since the latter 90s.
I want to draw your attention to Ms. Wyatt…
Here she is about 15 years ago doing a cover of the famed Rene & Angela tune “My First Love”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pzRmtDwWQg
Please note the short hairstyle.
OK, here she is in a more recent music video with Avant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT0gbcq5xqI
You can’t miss her, she’s not only the only Woman in the video, she’s in ALL RED, LOL.
Notice the hairstyle.
Now, let me ask you (especially the fellas reading along):
Which “Keke” looks better – the one with the short hair, or the one with the long hair?
Comments?
O.
@theasdgamer #179, and all interested:
This is from a study I quoted in Mrs. Hyde:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/02/27/mrs-hyde/
Sound like Path 1 and Path 2 to you?
The converse for women may also be true; though women follow a dualistic sexual strategy as dictated by the realities of her biology and the hypergamy that results from it, it stands to reason that women of lower sexual market value (or a perceptually lower acknowledgement of their SMV) would put a higher priority on characteristic cues for parental investment in the males they are attracted to (not aroused by).
Ever hear the old adage, ‘fat ones try harder’? There’s a lot of truth to that when you consider the earlier necessity for a woman consolidating on a long term provider earlier due to her handicaps in the SMP.
Morpheus 173:
Thanks for your comment, which is helping to crystallize Path 2 attraction for me.
I’d concur that getting good reliable information on the female point of view is difficult, and that’s why I wrote on this. Liz gave us some insight that I thought was valuable. I wanted it explored carefully and the expertise of the staff and commenters here to be brought to bear on it.
As an aside, I’ve been present for some of your attempts at extracting nuggets of info from certain women. I’ve helped you pull some of those teeth. I’ve spent many a long day mining for those little gold flecks. Clearly, it’s too painful for most women.
I don’t think a man should spend a lot of time or effort on a Path 2 girl. Hence my suggestion for time limits, minimal investment, no negotiation, and he must get aggressive at the end to force a decision. Path 2 girls should get NEXTed the minute he thinks the Path 2 girl shows he’s beta bucks or there are no IOIs or a Path 1 girl shows up on the radar.
Yohami,
I know, my bad in communicating, sorry. I have Path 2 media, too. Hopefully we all do. Good example for me is the video game Dragon Age. For the first hour and a half, hated it. After that? I think I’ve invested 200 hours in the damn game, through multiple play-throughs.
But I didn’t like the game the first hour and a half I played it.
If some of my friends called me up and said “hey, we got some H***kers and B**w!” that game would have been dropped just like that. This was also while I was unemployed, so I had a lot of time on my hands and not much money.
Nowadays?
No time for that, no time. A show needs to offer IMMEDIATE benefits. And any girl needs to offer IMMEDIATE benefits.
Just got more stuff going on now. Higher opportunity cost.
As for “dehumanizing.”
I am not saying anything is more “humanizing” than the other. It’s the women folk trying to elevate their preferred concept of human relations as the most “humanizing.”
#188 re: hairstyles. Religiously I’m against short hair, but also against fussy hair. And against exposing cleavage etc. But to me a woman with short hair is probably also trying to be mannish in order to dissuade men’s interest. And it works!
The women you mention O, well they’re in a real pickle as well. The current educational/economic system doesn’t do well by males in general, and for black men, it’s exponentially worse.
They women of higher educational/economic status who are without the baggage of kids and 40 pounds of adipose can increasingly marry out. I see more and more of them down here all the time. So much that it barely registers anymore the way did 5 years ago when I first started noticing it- down here.
The rest marry eventually as well, albeit to older men than they would have chosen earlier.
The sisters with the real problems are the single mothers who (with aid of Big Daddy gov’t. buying their food and paying their tuition) managed to acquire college degrees and get fairly good paying jobs.
I have a lot of women like that in my extended family, and for the most part, they end up alone. Not good enough for black men who are going somewhere, and perceiving themselves too good for most blue collar black men. You know them: the “I can do BAD by myself types.” And they stay single while courting the occasional relationship with the men they had their children with.
As you said, the lower SES black women are doing what they do, and are fairly oblivious to all of this.
@JF12 192:
Welp, on the whole “exposed cleavage” thing, that’s where we’re gonna have to part, ahem, company…I say the more the merrier.
Ahem.
But yes, be it for theological or purely aesthetic reasons, all things being equal (and as we can clearly see, on the same Woman!), long(er) hair is better than short(er) hair – and yes, keeping the Menfolk away with a bob rather than a weave (see what I did there?) definitely DOES work.
I’m just sayin…
O.
ADBG,
Tempted on picking Dragon Age if it comes to the PS4… still, so many other stuff I could do in 200 hs.
@ Obs #188
The long hair version looks better obviously. However, for me it’s the difference between “nope” and “hell no”.
Here’s a classic music video, featuring Ms. Janet Jackson herself – it opens with her sitting on her bed, braiding her hair: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m33PlctkFrU
Are there folks out there really trying to convince us Menz, with a straightface that Janet would look just as great with an Audrey Hepburn doo?
Really?
O.
And the bookkeeper is here so I am out, Liz and elsbeth good luck! I will check in later…
Your honor, as per comment #186 I move to enter The Adolescent Social Skill Set into the record:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/07/09/the-adolescent-social-skill-set/
Liz’s (and likely Bloom and Elspeth’s) base understanding of the SMP has been retarded by her exceptionally limited exposure to it beyond what she experienced over 20 years ago.
I move for dismissal as this is clearly not an expert witness.
@Nem 196:
Well, there’s no accounting for taste, right? Me, Ms. Wyatt can “get it” six ways to Sunday, but that’s just me.
But the big takeaway here is that you and I agree on the basic point: she looks better with the long(er) hair.
Obviously.
*Turning to the camera*
Are we learning yet, ladies (you know who you are)?
O.
#194 “keeping the Menfolk away with a bob rather than a weave” good one!
@Ms. Elspeth 193:
“The women you mention O, well they’re in a real pickle as well. The current educational/economic system doesn’t do well by males in general, and for black men, it’s exponentially worse.”
O: No doubt; but that isn’t what I asked you.
“They women of higher educational/economic status who are without the baggage of kids and 40 pounds of adipose can increasingly marry out. I see more and more of them down here all the time. So much that it barely registers anymore the way did 5 years ago when I first started noticing it- down here.”
O: Fair enough; but again, that is not what I asked you.
“The rest marry eventually as well, albeit to older men than they would have chosen earlier.”
O: Same again – but this is not what I’ve asked you.
“The sisters with the real problems are the single mothers who (with aid of Big Daddy gov’t. buying their food and paying their tuition) managed to acquire college degrees and get fairly good paying jobs.”
O: How so? Please explain (even though this too is not what I asked you)?
“I have a lot of women like that in my extended family, and for the most part, they end up alone. Not good enough for black men who are going somewhere, and perceiving themselves too good for most blue collar black men. You know them: the “I can do BAD by myself types.” And they stay single while courting the occasional relationship with the men they had their children with.”
O: Then I don’t see what the problem is – they made a decision not to acquire a long(er) term mate that was clearly willing and ready. *Shrugs* At any event, I didn’t ask you about this…
“As you said, the lower SES black women are doing what they do, and are fairly oblivious to all of this.”
O: Nor are Bougies terribly interested in their lives – other than to use them for cheap yuks…
Let’s try this again, shall we?
Here’s what I asked you above:
“Would you agree with me that, among Black Women of a Certain Class (read; college educated professionals), they seem particularly adverse to approaching “Tyrone/Dexter” (they WILL make all manner of gratuitous “passes” at Mr. Bigs, but we all knew that), on the grounds that “they just don’t do that”, and that, “it’s the proper thing for a Man to approach them first”, etc; do you find this to be just a weebit problematic or not, and why/why not? Would you also agree that this seems to be something that is somewhat unique to said Black Women of a certain cohort? Why do you think that is, given the fact that their very position in the SES is due to the progressive norms of Feminism and the like – why then are they so seemingly hidebound to “tradition” when it comes to *certain* Black Men?”
Your response (to my actual question this time, LOL)?
O.
#201 besides the hair, she’s being, well, we’ll say “more is merrier” overall rather than just big. It’s easy to be big and unfeminine; hulking for example. Being big and feminine takes some work, and the work is appreciated.
@ 190
I am now confused.
Are saying an overt approach has to made to set one on the path? The possible results being:
1.Path 1 – Yes
2. Path 2- Try again within the 30 days
3. rejection- No
I had thought the scenarios were:
1. Approach with intent immediately (same day)- Path 1
2. Approach with intent later (within 30 days of introduction)- Path 2
3. Never approach with intent- nothing.
@ Rollo
Ever hear the old adage, ‘fat ones try harder’?
Mrs. Gamer was a pre-Wall uncirculated dime–a real pink unicorn. She was pursued by multiple doctors and a wealthy hospital administrator. She selected me over them. The fact that we were both devout Christians made a difference to both of us in our choice of one another.
I was a natural; I did pickup over four decades ago, but had stopped long before I met Mrs. Gamer. I had the confidence, the ability to read women, and the instincts of a natural. Mrs. Gamer got obsessive commitment from a natural. I got intimacy with an uncirculated dime. It was a fair exchange. P1 happened slowly because of our cultural context.
So, Mrs. Gamer didn’t have to “try harder.” She could have been a doctor’s wife. And I _know_ that I was her first. Maybe being devout, conservative Christians makes our experience an outlier.
Damn dude, when I picked up Dragon Age, I didn’t have two nickels to rub together. Since I started this job, there have been no video games (other than Mass Effect 3, which has an ending akin to finding out you are having sex with a tranny).
Not nearly enough time anymore. Today, staying at work for another hour or so because I am an accountant, and hey it’s the end of the month!
@JF12 204:
“#201 besides the hair, she’s being, well, we’ll say “more is merrier” overall rather than just big. It’s easy to be big and unfeminine; hulking for example. Being big and feminine takes some work, and the work is appreciated.”
O: LOL! Well, yes, Ms. Wyatt is definitely what we Brothas would classify as “Thick”, no doubt about it…and you are very accurate when you say that it is no small feat, pardon the pun, for a Woman of more Zaftig proportions to pull off the feminine vibe…trust me, I done seen quite a few “Hulks” in the Hood, LOL!
I’ve been meaning to write about this particular topic for sometime now, because hey, let’s face it: Sistas tend to be big, and one of the reasons for it is due to what a not insignificant number of Brothas want…having said that though, there ARE “upper limits” there, and alla dat needs to be addressed.
In Ms Wyatt’s case, please note that she still has a discernable figure – a waistline, nice…bosoms…and so forth. And, as you said, the clothing/colors work for her, as well as hairstyle. When you’re larger as a gal, these things matter. A lot.
So much to do, so little time…
O.
And according to many of you I should settle on cats for the chances I have at my age and situation but irl I find that not to be the case luckily! I seem to have enough appeal otherwise for people to bother w my path 2 ways. Maybe I will find it, maybe not. I hope I do. I will be ok if I don’t. Maybe…
Ok now I am depressed! Boo!
My bookkeepers presence and spreadsheets is no comfort. Waaaaa…
Hope I added something, if not just comic relief, to the discussion!
And its a glorious sunny day a d the air smells like flowers and life is good. today I am not the crazy cat lady. living in the moment. Peace!
So, some analysis. Any advice yet for Path 2 men other than “be more attractive”?
Mr. Tomassi:
The Court has reviewed and duly considered your motion as well as that of Mr. Nemesis. The motions to dismiss on the grounds stated are respectfully denied, for the reasons expressed in the OP and by Morpheus at 173.
The Court finds there is sufficient evidence to support the existence of a “Path 2″. The case can proceed to trials by men. The Court takes with favor the suggestion that Path 1 is preferable, as well as the evidence which supports Path 1. That said, the Path 2 evidence is sufficient to proceed to trials.
The Court finds no just cause to delay enforcement or appeal of this Order, and trials may commence forthwith. Results of said trials shall be entered into the comboxes below as field reports from time to time as the commenters deem just and proper.
SO ORDERED this 30th day of April, 2014.
/s/ deti
Judge of the Manosphere Judicial Circuit
@Deti #67, Mr. Dependable was who vaginal dryness remedies were invented for.
@Morpheus #134, my strip club illustration was a play on Bloom’s self-control in the face of (non) temptation comment. Opportunity (or lack thereof) like necessity can also be turned into a virtue.
@Rollo 212:
“@Deti #67, Mr. Dependable was who vaginal dryness remedies were invented for.”
O: Oooof! LOL
Yo Man, check your email and get at me. We need to chat.
O.
Yohami,
I know, my bad in communicating, sorry. I have Path 2 media, too. Hopefully we all do. Good example for me is the video game Dragon Age. For the first hour and a half, hated it. After that? I think I’ve invested 200 hours in the damn game, through multiple play-throughs.
But I didn’t like the game the first hour and a half I played it.
Herzog Zwei on Sega Genesis. Ultimate Path 2 game. Yes, I am a geezer, LOL
@ deti
“No, fidelity, bravery, dependability, and industriousness most certainly are NOT attractive qualities.”
I dispute bravery not being attractive.
Path 2 women are just post-Epiphany Phase Path 1 women.
#200: “Liz’s (and likely Bloom and Elspeth’s) base understanding of the SMP has been retarded by her exceptionally limited exposure to it beyond what she experienced over 20 years ago.
I move for dismissal as this is clearly not an expert witness.”
Tut, tut, this one’s personal anecdote does not matter because…too few cocks?
I’ve never claimed to have ridden a bunch of different cocks, didn’t realize that was necessary. Thought that was a good thing.
God of War, Great Path 1 game. I’ve sort of lost track, but is there a version on PS4?
Some great thoughts on this thread. My own quick take (Liz, Elspeth, Bloom—looking forward to your critique of this):
Path 1: Female reaction to man is visceral, immediate attraction—hot/Sperm Donor/validation sex/”we would produce beautiful children.”
Downside Risks for Female: may not be able to deal with this guy in an LTR situation. He may be trouble/untrustworthy. Many/most women feel insecure around him.
Path 2: Female reaction to man is more curious—*might* be attracted to him, need more information, trying to extrapolate from his current condition to project how he will turn out down the road. If he plays his cards right and reveals desirable character, he has a chance. He can also blow it easily.
Downside Risks for Female: the guy may not be exciting; if you are a dopamine-stalker, you may get irritated with the guy and start testing him in unfair ways.
Path 3: Initial female reaction to man is that he is physically unattractive. He may be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat if these are present:
Select one or more from this list:
1. The woman is desperate for a workhorse provider and/or to be paid for sex work.
2. The woman has been burned very badly by a Path 1 and no longer trusts good-looking guys.
3. The woman is a drug addict.
4. The woman is either really unattractive physically or believes that she is.
…now pair with one or more from this list:
1. The man has provider bucks—perhaps a large supply of provider bucks—= available for immediate deployment and is willing to tolerate a relationship of full-retard transactional sex.
2. The man was a loyal beta orbiter and confidant during the dark days when the woman was being pumped-and-dumped by Path 1 rogue operators.
3. The man is a narco-trafficker or knows one.
4. The man convincingly compliments the woman on her appearance and makes her feel pretty.
@Deti, have it your way,…
I call Jenny Erickson to the stand.
I thought I answered you but I can see that I didn’t O. This isn’t a hard question to answer.
“Would you agree with me that, among Black Women of a Certain Class (read; college educated professionals), they seem particularly adverse to approaching “Tyrone/Dexter” (they WILL make all manner of gratuitous “passes” at Mr. Bigs, but we all knew that), on the grounds that “they just don’t do that”, and that, “it’s the proper thing for a Man to approach them first”, etc; do you find this to be just a weebit problematic or not, and why/why not?
Those women think Tyrone is beneath them, and they’d rather be the side piece to Mr. Big. then be the wife of Tyrone. Their ego won’t let them *settle* for a man who hasn’t accomplished what they have accomplished.
And no, I don’ find it “problematic”. It’s a free country (try not to laugh too hard at that). I got a man, and I have trained my own daughters to be more discerning and not so full of themselves that they don’t see the value in building a life with a man from the ground up.
It’s a sad state of affairs for those concerned with the plight of the black family such as it is, but from a personal standpoint, I’m not bothered by it.
Time or money? Can’t have both, eh? I’ve experienced both extremes.
Monthly close sucks. A few people in my department are involved and it always means lots of extra hours, especially since they moved it down to a 5 day close.
@Morpheus #134, my strip club illustration was a play on Bloom’s self-control in the face of (non) temptation comment. Opportunity (or lack thereof) like necessity can also be turned into a virtue.
Rollo,
Got it..thks
@Emily 198
See guys? Told ya. Women are not blindsided by any of this “game” stuff. They’re the real schemers, haha.
As for “high standards”, that’s not a high standard at all. That’s par for the course. You have to be somewhere where he can notice and appreciate you, and engage him. This is the same as what he had to do to pop up on your radar.
At the end of the day men do appreciate it- way too much, if you ask me. So much so, that many of them are willing to do the chasing for the girl and cheat her out of the satisfaction of working for it. And here we are.
Monthly close is great, perfect excuse to lube up my butt and bend over.
The all-too familiar Path 1 Brady Rulez:
1. Be handsome
2. Be attractive
3. Don’t be unattractive
It’s simple and direct for the man.
Proposed Path 2 Rulez
1. Don’t be unattractive
2. Work hard on being effortlessly ambiguous (I KNOW there is a French term for this), no mistakes allowed on this treacherous path
3. Make your move pretty soon but not too soon. Not talking about Goldilocks timings, just as soon as there is some IOI.
It’s complicated and risky for the man.
@Ms. Elspeth 221:
“I thought I answered you but I can see that I didn’t O. This isn’t a hard question to answer.”
O: OK…
“Those women think Tyrone is beneath them, and they’d rather be the side piece to Mr. Big. then be the wife of Tyrone. Their ego won’t let them *settle* for a man who hasn’t accomplished what they have accomplished.”
O: That’s perfectly fine by me; I suppose what I was getting at, was the glaring Hypocrisy at work here – they want all the bennies of “Progressivism and Feminism” WHEN IT SUITS THEM, but all of a sudden, when it comes to “courtin'” – and certain guys, no less (Mr. Big is exempt, of course) – then all of a sudden, they’re Southern Belles(?).
LOL. What. A. Joke.
“And no, I don’ find it “problematic”. It’s a free country (try not to laugh too hard at that).”
O: Actually, would it surprise you if I said that I completely, 100% cosign everything you just said?
“I got a man, and I have trained my own daughters to be more discerning and not so full of themselves that they don’t see the value in building a life with a man from the ground up.”
O: Well, that’s good.
“It’s a sad state of affairs for those concerned with the plight of the black family such as it is, but from a personal standpoint, I’m not bothered by it.”
O: I really question whether “those concerned with the plight of the Black family” really ARE “concerned with the plight of the Black family” – and I say this based on a number of easily discernable factors. For example, how many “Black Talking Heads” are having the kind of conversation we’re having, right now?
I think something else is going on.
O.
@ ADBG
“I wish the 7 didn’t leave. She was eye candy.”
It takes a 9 minimum to rate eye candy for me.
Rollo,
FWIW, I’m kind of hypothesizing/theorizing here as opposed to declaring. I’ll throw this out for consideration. I think Liz said she was 19. I think it is a safe bet that at 19, no woman even sees The Wall at all. It might as well be the distance from LA to New Zealand. So I think at 19 it is more unlikely that a woman is going to have to optimize/settle for purely beta provisioning at that age. The Lori Gottliebs advocating “Settle for Mr. Good Enough” are all 30+, late 20s at earliest.
If this was Giggles here selling this story, I’d call BS, but Liz has shown to be earnest. Admittedly, I’ve been fooled before when you were not (such as with Giggles).
In any case, whether or not Path 2 is valid or I am just renaming Beta Bucks provisioning, I think the main point of importance that Path 1 attraction is the ideal a man should shoot for. Anything else is potentially suspect.
Path 1 is limbic, as all sexual attraction is but if you confine two sexes in an environment long enough they’ll eventually bumb uglies, just ask Schwarzenegger.
I wonder how everyone’s opinion on this would change after half an hour of listening to my new favorite podcast?
http://psychologyofattractivenesspodcast.blogspot.co.uk/
Most online readers don’t have the attention span to read through the studies of Dr. Martie Hasselton, but this podcast really sums them up neatly, and basically destroys every distorted red pill counter Aunt Giggles ever came up with.
Path 1 and Path 2 are essentially the logical contingencies evolved to maximize men’s breeding capacity according to women’s dualistic sexual hypergamy (a result of her evolved biology and its behavioral motivators) while acknowledging their own SMV relative to the SMV of a particular woman.
@Liz #217, promiscuous women will always have a better understanding of the SMP than less promiscuous women. Not saying it’s right, just a fact.
@Rollo, can your physical attraction to a woman grow over time (not starting from unattractive) then suddenly “Sproing!”? I think women’s sproinging is symplectic to men’s, like the previous discussions about lack of unattraction etc.
Tut, tut, this one’s personal anecdote does not matter because…too few cocks?
I’ve never claimed to have ridden a bunch of different cocks, didn’t realize that was necessary. Thought that was a good thing.
@Liz #217, promiscuous women will always have a better understanding of the SMP than less promiscuous women. Not saying it’s right, just a fact.
So being off the market at 19 (or in my case 21) makes one less wise? Huh. That’s a new one.
Even though I understand what Rollo is trying to say, it appears to me that the longer a woman floats from man to man, the less discerning and understanding she seems to be. Can’t get her to listen to good sound advice for how to escape the life she says she wants to escape from no matter how hard you try.
That doesn’t sound like understanding of the SMP to me. But it is true that we’ve been out of the thing quite a long time.
Obsidian,
To address your question at comment 167, yes, there is a limit where men will opt out. With illegetimate births at eighty percent, I submit that Blacks are already there. White people are coming up fast.
Something that has been rattling around in my head about race has to be committed to a comment. For years, Black soldiers in Viet Nam contributed far more than their demographic share. When student deferments stopped and whites were as likely to be drafted, thast’s when all the antiwar protests got loud.
Do you think something similar will happen with respect to the SMP/MMP?
As a side note, I think France has a street harrassment law on the books as of this year. No word on how, or if, it’s being enforced.
@Fuzzie 234:
“Obsidian,
To address your question at comment 167, yes, there is a limit where men will opt out. With illegetimate births at eighty percent, I submit that Blacks are already there. White people are coming up fast.”
O: Not quite seeing how the Black OOW birthrate, which is accurate by the way, has to do with what I’ve said; could you please explain?
“Something that has been rattling around in my head about race has to be committed to a comment. For years, Black soldiers in Viet Nam contributed far more than their demographic share. When student deferments stopped and whites were as likely to be drafted, thast’s when all the antiwar protests got loud.”
O: Indeed; sadly, this is true. Here in Philly, the old Edison highschool boasts one of, if not the most Vietnam War causalties in the entire country; the school was predominantly Black and Hispanic.
“Do you think something similar will happen with respect to the SMP/MMP?”
O: In a word –
YES.
O.
As a side note, I think France has a street harrassment law on the books as of this year. No word on how, or if, it’s being enforced.
In terms of an larger understanding of the SMP, yes, because it removes you from the SMP experiences of a person who is still engaged in it. It’s not an insult, it’s a statement of fact.
Obsidian,
I threw the 80% out of wedlock number out there as a stand in for a broken marriage marketplace. A woman who would consciously choose to be a single mother has given up on finding a husband. Can you think of a statistic that would better reflect the overall health of the MMP?
@Fuzzie 237:
“Obsidian,
I threw the 80% out of wedlock number out there as a stand in for a broken marriage marketplace. A woman who would consciously choose to be a single mother has given up on finding a husband. Can you think of a statistic that would better reflect the overall health of the MMP?”
O: To be fair, no, I cannot. I see where you’re going with this now, and I think you make an interesting point. However, and not to seem like I’m being a pedant about it, but I’m not sure all Baby Mamas were intent on becoming that; I think there were instances where the (Black) Woman in question were intent on something else, but things didn’t work out. The book “Promises I Can Keep” goes into some detail about this, and I think it merits consideration.
Nevertheless, I see your point, and it’s something that needs to get a heck of a lot more airtime then it currently does. Perhaps now that the White People Who Matter’s neck is in the noose, it will.
O.
A pre-owned vehicle that’s exchanged hands at least a few times will be valued much more precisely according to current market conditions than a brand new vehicle. But NOT higher valued.
I’m still not satisfied with my female equivalent formulation of fast and slow paths. Sigh. Is it because the “fast” female version is the woman who you would marry immediately if given that choice, while the “slow” female version is the one who suddenly strikes you that way after a (short) time?
@JF12:
I am not at all clear on why there MUST be a “female equivalent” here? Please explain?
O.
Vox wraps this up nicely:
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/04/smv-vs-mmv.html
The summary: boosting your MMV does not boost your SMV.
@ 215
Women do not understand bravery ( or much else). As I have stated before, my military experience and awards generally bring instant respect among men. Women are very meeeeeh about it. Men think I am a dumb ass for not wearing a helmet, women get lubed up over it an my minor criminal behaviour. Their ideas of bravery and a man’s idea are not aligned.
Women don’t do reality very well but easily fall for allusions and illusions. Women think the body builder is the strongest guy in the gym vs the strength athlete; they think guy with a flashy car and 400k in debt is more wealthy then the plumber with awork truck and 100k in assets etc.etc.etc.
And admittedly I am no expert on how this works either, had a path similar to Liz and elsbeth until my divorce and a few dates and one serious ltr since and a few dates after. I turn most “opportunities” away bc they don’t align w my value set. And I live in a rural area, not a big city. Maybe path 2 works in my case. I don’t see myself changing to a path 1 gal (regardless of attraction level) anytime soon so maybe it will be cats yet! Who knows. I am sure for the 20aomes, it’s much more brutal now than back in my day. I wish I knew some of this then but my life’s been an ok one too, not perfect, but it is what it is. And today the sun shines and I am off to join of all people Hercules’s ex for a BBQ! Small world, and while she’s a handful, I do like her! And yes, even she is still seeing Hercules! Lol. There’s a good reason to sideline some…most actually. Honor and loyalty are hard to find but worth the wait.
Oh and Hercules’s knows the price, I flat out told him first time he made a pass. He can chase skirt till the cows come home, but not have me too. Thats the deal. My life is complicated enough for that foolishness! I would rather risk dragons.
Obsidian,
“White people who matter, whose neck is in the noose” made mee think of someone else from Philadelphia. He said something like “We should hang together or else we will hang seperately.” That was Benjamin Franklin.
He mattered.
I wonder what he wouuld think of all of us?
I think Yohami’s point about path 1 having all/most of the buttons pushed quickly vs. path 2 having them pushed more slowly is very insightful. Both paths end in having the buttons pushed and lead to real love and attraction.
Bloom’s point about men being somewhat invisible and that she doesn’t “judge” them as to their attractiveness until they escalate in some fashion (such as asking her out or flirting or whatever) is important. I think many women do walk around in a sort of “oblivious” state that is very different than men constantly judging women’s sexual attractiveness.
I’ve heard many women say they didn’t find their bf/husband that attractive at first (they weren’t repelled either; he didn’t disqualify himself) and that over time they came to be strongly attracted. Now, sure, discount some of those stories as “love the one you’re with” trying to create attraction or the appearance thereof but enough seemed sincere and really into their guys that I believe that it really does happen with many women.
Path 1 is real. Path 2 is real but has risks for the man.
I’ll also throw out that path 1 girls aren’t necessarily great for relationships because some of them are simply looking for sex and nothing more; some of them are fickle. So men have to really discern whether the path 1 girl is just a slut for everyone or whether he’s special to her.
Finally, I’ll disagree with many sphere brethren (deti, you’re the one that most comes to mind) on whether things like bravery, kindness, vulnerability, provider-ability, whatever other “beta” traits you want to talk about, can generate attraction in women. I think that they are not the main things but I still do think they can create some genuine attraction in women, especially in environments where actual hunger and danger lurk (very different from our plush and safe modern, developed world).
So I would give it more of an 80/20 split: that dominance, looks, charisma, pre-selection, etc. (the typical things we say create attraction in women) are responsible for the large majority (80%) of creating attraction but the other things have some role (say 20%) and those percentages can vary depending on the environment–namely, in poor/dangerous environments, the % of attraction generaged by the man’s loyalty and provider ability and caring for her could be much higher, like 40% or something.
I just think female attraction triggers are much more complicated than a 100/0 split.
Thoughts?
Re bravery
If you save a woman’s butt and risk your own, damn straight she’s gonna see you as an alpha killer. Women who _see_ a man risk his safety for a good cause will get tingles. Say he saves a child from a burning house–tingles, for certain.
Maybe, maybe not if you’re risking your neck in a foreign war.
Dread Game Update
Mrs. Gamer has been haaaaappy for three days. How long until she’s unhaaaappy again? Place your bets.
@deti:
Well written as usual. The key takeaways for me:
Very, very, very important (Achtung!):
Most guys will get trapped here by not being able to set proper boundaries. In this time and age of full blown misandry and male shaming, it can easily turn into a toxic, emotional and psychological energy draining co-dependent pattern (“red pill”, although very bitter, can be a good preventative medicine in this case). You try to address this towards the last paragraph:
Thanks.
@Rollo:
You might explore this in your website. But I just think that when girl thinks that by boosting her “sexual market” value she will boost her “marriage market” value than she has a problem. When a promiscuous girl thinks that she can have the same marriage value of a Cinderella, then she clearly does not have much understanding of the MMP, even though she might have a very good understanding of the SMP, be a good predator of “blue pill” betas and even make a good porn star. Given that feminism have educated women to be “shameless”, it’s no wonder that they even tried to remake Cinderella adapted to feminist ideals for the 21st century. Kind of “have it all” mentality.
@ 248
Bullshit. Early in my marriage I chased off three armed urban youth. Not to mention problems with the local color and my daughter. My reward? Her infidelity and bullshit for years. No women do not care. Sure it will get them lubed up for a short while, but it will buy you nothing long term.
Besides, how often does a man get the chance to do such things?
FWIW from a first time commenter, everyone I’ve ever seriously dated came from “Path 2″. For women who are more relationship oriented, I think it gives them a chance to gauge qualities that are more important in the long term.
I also seriously doubt that there are actually “Path 1″ guys, in the sense that men often project their sexual desire and thinking mode onto women and overestimate the female sexual desire. I mean, how can he seriously know whether she is attracted to him or just to his exterior attributes?
@deti:
Given the comment context and I would make the following fix to your post:
If [you’re a beggar, living on the street, dirty, ugly and broken and] she’s not expressing immediate sexual interest, you’re on Path 2. If [you’re a beggar, living on the street, dirty, ugly and broken and] she’s not “lighting up” around you, you’re on Path 2. If [you’re a beggar, living on the street, dirty, ugly and broken and] she’s not crawling over broken glass to want to see you, you’re on Path 2.
Sorry. I do not mean to be cynical. But I could not help it.
I think it gives men a clearer understanding.
I mean, how can he seriously know whether she is attracted to him or just to his exterior attributes?
What does this mean?
FWIW from a first time commenter, everyone I’ve ever seriously dated came from “Path 2″.
Have you ever *not* seriously dated someone? As in had a rapid escalation or hookup?
@248, 252
I’m with Ton on this one. I’ve saved a metric crapton of hawt nurses from violent psych patients. Earned me exactly zip.
More specifically, what exactly do you mean by “exterior attributes”?
“how can he seriously know whether she is attracted to him or just to his exterior attributes?”
All attraction is “exterior” attributes.
I put it in quotes because every attribute is either exterior or it’s not there.
Put another way, and this is somewhat simplistic, but in a sense you are the sum total of your attributes
@Morpheus: I mean that female attraction towards men is almost nonexistent when compared to the male one. Male sexual attraction usually is not contingent on social proof, social dominance, power, “tight game”, whatever…
“female attraction towards men is almost nonexistent when compared to the male one”
Female attraction to the top men is x10, as you can see with male celebrities and groupies.
Note: I hope my rather off-topic last comment will not derail the discussion. Sorry guys. Forget about it.
@ theasdgamer #206
Darn you’re making me jealous of Christians now.
As an atheist, it’s highly improbable that I’ll manage to get a virgin wife.
“What does this mean?”
He/she probably means that the woman is attracted to the man/person and not just his cock. Except women are never attracted to the cock unless it belongs to the man/person they already find attractive. Then of course it’s not really the man/person they are after either but rather the emotions they feel and the social validation of it. All of which is not intrinsic but extrinsic to the man/person.
But yeah, it sounds like the fem “be yourself” mumbojambo.
I think Yohami’s point about path 1 having all/most of the buttons pushed quickly vs. path 2 having them pushed more slowly is very insightful. Both paths end in having the buttons pushed and lead to real love and attraction.
This is the direction I am leaning.
I’ll also throw out that path 1 girls aren’t necessarily great for relationships because some of them are simply looking for sex and nothing more; some of them are fickle. So men have to really discern whether the path 1 girl is just a slut for everyone or whether he’s special to her.
Han, I don’t think there are Path 1 girls vs Path 2 girls per se. I think for any given woman (perhaps there are some exceptions) there is some man that is going to elicit that Path 1 immediate attraction where maybe many other guys can elicit the Path 2 attraction.
I agree the female attraction is very complex both as to what drives it and what time period it takes to occur. Too bad we can’t administer truth serum to like a sample of 10,000 women
I wish it were as simple as just asking questions, but there are so many reasons why it is hard to get a straight answer. One of the big ones is that the dualistic strategy in some sense relies on male ignorance and not understanding it. I think many women would prefer the notion of it “just happening” or being some “magic moment” that you shouldn’t try to understand rather then deconstruct the exact drivers.
@Morpheus I suppose not, now that I think about it. Even guys I’ve only gone on a few dates with I knew for some period of time beforehand. And no, I’ve never just hooked up with someone either.
Even guys I’ve only gone on a few dates with I knew for some period of time beforehand.
What changed that made you interested to date them after “some period of time” versus wanting to date them when you first met?
How do you know you’re on path one…. she gives you a blow jobs three hours and three margaritas after meeting you for the 1st time? She tells you “hell with the 3 date rule” over chips and salsa; she drives three hours through a rare Southron snow storm to spend the weekend with you three weeks after handing her your business card while an is on gate guard at Camp Lejeune….. really the was are endless and clear
In a very real way, women are only into your exterior attributes. Comfort traits like bravery, intelligence, honestly etc;l…… make a woman tingle and she will ascribe all kinds on nonsense to you. I’ve had girls tell me I’m 6 foot when I am 5’7″; have a masters degree despite me being a high school drop out, told I’m 32 when I’m 43 with a damn near all white beard….. the list is damn near endless.
I reckon Deti is right about path 2 & the actions a man should take when he’s on it, but the more a woman is into you the more she will build you up in her own mind and defend that illusion to the death. If she is not into you, doesn’t matter what kin of man you are, she will make her own illusions about what kind of d-bag you are. It’s freaking crazy but like I said, girls default setting is “divorced from reality”.
@Morpheus
It probably just comes down to them displaying obvious interest/ asking me out. The point Bloom and Han made earlier about women sort of being in just an oblivious state really resonated with me. Maybe it’s because I’m a pretty big introvert but it usually takes me a while to pick up on someone being interested in me, unless they walk right up to me and ask me out point blank. Generally these were just guys I knew in some way (class, similar social circles, etc), we were friendly, and then suddenly (from my perspective) they just seemed really interested one day. With hindsight and the help of earlier comments, I’m aware that the interest probably wasn’t sudden on their end, but that’s just how it came across to me at the time.
#219 Bastiat: Path 3 was…ouch! (though likely spot on) But ouch!
“Path 1: Female reaction to man is visceral, immediate attraction—hot/Sperm Donor/validation sex/”we would produce beautiful children.”
Downside Risks for Female: may not be able to deal with this guy in an LTR situation. He may be trouble/untrustworthy. Many/most women feel insecure around him.
Path 2: Female reaction to man is more curious—*might* be attracted to him, need more information, trying to extrapolate from his current condition to project how he will turn out down the road. If he plays his cards right and reveals desirable character, he has a chance. He can also blow it easily.
Downside Risks for Female: the guy may not be exciting; if you are a dopamine-stalker, you may get irritated with the guy and start testing him in unfair ways.”
I think the above is pretty accurate in general. But from my perspective, I can’t really imagine being a path 1. I just require more data than a person’s appearance to form a conclusion about them. Someone brought up the term demisexual earlier in another thread (I had to look the definition up) and I guess I’m that type of person. It’s likely that more women are than men. Or I might be unusual and unique, but I doubt it.
#231: I’m not sure where this is going Rollo…are you under the impression I was fat or low value or something? I wasn’t. Nor was the wall anywhere in site. Nor was my husband hard-up to get laid, by any means. What actually happened was, I was very attractive and he wanted me, though he could have others he wanted far less. Like everything else (he’s a successful guy), he set out to get me and went about it in a way that would make that possible.
#244: Hope you had a nice time at your bbq, Bloom.
Teacup,
Maybe I’m misinterpreting, but based on your description you seem pretty blase/ho-hum about it. Sounds like you never thought for one second “Hey, I wish this guy would ask me out”. It seems more like previous to asking you out, you had no attraction to these guys, and then when they finally did you were kind of like “Heck, why not, I got nothing else going”. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. You mention “they were suddenly interested one day” but you don’t mention anything about your feelings at all. It all strikes me as sort of lukewarm/take it or leave it type of situations.
Sumo at 257,
“I’ve saved a metric crapton of hawt nurses from violent psych patients. Earned me exactly zip.”
Granted that I may be viewing this from a male perspective but, that’s over the top entitlement.
I think the above is pretty accurate in general. But from my perspective, I can’t really imagine being a path 1. I just require more data than a person’s appearance to form a conclusion about them.
See, here’s the thing. This description “form a conclusion” paints a picture of attraction as some type of deliberative process involving pros and cons and conscious evaluation. I can honestly tell you I’ve never evaluated a woman like that in my life. The attraction process is visceral and an immediate subconscious reaction, not something I spend time contemplating. This is both interesting and confusing. I suspect there is an aspect here of how would you describe to a fish the feeling of not being wet. It knows nothing else.
Someone brought up the term demisexual earlier in another thread (I had to look the definition up) and I guess I’m that type of person. It’s likely that more women are than men. Or I might be unusual and unique, but I doubt it.
“This description “form a conclusion” paints a picture of attraction as some type of deliberative process involving pros and cons and conscious evaluation. I can honestly tell you I’ve never evaluated a woman like that in my life. The attraction process is visceral and an immediate subconscious reaction, not something I spend time contemplating.”
“Form a conclusion” is probably not a very accurate description on my part. But I can’t think of a better one. It definitely isn’t a mental calculation per se, it’s emotional for sure, but it does require a sort of assessment.
“This is both interesting and confusing. I suspect there is an aspect here of how would you describe to a fish the feeling of not being wet. It knows nothing else.”
I think that’s a very good analogy.
@Morpheus
I think because I was trying to generalize my experiences as a whole I just completely glossed over my feelings. Let me try to clarify by focusing on two experiences specifically. In one case I was part of the same volunteer organization as this guy I thought was very cute (from afar). We became friendly once we got placed into the same group for projects, but I didn’t think he really noticed me outside the context of our group work. The more time we spent together the more I liked him, but I didn’t think the sentiment was reciprocated. Fast forward a bit, apparently it was, he asked me out and we dated. In the second scenario I joined a new sports team and met a ton of new people. There were two guys I initially found attractive just based on looks alone. There was a different guy on the team who started chatting with me more at practice and then over facebook once we went home. Once we started talking more he was “on my radar” so to speak, and I realized I found him attractive as well. I started to like him and wondered if he liked me too, but I was unsure for a little bit if he was just being friendly or not. Ultimately he asked me out, and we dated for a while as well. So in both scenarios I found both guys attractive before they asked me out, but in one of them it was only after I started socializing with him more regularly. I never found either of them unattractive, but I wasn’t always actively considering them either. Does that make sense?
Does that make sense?
Yes.
I’m getting the sense that guys can exist in one of 3 “zones”
1. Immediately attractive (like the two guys you mentioned)
2. The Neutral Zone
3. Immediately unattractive
It may be true that for most women, there are very few guys who fall into the immediately attractive zone, and a very large number of guys who fall into the neutral zone. A guy has the potential to move from the neutral zone to attractive. Here’s the dilemma. From the guy’s perspective since he isn’t a mind reader the neutral zone and the friend zone are going to seem identical. A guy stuck in the neutral zone hoping to move to attractive is sort of fumbling around being hopeful not knowing what the eventual outcome is going to be.
Just curious, is there a difference between “cute” and “attractive based on looks alone”. If so, what is the difference?
One more:
Once we started talking more he was “on my radar” so to speak, and I realized I found him attractive as well.
Can you pinpoint when and why you had this realization?
“on my radar”
He touched her and she felt it: he became visible, or “became a man” or made her look at him “with those eyes”
Shes the ovule and has x100 sperm floating around and trying to get in. But a woman is numb to most of it because that’s all they know. They cannot differentiate normal interaction from “I want to fuck you” interaction because all there is really is one thousand shades of grays of “I want to fuck you”. Women have their own checklist of the men they would like to fuck themselves, but nothing of this really happens until a man, the man, a man, takes initiative and presses her buttons, then she’s going to feel an emotion, and she’ll either want more, or want less, regardless of what her prior idea was.
Men dont need to be stimulated, dont need interaction, men want the pussy and chase the pussy regardless of whatever else. Women instead respond to shape, pressure, flavor, smell and a thousand other little buttons and characteristics that are perceived as a whole and then it either feels “right” or it doesnt.
A guy can totally fly under the radar until he takes action and rubs her, in the right or the wrong way.
@Morpheus
Cute is my fall back word when describing people I find attractive (I know this isn’t most guys adjective of choice, apologies). Sometimes I will use it for people I don’t even know, like an actor or a waiter. In terms of the examples I recounted for you, cute was applied to people I got to know a bit whereas “attractive based on looks alone” was to clarify that I did not know those guys on my team in terms of their personalities. It was just more I saw them at the first few practices, and thought they were good looking.
In terms of pinpointing my realization, the when is sort of difficult to place. It had to have been after we had been talking for a little bit (maybe a few weeks?), because the “why” is I remember getting to a point where I really enjoyed talking to him. Our conversations flowed easily, and I thought he was very intelligent. Also we had similar senses of humor and cultural backgrounds, both pluses.
@ sfc ton
Early in my marriage I chased off three armed urban youth…Besides, how often does a man get the chance to do such things?
Obviously, you did early in your marriage. I did as well, when a thug started stalking the gal who eventually was my fling while I was walking her to the bus stop.
My reward? Her infidelity and bullshit for years. No women do not care. Sure it will get them lubed up for a short while, but it will buy you nothing long term.
Sounds like your ex was very broken. :/ Bravery is no guarantee of fidelity. However, it does have some impact on feminine attraction, at least short term. Risk-taking is a masculine trait and the women know it.
Great stuff Yohami. I LOL’ed at the last sentence, you have a way with words
On my radar, but about jobs.
Say you dream about being a lawyer. You look at law firms and have your dreams and idealizations about it.
Then a carpenter offers you a temp job and you’re like… wtf, well I actually like wood so lets give it a try. A couple of weeks fly and you realize you actually like manual work. The temp job becomes fulltime and two years later you wonder wtf did you see in law to begin with.
So carpentry flew totally under the radar until somebody rubbed you with it and you gave it a try. It could also have gone wrong due to a million different factors. But, yeah.
@Fuzzie 273
That’s a fair observation; I worded that one poorly. I should have clarified that despite the obvious presence of danger/risking of my butt/saving of hers(theirs) that was alluded to in #248, there were no tingles generated.
Sumo,
Did they demonstrate gratitude? That’s what I was trying to get at. You do deserve as much for handling a situation they couldn’t.
@Fuzzie
Oh, sure. Unless you got one of the jaded, burnt out battle-axes, there was normally gratitude. Just no evidence of tingles.
I realizes Obsidian and Vox don’t play well together, but this deserves a second mention: Boosting your MMV does not boost your SMV.
While certain men’s conditions may predispose them to employing the negotiation process of the long con of Path 2, women aren’t Path 1 or Path 2 girls – they are both.
The problem with Path 2 is that it relies on the hope that another guy employing Path 1 doesn’t ‘press her buttons’ more swiftly and more efficiently before his Path 2 methods have convinced her into becoming intimate with him.
And even after this convincing, his Path 2 efforts still rely on a constant mate guarding effort from the Path 1 guy based on the Relational Equity fallacy:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/05/21/relational-equity/
Again, the qualities that make for good MMV do nothing to improve SMV. This is why I constantly differentiate between the terms attraction and arousal.
Ask any woman what they “look for in a guy” or peruse any woman’s online dating profile and you will get a laundry list of intrinsic characteristics (confident, funny, thoughtful, sensitive, supportive, decisive, dependable, etc.) women find attractive for a long term mate. These ‘attractive’ qualities are all prerequisites for parental investment and long term security.
Unfortunately none of these intrinsic qualities has anything to do with what ‘arouses’ a woman’s sexual interest. Only extrinsic qualities (and the imagining of them) generate tingles. Physique, masculine visual cues, performance, social proof, preselection, physical self-confidence, body odor, are just some of the extrinsic qualifiers women have for arousal.
Furthermore, women’s sexuality is cyclic in relation to what behavioral predispositions her menstrual cycle, biochemistry and neurological conditions stimulate for her during these phases. During pre-ovulation (the proliferative phase) it is a PROVEN FACT that women tend to be more open to, if not outright seeking of, sexual attentions of more Alpha (see Path 1) dominant men displaying the extrinsic cues which qualify them for her arousal.
In the secretory phase it is a PROVEN FACT that women are more ‘attracted’ to men with the passive, comforting, intrinsic qualities (see Path 2) that are cues for good providership.
The problem with this sexual pluralism is that it seeks to optimize the disparate elements of her hypergamy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) in the same male. So the guy following Path 2 is at an extreme logistical disadvantage when a woman’s cycle predisposes her to arousal by a Path 1 guy for a week and a half while he tries to develop his sexual strategy.
The Path 1 guy may eventually (depending upon the endurance of his arousing qualities) need to adopt a Path 2 strategy for women who’s age and SMV has reach the point where her need for Path 2 qualities outstrips her capacity to attract the characteristics of Path 1 men.
So again, boosting MMV does nothing to boost SMV.
re: 1000 shades of gray. Yohami threw out a number, but it is correct. The maximum theoretical number of displayed gray shades a human eye-brain system is capable of perceiving is about 1000, but only under two stringent conditions. One condition is not so difficult: the levels must be precisely calibrated to follow the eye’s piecewise approximately-logarithmic response. The second is totally unrealistic: the viewing of the display must be under variable adaptation conditions, i.e. basically blocking out everything but the dark sections and adapting to dark, then blocking out everything exept not too dark and not too bright and adapting to middling, then blocking out everything except bright and adapting to bright.
In practical reality, just walking up to a linear display and trying to discern instant differences, the average human eye is limited to about 50 shades of gray. Is truth. For really outstandingly exceptional vision, and a bit of careful tweaking of linear levels, the very best possible in reality may be up to almost 100 shades.
jf12, I had no idea
#290 Humans do a lot better with shades of green, sticking to “one” color. Female human women-persons vastly outpace males in color discrimination, especially in the beigey and pinkish regions of color space.
I think we men are in overall agreement that Path 2 is at best a slower handicapped version of Path 1 for the alpha ladder, and at worst merely just another way onto the usual beta ladder. The good-ish news for a beta is that by following Path 2 for up to few short weeks he might, possibly, maybe all of a sudden become alpha-ish enough for the woman for her to latch, at least for a while. The better-ish news for an alpha is that by following Path 2 for at most a few weeks he will have waited out her cad filter, and then he can do as he likes.
Work seems to have really taken a toll on my physical exercise. Just tried to to do a one-handed push up and failed miserably. I need to focus on getting back into shape.
@liz the BBQ was fun. At the dad of Hercules ex’s new boyfriend (following this? Lol!) Spent a very enjoyable evening, sitting on a deck, next to a burbling creek, listening to the dad tell stories of Vietnam (good ones) his early marriage, becoming a dad, and randomly remembering his wife who passed away three years ago who he obviously loved very much. When I used the restroom, I noticed his wife’s robe still hung on the back of the door. I almost started crying, it was so touching. A very enjoyable evening, as I reflected on all this, as well.
Welcome teacup and the other gals, thanks for chiming in about how women experience “attraction.” This whole discussion has been very illuminating. As usual!
Rulez of engagement for men.
0) Women give out IOIs immediately upon registering a man as attractive enough. Axiomatic.
1) He must escalate immediately upon receiving initial IOIs from a woman if he wants her attraction to latch.
2) If he doesn’t receive immediate IOIs then not all hope is lost, since he simply may not register to her, but HE must give out increasing IOIs along with increasing alphaness in order to spark her evaluation of his attractiveness. If she has not responded within a few weeks then all hope is lost and she ought to be nexted.
“If she has not responded within a few weeks”
Actually there’s a response for every move.
Man’s job is to make the move and take opportunities.
The beta delays the move because fears rejection. The alpha makes the move assuming the answer will be positive. So this is not really about when but how. And the response wont take weeks but split a second – in other words it’s the man’s move what can take weeks (though highly not recommended), never the response.
Check Liz story. Every time he made a move she welcomed it.
A woman is either gonna tell you gimme more of that or gimme less of that. And she’s gonna make it know as soon as there’s a proposal on the plate. Which should happen as soon as possible.
Also the quicker it happens the more sexually charged it can be and the better chances it has to be well received, assuming the timing (game) is right.
@Morpheus
That’s basically how I see it too.
There’s really nothing wrong with the neutral zone if you have options or an abundance mentality. In that case, it’s just another potential opportunity.
But you have to have the right attitude and approach, otherwise you’re likely headed for some bad results. And as you’ve mentioned, from a strategic perspective, it comes with quite a few drawbacks.
But I also think immediately discounting anything less than immediate attraction is kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water. For the vast majority of guys, that’s just not going to happen.
Path 2 isn’t just for beta guys who can’t get the insta-tingle going. I have a couple of player friends who flex a version of Path 2 they call the “slow roll.” They meet a woman who either by look or vibe catches their interest, but isn’t flipping the light on for them immediately. Being good at this, they can tell. So they put her in a sort of modified friend zone where they aren’t pursuing her, but aren’t shutting off the opportunity either. Then they wait for that moment where they get an opportunity to do or show something that gets her interested, and again being good at this, they can spot that moment when it comes. I’m betting that the fact they waited to make a serious move heightens the sexual tension on the woman’s part when the move is actually revealed.
What differentiates them from a hardcore beta running the friend strategy (the one girls told us to use, and then got angry and resentful when we used it?) It’s that they have other options. Slow rolling a candidate doesn’t cost them much in opportunity cost, they aren’t keeping the stall empty, so they can still leverage the abundance mentality (for their inner game) and preselection (for their outer game). Oneitis is firewalled, so their lives won’t be ruined if she says no.
On a broader note, it’s actually one of the funny ironies of getting to know the “player” scene to see how banal and plain their behaviors can be. The women I talk to (online and otherwise) about game and the SMP have very crude, cartoonish concepts of players as inveterately sleazy and easy to spot like a walking leisure suit, the guy who looks like a cover model and flashes money and will pressure them into sex and has a stack of nasty pornos on his coffee table. Meanwhile (everyone knows where I’m going with this) the real deal players tend to be pretty affable, comfortable guys, with an agreeable vibe and an understated appreciation for classic tastes. Looks help for sure, but if you can work the slow roll you don’t need to generate the insta-tingle so you can get by with an underwhelming physique (I’m told that big muscles are icky anyway).
These guys of course look like they are “just being themselves.” I happen know that their journey to “just being themselves” has taken them through literally years of behavioral modification, experimentation and tweaks to their look, vibe and speech.
I know a lot of people who have been blessed with good genetics and are basically in good health, but anybody I know who is in really good shape goes to the gym regularly (like 3-4x a week). Likewise, there are plenty of naturals, but they guys I know who are really slaying poon have made huge efforts to sharpen that saw.
Kinda went off there, but my original point was that Path 2 is a strategy, not a sentence. Totally agree with Morpheus that there appear to be three states (interested, open to discussion, actively uninterested) and that a dude upping his game should work to figure out how and why he’s getting the third reaction and try to eliminate it, so he can get the biggest group of possibly-interested women he can.
Jimmy just said what I said in many fewer words. Respect.
Badger, yeah.
Yohami,
“A woman is either gonna tell you gimme more of that or gimme less of that. And she’s gonna make it know as soon as there’s a proposal on the plate. Which should happen as soon as possible.”
I was on a first date Monday and we got talking about my acquaintance who is a 20-something virgin and trying to change it. I mentioned to my date that my buddy was in the FZ with a female friend for a while. She mused on how hard it is to advise on how to stay out of the friendzone. I responded by saying “the answer is boldness – you gotta make a move that’s so overt and forward that she’s either going to slap you or get turned on.”
IOW, “Get blown or get blown out.” (Hat tip to a now-forgotten RooshVForum member.)
So yes, a dude has to make the move to find out where he really stands. Once the girl has allowed you to isolate her is probably the safest time to make a big move.
Sometimes the girl doesn’t even know herself what the hell she feels until you put it in front of her. Someone on my blog once referred to “Schroedinger’s Friendzone” to describe the informational paradox.
Jimmy,
“There’s really nothing wrong with the neutral zone if you have options or an abundance mentality. In that case, it’s just another potential opportunity.”
Related: I’m not sure Billy Crystal/Harry was right. Men and women who are attracted to one another can be friends, so long as they both have options so neither side is set up for an exclusive need for the other person. And it’s not sex that gets in the way – it’s love, specifically the oneitis that creates the asymmetric neediness that constitutes most of the dreaded unrequited love/”friend zone.”
I say this to young guys reading this: if you get in shape, have a friendly persona, and have even passable game, girls in your friend group are going to want to fuck you. They might not come out and say it, but you watch for it. And others will be intrigued, basically Path 2 kinds of opportunities.
Then they’ll be in your friend zone – and you should think hard about snapping up the opportunity, not because of ruining “the friendship” (which is basically over anyway once one person has an asymmetric crush on the other) but because of the effect on the friend group as a whole. If there’s relationship potential that’s one thing, but if it’s just a hop in the sack you can find some floozy for that elsewhere and not create mad drama in your own social backyard. Cool side effect: you can still flex them for preselection without doing anything with them, since women can tell when other women are into a guy.
“Sometimes the girl doesn’t even know herself what the hell she feels until you put it in front of her. ”
Yup.
@badger and I think someone else suggested such: “pretending” to be interested in a relationship just to add a notch is inauthentic and should be avoided for karmas sake.
Can I point out fetlife.com for those just wanting to get laid wo pretense that “it’s something more…”
Sorry if that sounded rude, not intended as such.
Path 1:
Man’s SMV is 2-3 pts higher than Woman’s.
Path 2:
Man’s SMV is the same or 1pt higher than Woman’s.
Bravery is undervalued, apparently!
@ sfcton well done warding off the thugs!
@ sumo off topic but a friend who is a nurse was just telling me this past weekend how patient caused injuries are often the cause of an end of a nursing career. I had no idea how risky it was! Good for you for intervening!
And one last thought for the night, it’s interesting to me, as a woman, how the majority of guys (but not all) giving advice seem to be saying “if it’s not path 1, bail.” I am curious if that’s projection (men size that up right away and assume the same) or if its “chances of easy score are less, move along to easier target.” Are the guys advocating path 1 just advising that based on looking to score easily? Or bc they see it as too easy to confuse that w “friendzone/not going anywhere” scenario? Or ??? What’s behind the “path 1 is best” thinking?
“And one last thought for the night, it’s interesting to me, as a woman, how the majority of guys (but not all) giving advice seem to be saying “if it’s not path 1, bail.” ”
We’re passionate romantics at heart.
Bloom @ 306; the advice is about helping a man spending his resources, time, money etc to archive his goals wisely. Like the three date rule, how long should a man continue down path 2 when he is not seeing the results he would like? A man needs to know when to cut his losses, and he needs to have a pre determined cut off point, one he established when thinking clearly and not caught up in “the moment” so he can shift to something/ someone more productive. Women hate this and it takes resources/ attention away from them but this is what serves a man’s best interest. I think it’s fair to say, most advice around here is about how a man should allocate his time, money and effort. It’s a big deal for us. Whatever we spend on you cannot be spent on some other girl, our hobbies etc.
Gamer, I think you fail to understand how women work. Save her from being gang rapped on Tuesday and by Thursday she is wondering what you have done for her lately. Do so semi regularly like Sumo, and she learns to take you/ your actions for granted. Quickly.
Yep, path 2 is not automatically beta unless it’s approached with a beta mindset. Which Deti does an excellent job of describing how to avoid. Frame is key.
Rollo: “The Path 1 guy may eventually (depending upon the endurance of his arousing qualities) need to adopt a Path 2 strategy for women who’s age and SMV has reach the point where her need for Path 2 qualities outstrips her capacity to attract the characteristics of Path 1 men.
So again, boosting MMV does nothing to boost SMV.”
Cough, cough. MMV boosts SMV for a woman looking for a LTR/marriage. At any age. They’re connected. I wouldn’t have had sex with my husband if he didn’t have good MMV qualities as well as “creating tingles”.
Sfcton mentioned that you can tell a woman is path one if she first meets you and then blows you while you’re on duty at the guard shack (I’m paraphrasing, he didn’t really say quite that). But then he also said bravery will get you nothing but infidelity and pain. Well…respectfully, perhaps one has something to do with the other? I’ve watched my husband do a lot of brave things and I can tell you it made me hot. And we dont’ have a fidelity problem. So I’m not sure path 1 is the lower infidelity risk. And I can also tell you there’s also no way I was going to have sex with someone I didn’t know well. “Nice girls do”? Not this one…but the different might not be “nice” as much as prudent.
SFCton ” I think it’s fair to say, most advice around here is about how a man should allocate his time, money and effort. It’s a big deal for us. Whatever we spend on you cannot be spent on some other girl, our hobbies etc.”
I agree. That’s a fair statement. I also agree that Deti lays it out pretty well. From my perspective, if you’re spending virtually anything on plan 2, it’s too much. But also from my perspective…if you’d rather do a hobby than spend some time with plan2 she probably isn’t worth it either. I think options and the ‘abundance mentality’ are important for carrying out the “long con”. On the flip side, I also think a person can shoot pretty high with the long con.
My ex wife was a virgin when I married her. Try again darling.
#311: Fair enough. I still think a person who is a virgin at marriage is less likely to cheat than a person who fellates on the first date.
@sfcton, so I should advise my daughters, “honey now if you don’t get busy by date three, ideally date one, the boys are going to think you don’t like them?” Or Liz should advise her sons to move on if not by date three? And ideally one? Hummm…
#295 “And the response wont take weeks but split a second – in other words it’s the man’s move what can take weeks (though highly not recommended), never the response.” We’re talking about when the man had not initially registered to her as a man and he is carefully building interest, looking for her IOI. Him seeing some IOI is what can take weeks, and as soon as he sees then he should make a move.
But you’re right, this is too complicated. Boiled down the advice to a man is “make your move”. We’ll leave off all the “look for IOIs first” complications for later when we do our mandatory sexual nonassualt awareness annual training.
Fascinating to see how the men’s and women’s povs differed, and why that effected the Path 2 sequence. The men operated out of a presumption of his attraction to her “Of course she’s attractive! She’s a girl! And I didn’t run away in horror, so, duh.” while the women operated from a presumption of his unattraction to her “He didn’t seem all that attractive (yes, I said that right: she did not see HIM as immediately attractive), so therefore I assumed he wasn’t interested.” Of course the men are completely right, because the women are merely projecting.
Then the men scan the women for initial IOIs, and not seeing any, they take a beta strategy of withholding making a move for now. The men, stupidly, presume the women are deliberately withholding IOIs even though the women have rated them as attractive. “Of course I’m attractive enough! I’m a boy! And she didn’t run away in horror, so, duh.” Meanwhile, the women, having deferred attraction-valuation, presume the man has also deferred and is trying to decide if HE’s attracted enough to her to bother making a move. By now, both are wrong because of projection.
So, in short: be a man, make a move. You’ll both be glad.
Let’s see what a pua might advise: http://www.rooshv.com/open-letter-to-the-parents-of-american-daughters
Hummm…
This is a brilliant piece Deti. I am a 54 yr old guy and have been a reader of this site and another similar sites for a couple of years. Been married, have 2 great kids, had affairs, oneitis etc. been there done that. I love women, a man is built that way, and I make no apologies for it. I respect and yearn for a lovely woman. Your musings in this post and many others are spot on the money from my experience. I wish had known some of this in my younger years, better now than never. My thanks.
You are a military spouse Liz. What’s the fidelity rate among your peers? 10, maybe 15%? The caught fucking around rate hovers @ 50%. And that’s simply the ones who don’t care/ are not smart enough to cover their tracks. I no longer expect fidelity from women so your question has no impact.
Bloom, your son and daughter face different obstacles and are of different value. You are looking for an answer based on equality, you want to give them the same advice. In reality you want to tie your son to the feminine imperative because women value girls over boys. Even their own son. Tell your daughter to keep her legs shut and send your son here.
But from my perspective, I can’t really imagine being a path 1. I just require more data than a person’s appearance to form a conclusion about them.
This is very true. Being a “Path 1″ bride myself, I do think it is worth making the distinction between wanting to act on the visceral attraction right away, and taking a step back to see if this person is someone you want to invest yourself in. Even more, given my view of what marriage is, if this is someone you want to submit your life to.
The price of that step back is that when you decide to go for it, the ball is in your court, and there is a lot of pride swallowing to be done. And the risk is more evenly distributed.
Off topic but here’s a random Hercules memory, to add dimension. When he and his ex moved (they used to live two houses over) he stored a wheelbarrow filled with rocks in my barn. Petrified wood. Fossils. Geodes. Crystals. And every single one he could tell me what it was and where he was when he had found it. They were clearly very important to him. So he’s not an uninteresting guy. Just not very faithful. Friend category.
#320 Yes, but could he, in other words did he (leading question, bear with me), tell the story of each specimen from the rock’s point of view. “You can see here, from the bend in this dark band here, that the minerology changed because the temperature …”
Depending on exactly where you are, if he was able to collect good geodes and good petrified wood, then he would have definitely collected thundereggs if they were around. So, did he?
#319 “And the risk is more evenly distributed.” Well, yeah, assuming the guy is Path 1 means he has other options so that the woman risks being passed over.
#319 Not picking, just trying to understand. Does it really feel “fairer” to you to risk being passed over by a really hawt guy, than for the less-hawt guy to risk you rejecting him?
@jf12 lol, no he did not include the pov of the rock. Well done! There were thunder eggs yes. Most of Hercules rock collection was from various hikes, hunting adventures, or camping in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. There maybe were a few here and there further flung than that.
How does “pathing” relate to a woman’s SMV? If path choice (1 or 2) depends on relative SMV (i.e., for Path 1 to come into play the man’s SMV must be 2 points higher than the woman’s), then don’t 9’s and 10’s automatically follow Path 2?
@ Badger
Path 2 isn’t just for beta guys who can’t get the insta-tingle going. I have a couple of player friends who flex a version of Path 2 they call the “slow roll.” They meet a woman who either by look or vibe catches their interest, but isn’t flipping the light on for them immediately. Being good at this, they can tell. So they put her in a sort of modified friend zone where they aren’t pursuing her, but aren’t shutting off the opportunity either. Then they wait for that moment where they get an opportunity to do or show something that gets her interested, and again being good at this, they can spot that moment when it comes. I’m betting that the fact they waited to make a serious move heightens the sexual tension on the woman’s part when the move is actually revealed.
Boom! You answered my question. With my wife, I developed Oneitis–we were both operating on Patriarchy principles. Thanks.
@ Badger
My future wife showed interest very early and was also exclusive like I was, barring a shit-test to get me to move to where she lived. Similar path to liz and mr. liz.
Yohami is right about make a move, that will determine it. But don’t sneak up on a gal, nothing more akward than a fumbled first kiss you didn’t see coming. Well except a groping you weren’t expecting from someone you aren’t attracted to. But in any case, it becomes apparent real quickly. It’s there or it’s not. Back off or proceed accordingly…
while path 2 is indeed very real, realize that a high value man would NEVER entertain a relationship or really anything from a woman not instantly attracted and on path 2.
you CANNOT negotiate love and attraction, and just because its a woman doing it in her own mind and her own rationalizations instead of a beta simp trying to talk his way into it, its the exact same thing.
Bloom:
Your rationalizations about “Hercules” are amusing, really. It’s clear you’re so attracted to him you literally can’t stand it. You’ve just left what appears to be your seventh comment on this thread alone talking about this man who you are clearly so in lust with that he consumes your every thought.
Give him a go already.
SFCton: “You are a military spouse Liz. What’s the fidelity rate among your peers? 10, maybe 15%? The caught fucking around rate hovers @ 50%. And that’s simply the ones who don’t care/ are not smart enough to cover their tracks.”
The infidelity rate (as you note) is higher than average. There are a lot of deployments and life stressors that non-active duty spouses don’t experience. Which would make the decision (type of person to marry, if one is looking to marry) more critical.
“I no longer expect fidelity from women so your question has no impact.”
Not relevant to you perhaps, but relevant to others I’m sure.
@ Badger
if you get in shape, have a friendly persona, and have even passable game, girls in your friend group are going to want to fuck you. They might not come out and say it, but you watch for it. And others will be intrigued, basically Path 2 kinds of opportunities.
I have a rule–for every woman who gives me aggressive IOI’s, there are ten who want me to hit on them and are giving passive IOI’s. Shy girls especially are notorious for giving passive IOI’s. Shy girls take a lot of patience but can be very rewarding emotionally.
@ jf#323:
Not picking, just trying to understand. Does it really feel “fairer” to you to risk being passed over by a really hawt guy, than for the less-hawt guy to risk you rejecting him?
As has been pointed out here numerous times, I’ve been away from this kind of stuff for a very long time. I can say that I don’t know whether it was “fairer” for me to risk being rejected. Objectively, I suppose it is.
I simply made decision that required I put my heart on my sleeve (among other things) and took a risk after much agonizing. Vulnerability is a feminine trait, but we don’t necessarily like it.
Fortunately, the stars aligned and it worked out. It could have ended badly, however. I tend to believe that my determination to take a step back rather than act on my initial instincts served me well.
Had I just jumped in the sack from day one (or minute 60 or day three or however long women wait now when they really want someone), I highly doubt I’d be married to the man I’m married to and I might be at present making some other poor dude’s life miserable.
This is why I endorse Path 2, especially as a Christian. Marriage is about a whole lot of things besides sexual attraction.
Tilikum: “while path 2 is indeed very real, realize that a high value man would NEVER entertain a relationship or really anything from a woman not instantly attracted and on path 2.”
Do you mean path 1 for the last bit? A high value man would never entertain a relationship with a woman on path 1? That’s absurd.
another note on this very telling thread.
so predictable and interesting to hear the ladies talk about the “qualities” they look for in a man that make him sound like a farm animal to be acquired and utilized to their ends.
now, i hate being objectified and have been my whole life so i’m probably oversensitive, but just READ what they are saying here. also interesting how some men here lap up their perspective like a cat on a dairy floor.
beta men,you stand in a stall, are selected for your ability to contribute whatever a woman needs, and then purchased.
alpha are over the fence as soon as they hear the gate close behind em. lol.
Wait, strike that…I meant a high value man would never entertain a relationship with a woman on path 2? That’s absurd.
liz, a hvm would never consider a girl who has him on path 2.
liz,
lol
“so predictable and interesting to hear the ladies talk about the “qualities” they look for in a man that make him sound like a farm animal to be acquired and utilized to their ends.”
Yeah, I like my dairy cows to be intelligent, charismatic, confident, manly, dominant, and masculine…basically the traits that would make a good bunch of little calves. I guess if I wasn’t objectifying bulls so much I’d prefer them fat, dumb, and lazy.
@jf12 I have another friend, her husband is a gemologist of some sort, can turn bland sapphires into brilliantly colored ones w a process he explained to me but I could not recount now. In any case, he has massive rounds of petrified wood hanging on the wall at their home. Breathtaking. It occurred to me as Hercules was telling me about his rocks that they might hit it off. I forgot to follow up on that introduction, maybe I will yet. I have been meaning to talk to the gemologist about something else…. He’s also fascinated with apples and has an orchard of English and French cider apples. Sunshine during the bloom this year, should have lots of apples!
#324 Well then I’m sorry to say he’s not half as interesting as he could be. No sense in me not overplaying my hand here. “Be a man, make your move.”
The rock is there to tell the story of the rock from the rock’s point of view. That’s what it is for. Otherwise there’s no point in collecting and displaying it, if all you’re going to do is talk about your own feelings, like a dummy: “Oy! There I was, surrounded by trees moving in the breeze. I remember being glad I had put on me sweater. Then, I saw it! I had nearly tripped over it, and might ‘ave broken me ankle.” You can tell the story from your own pov just fine without the rock.
Similarly, and come along with me, there is a pov reason for displaying hunting trophies. And it’s NOT as the dummy thinks, to reflect his own narcissism: “Oy. There I was, up in the tree stand surrounded by does. I remember being glad I had my gun ready so the sound wouldn’t spook them. Then, I saw it! The big buck emerged from cover barely 100 ft away. I was so excited my hands were shaking.” No. When out hunting, the nondummy reason is to become one with the universe. After a little while, a good hunter isn’t so much internally away of his surroundings as much as the external surroundings themselves have become part of him, or rather he has become part of it all. He hears the bird, for example, because that part of himself which is at the bird makes a noise at that time. If you haven’t been there you may not know what I’m talking about, but keep in mind I’m correctly claiming this is the opposite of solipsism. So, the trophy is there to help him tell a story about the trophy, not himself, to draw you in so you can participate in that other moment of impact along with the trophy and the rest of the universe.
A rock specimen is a trophy, and bears record of impacts of many things.
@ sfc ton
Gamer, I think you fail to understand how women work. Save her from being gang rapped on Tuesday and by Thursday she is wondering what you have done for her lately. Do so semi regularly like Sumo, and she learns to take you/ your actions for granted. Quickly.
If a woman has your commitment locked down and is broken, no question that you might not see any benefit from confidence, dominance, or bravery. Similarly, if a man is an employee protecting women of the establishment, a woman isn’t likely going to let herself be seen giving him thanks physically. For Sumo, privacy and plausible deniability are key.
In my case, I think that the benefit was longer lasting precisely because there was no commitment to the woman nor to a job–perhaps a debt was perceived. I never mentioned saving the woman afterwards, but perhaps she remembered. It’s really the only thing that I can think of that can explain her accepting my blunt proposal for a fling and being so enthusiastic about it. She was beautiful and engaged. Ostensibly, my SMV was faaar below hers.
@Badger
I responded by saying “the answer is boldness – you gotta make a move that’s so overt and forward that she’s either going to slap you or get turned on.”
Boom again! Intuitively, that’s how it seems to me.
@Badger
Once the girl has allowed you to isolate her is probably the safest time to make a big move.
Sometimes the girl doesn’t even know herself what the hell she feels until you put it in front of her.
Boom! Been there….
“What’s behind the “path 1 is best” thinking?”
Path 1 woman wants you right here right now, it’s clear as day, and she’s gonna work to please you.
Path 2 might want you eventually but you’ll only find out after having invested. She might be the path 1 woman of another man right now, or a path 1 man might come and steal her out of nowhere. Men dont like this kind of drama.
Now that I think about it it’s funny that every girl pinning for an alpha path 1 WANTS to be a path 2 for him. Alphas dont have paths 1, it goes against the archetype.
Game note: never like a woman too much, be curious at best, let it grow with time.
Someone define high value man for me, please.
#333 “This is why I endorse Path 2, especially as a Christian.” Yes. Somebody correctly called it “old school”, but it’s really part of courting.
#346 high value ≡ alpha
Any man whom women (plural) want to please.
re#297– “These guys of course look like they are “just being themselves.” I happen know that their journey to “just being themselves” has taken them through literally years of behavioral modification, experimentation and tweaks to their look, vibe and speech.”
William Saroyan expressed it as, “It takes a lot of rehearsal for a man to get to be himself.”
re#many– Bravery, kindness, dependability, provisioning, et al
If you’re in “The Neutral Zone” or on Path 2 failure to show these things will get you sent to unattractive zone. Their absence or worse, showing their opposite, becomes an immediate disqualification.
Their weight for or against varies for a man on Path 1 depending on the girl.
Not having them is unattractive in a man who has not yet been evaluated.
If the man is already evaluated attractive or even hawt their absence can be hamster-ed away if it suits the short term (Path 1) or weighed against the other things she finds attractive under the longer term evaluation of Path 2.
Liz @ 346
Sure!
High value man:
the male in the top 5% of of the population that 95% of the female population chase.
sadly, for the vast majority of those women, they are required to settle to varying degrees of severity. its simple supply and demand.
as an ego preservation tool and depending on the severity at which the female has had to settle, she will have to rationalize this reality to avoid emotional damage and insecurity.
EXAMPLE: cops and soldiers are servants and the WORST type of beta male. expectations of alpha power and substance with the physical manifestations of such. (gun, uniform, etc.) yet they plod through life living an internal lie as they are no more free to exercise their masculine natures than a school janitor is.
that’s why they hit and kill themselves or drink to hide the pain of their shame.
yet a woman who is forced to settle for one of these “men” rationalizes that she really has something, her own little hero. this via the feminine imperative translates socially into things like yellow ribbons on cars for women who have had to settle even further down the line.
that help?
LOL, @ 331, the artful dodge. Any man who expects fidelity from a woman is a fool. Rare enough to find one who is sexually faithful and they only get harder to find the more you expand your view of fidelity.
#349 Great point! The absence of these beta values can and will be used against Path 2 men. That’s what women *mean* by saying the presence of these values is attractive, i.e. you have to invert it: the absence of these values contributes to disattraction.
@ Liz
Oh great. Now I’ve got the lyrics to “The one that got away” stuck in my head. Thanks a lot Liz…
@ Tilikum
liz, a hvm would never consider a girl who has him on path 2.
Assuming current SMP. It doesn’t translate to 15+ years ago. Liz, Bloom, and Elspeth have experience from old SMP’s and most of mine is from old SMP’s. I have _a little_ experience with being able to DHV, generate IOI’s, and build comfort in the current SMP.
If there’s no Path 2 for HVM, then will HVM ever marry 9’s and 10’s?
Lol! Sorry Sir Nemesis.
Tilikum:“EXAMPLE: cops and soldiers are servants and the WORST type of beta male. expectations of alpha power and substance with the physical manifestations of such. (gun, uniform, etc.) yet they plod through life living an internal lie as they are no more free to exercise their masculine natures than a school janitor is.”
Got it. Thanks. Got it. Attila the Hun was a well-known beta male (that lone survivor guy seems pretty beta too). Actually, if cops and soldiers are the worst types of beta male, the best type of alpha must be the opposite. The pundit. The person whose job is to expressly opine, never risk anything, preferably a graduate from an expensive university with a major in content-free education, and very soft hands. What a man.
Per the topic:
I asked my husband what he thinks about the “paths” and he says there is a vast difference between getting to know someone and the friend-zone. In our case the attraction actually built during the time we got to know each other…he didn’t pretend he just wanted to be friends, though he didn’t make any move. Trying to be someone’s friend when you really want to be with her, because you are afraid of being rejected, is a bad way to go. That is not the same thing as taking time to get to know someone to determine whether or not you are compatible. He says that “path 1” sounds like it is based primarily on physical attraction with no indication of the potential mess that lies beneath.
re#349 and #352
Would on some level not expressing the let’s call them “comfort traits” properly contribute to disattraction? Dependability can easily become clingy or too eager for instance.
A certain disregard (within limits again) for these traits is going to be a DHV isn’t it? Important men get away with stuff. Or maybe this is just another way of saying “maintain frame?” You don’t defer. You’re deferred to.
Bloom 303,
“@badger and I think someone else suggested such: “pretending” to be interested in a relationship just to add a notch is inauthentic and should be avoided for karmas sake.”
Where did I suggest such a thing? Sounds like you are projecting some thought processes onto promiscuous men…the players I know don’t give a rip about their notch count – they enjoy women and sexual variety and have the skills to taste the rainbow. Again with the Kimmel thesis, they aren’t motivated by some kind of peer-pressured score-keeping; simply playing the game is what’s fun for them.
I think you are confused about what “Path 2” means. It doesn’t mean a guy putting out a lot of relationship interest, it simply means a guy doesn’t write off a woman who isn’t immediately attracted to him and is willing to risk some sunk cost until an opportunity to flex his attractive qualities comes along. As I noted in my examples, it doesn’t necessitate some kind of pining on the man’s part – just keeping the opportunity open.
In any case, it should be obvious by now that you won’t get far here accusing anyone of being “inauthentic.” As a group we’re so over that particular kind of disapproval – thanks to our collective experience that authenticity can be very effectively faked towards women, and also our, ahem, experiences discussing this with some other women. While many of us hold authenticity as a personal value for ourselves, as an ethical value wrt relating to women it’s a bit of a silly concept.
We understand what’s being coded with the term “authenticity” – the sense that you are what you are presenting yourself as. I prefer the term “congruence,” meaning the pieces of the whole that you are selling seem to fit together in her mind and don’t give cause for superficial doubt. Again with my aphorism that you don’t have to lie to people, just give them a chance to lie to themselves.
asdgamer,
“I have a rule–for every woman who gives me aggressive IOI’s, there are ten who want me to hit on them and are giving passive IOI’s. Shy girls especially are notorious for giving passive IOI’s. Shy girls take a lot of patience but can be very rewarding emotionally.”
This is one thing I think has been overplayed from PUA culture. IOIs happen subconsciously, but that doesn’t mean every girl is going to broadcast them. Now when you are in a night-game environment, people are probably more likely to throw out the IOIs since they are in an environment where such communication is OK. If you’re minding your reputation you don’t want to be throwing out signals in the workplace (although some do slip out). Some girls get shy or nervous and so give off signals of distress, anti-IOIs, when they are in fact interested (this is different than girls who consciously put on a ball-busting front because they think that’s what flirting is).
I advise simply making a simple approach to someone who interests you. If you’ve gotten IOIs, that’s even better and can empower your approach strategy. A side effect of making the approach whether or not you get the signals is that you might get stronger invitations once other women see that you’re the guy to make an effort approaching women. Once they know the ice cream man is on the street, they want him to stop at their house.
http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/just-go-after-whoever-youre-interested-in/
jf12: “That’s what women *mean* by saying the presence of these values is attractive, i.e. you have to invert it: the absence of these values contributes to disattraction.”
You can only be as beta as you are alpha.
Comfort is neither Path 1 nor Path 2 (the path 2 Deti/Liz proposed is path 1 in slow motion)
Not exhibiting comfort traits might render you unsuitable for relationships and get you rejected eventually but it will not contribute to disattraction.
#355 “and very soft hands” Well, at least one, for the missus.
“Well, I will tell ya what—Curley says he’s keepin’ that hand soft for his wife.”
Liz,
I don’t think path #1 rules out the possibility of taking time to filter or establish compatability.
It just means that attraction is clear and present relatively quickly, rather than the guy being in a position of having to win her over.
And again there isn’t anything wrong per se with the latter situation, but it does carry added work, risk, and uncertainty for the guy.
Path 2 as being talked here is “show your alpha, take your time”
It’s not “make her feel comfortable and safe and she’ll grow to like you”
#358 Since it is basically the only path I trod, my familiarity with the nooks and crannies of Path 2 permits me to say that display of comfort traits is the price of admission to using Path 2.
Speaking of leading with comfort, Joseph of Jackson was going to tell us how.
http://josephofjackson.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/game-101-the-formula/
Of course, for most of us unNaturals, it’s shutting off the firehose of Comfort that is the problem.
#360 and 361:
Fair enough, Yohami and Jimmy. I agree.
Funny I only brought this topic up to my husband this morning (his day off) and he said, “but things did go fast with us”. Once it was on, it was on. But we knew each other well by that time.
He mentioned a counter story a friend of ours had. This woman, a pilot, had a “best friend” who was a man. She went to visit for his wedding and he broke down and told her he had always loved her and would call the wedding off if she would be with him. She was pissed, and has never spoken to him since. That was the friend zone…and she felt betrayed (women often dont’ understand that when a man says he wants to be friends he usually doesn’t really just want to be friends).
@Liz, Jimmy & Bloom
“Liz,
I don’t think path #1 rules out the possibility of taking time to filter or establish compatability.”
“What’s behind the “path 1 is best” thinking?”
Yes, Jimmy, path 1 doesn’t rule out path 2 in my experience at all. At the root of it, favoring and screening for path 1 as a guy gives you more choices and options for the time investment you’ve put in. In 2014 with most women it’s much easier to parlay a red hot attraction into a relationship than the other way around. A guy who can attract women in a path 1 way has the choice to take things further or not- he can also pursue path 2 down the road, if that’s what he wants, once attraction has been acted on.
So the answer, is that not only does it work out better for guys, but women as a group are also driving this. If you ask us why we prefer path 1, it’s because not only is it easier, it’s more effective no matter whether we’re looking for a short or long term situation.
#360:
I don’t think path #1 rules out the possibility of taking time to filter or establish compatability.
It just means that attraction is clear and present relatively quickly, rather than the guy being in a position of having to win her over.
This is correct. It is increasingly appearing that these “paths” are not different paths at all but rather traveling down the same paths at different speeds.
@ theasdgamer
Bastiat’s students seem to say otherwise. The 9s and 10s seem to be perfectly happy to engage in Path 1 as a strategy to snag that HVM.
And certainly, from ADBG’s post, it would appear that guys are pushing back against the implicit price-discrimination in “Path 1 for higher SMV, Path 2 for similar SMV” and demanding Path 1 all the time.
Sir Nemesis, I don’t remember Bastiat placing SMV numbers on his students?
I do remember him mentioning “Barbie”-types, and so forth. But nines and tens are pretty rare.
@Badger didn’t mean to imply YOU were inauthentic, simply saying to mislead someone was… IMHO. To clarify.
#368 yes. I think the grand summation of the advice to men on Path 2 is “Path 1 instead”. Obviously Path 2 is women’s clearly stated and unanimous (?) preference. Hence ipso facto, presto changeo, Path 1 ought to be men’s clearly stated and unanimous preference.
@ Badger
Sorry to be a grammar nazi, but that title should read “Just Go After Whomever You’re Interested In”.
@ Liz
Someone was betrayed there, but it wasn’t that woman.
@ Liz
Hmm. IIRC, he mentioned at least some of his students elsewhere as being 9s. But not in that particular anecdote.
Let’s hope he reports in and clarifies.
@Rollo:
I have also read your post on Relational Equity where you state:
I think men’s concept of relational equity stems mostly from their rationality and confusion of MMV (provisioning and/or romantic traits) with SMV (dominance and/or dispassionate male sexual traits). Women have the same dilemma, as sexuality is amoral for both sexes. The main difference, to my mind, is that guys have been led in recent decades, through pestering and persistent mainstream media female victimization and feminist gender equality preaching/shaming, to believe that increasing their MMV (provisioning and romantic traits) would increase their sexual value. Hence I see a fundamental split in which guys shamefully prioritized increasing their MMV whereas women were encouraged to shamelessly increase their SMV. The problem with that is that “relational equity” is one of the biggest feminist beliefs. There is no relational equality on a biological and psychological basis. As I understand it, that’s how you see the “feminine imperative” optimizing society for the hypergamic needs of women, or as they see, their freedom of choice, in which they are free to chase “alphas” and settle down with some provisioning “beta” as their SMV decreases. The problem, of course, is that “beta” are not willing in free conscience to play this role. Mainstream media victimization plays the essential role of shaming them to accept their “destiny”. But on a log term timeline it’s all about a big delusion because as consequence of all this unnatural ideological policies the family unit has already been shattered, and the “shamless” sluts created my feminism are being progressively cornered by the growing manosphere for a “reality check”.
Nevertheless you post highlights something fundamental: This is a really tough truth for guys to swallow, because knowing how hypergamy works necessarily devalues their concept of relational equity with the woman they’re committed to, or considering commitment with. I think this is also at the root of the “manosphere” phenomenon. Most guys (I myself) know one or more real life cases of the proverbial good and dedicated boyfriend who was dumped for some “hot jerk”. Trying to recall my memories, I myself can remember of 7 or more real life cases like these. As a matter of fact they are everywhere, and the “problem” is not really new because ancient writes used to mention that. It was just magnified by pseudo feminist relational equity, victimization and outright male shaming.
I think this points out to a theme you could explore further in your blog/site, because most of the manosphere is a reflection in hindsight of everything that went wrong. But what about developing awareness for the true dynamics for those who are into the dating stage or “searching”? A lot of this has been mentioned here at this post. Sometimes I wonder: heck, even women admit to the importance of not giving them too much attention, or texting them every day in and out, as they’re unable to understand their often paradoxical choices. On the other hand, I have heard almost from every guy about how important it is that she likes him more than the opposite. Yohami mentioned something like that as well: “Game note: never like a woman too much, be curious at best, let it grow with time.” But really, this is not something to confined to “game” students. I have heard this from men of all walks of life, new and old alike.
One logical conclusion I got out of all this is that males are sort of slaves of their sexual tension and desire, and that women are often a source of inner suffering for men because of the contradictory feelings and emotional turmoil they can cause. “The problem with this sexual pluralism is that it seeks to optimize the disparate elements of her hypergamy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) in the same male.”.
All of this would make a good series about what “disqualifies” and what might “qualify” a guy in the dating stage. And hopefully you might explain to a multitude of anguished males why after all, they end up dumping the loyal boyfriend for a “hot jerk” and, who knows, you might even give tips to guys who want to get more sexually out of their girlfriends (such as random “quickies”, more blowjobs, cooking skills, using some different makeup and lingerie once a while, etc.) while keeping the romantic tone of the relationship and not falling into the trap of liking her too much and therefore ruining his game, and also keeping inner peace and tranquility of mind.
#373: The wife to be, perhaps?
Badger, Jimmy, Yohami, Jakes,
Golden stuff. Great discussion. This is the process how ideas get analyzed, adjusted, tightened up. Thanks guys.
@deti no Hercules! No no no. Bad choice. Not happening. But thanks for the encouragement.
in case of zombie apocalypse only.
As far as going I over the gate, I say “go on then, get. Pffffst!”
@jf12 I am not sure what you mean as far as the trophy bit. It kinda felt like a little boy pulling frogs and various other treasures out of his pockets to me. And maybe it was a version of that. Now that I think about it, last time I saw him he asked me to go with him to a gun show the following weekend. My biz is open weekends so I told him I would have to see if I could get someone to cover for me. And I didn’t. Why? Because he has a girlfriend he lives with and is still doing his ex wife and god knows who all else, really? That’s a no. Maybe I don’t get it but…
Meanwhile Mr. Sonoma is back and is texting me pics of his new Harley…(and wait for it…that’s a no as well.)
Yep, I have hit the wall! No hope for me.
Tootles!
Badger writes: “This is one thing I think has been overplayed from PUA culture. IOIs happen subconsciously, but that doesn’t mean every girl is going to broadcast them. Now when you are in a night-game environment, people are probably more likely to throw out the IOIs since they are in an environment where such communication is OK.”
The IOI frequency varies as well with culture. I had a first date with a Russian woman last fall which proceeded deliberately, cooly, and with zero IOIs from my date. Russians are discreet beyond measure; I have worked with the same partner since 1993 and I’ve never been inside his house. (And we’re close, he’s been in mine 100x, and I was the only gentile pallbearer at his mother’s funeral.) Growing up in a police state will do that to you.
On leaving the restaurant with this Russian date I walked her to her car: still no touching, no IOIs. The car was in a lot 10 meters from Wisconsin Ave in Georgetown: no privacy. I had written off the prospect of romance and just wanted to get out of dodge. But I have a first date-kiss rule, as mentioned a few times, so WTF I leaned over to kiss her on the lips goodnight. Five minutes later she asked to come over to my house, and if we needed to stop at the Walgreen’s for supplies. And my house is 25 miles out of town. We dated for several months.
If I had presumed Path 2, or Path 3, because social convention (frankly) required it of me given her diffidence for the prior two hours, I doubt I would have seen her again. Either I’m the world’s best kisser, or the only rational choice is to presume, and test for, Path 1.
Also, the Path 2 introduces both maximal ambiguity, and maximal open doors for a woman to divert to Path 1 with someone else (hypergamy). Both conditions serve the woman uniquely, not the man. I want to know where I stand with someone I’m interested in, so I find out. The pace at which the relationship becomes sexual I leave up to the woman, and as I get older that is becoming *right now*, but I want to know where I stand.
Flipping this around, with my *complicated* Mrs. Smith, I have taken our relationship onto Path 2, and taken sex *out* of the picture. I know where I stand with her (she was another *right now* woman) but I’m curious if she has the fortitude and focus to be exclusive given our often conflicting travel requirements, among other ambiguities and the presence of very high-alpha operators carrying guns wherever she goes.
If met someone like Bloom (like Bloom, example only, not Bloom herself) and she wanted to Path 2 me, I’d just assume she liked to be chased and wined and dined, and I’d shrug and make her do all the work. (It just reminds me of that awful book The Rules, and the hard to get routine it advises.) I don’t have the time to date women who don’t know what they want. I’ve had zero satisfaction in romantic efforts with women who don’t know what they want, ever. This is an entirely separate issue than the unfolding (pace) of a sexual relationship, and the pace at which that happens. Getting laid is the very least of issues for me in the SMP, and for any other guy who knows what he is and is in command of his senses.
I’m thrilled for Liz and her guy, but her testimonies are about one woman in a SMP that is 20 years old. I don’t give women the option to make me a placekeeper, or “make me earn it”, or whatever. Men are the prize now, just as much as the women, and there’s no such thing as a mature woman who doesn’t know what she wants.
@Badger and all who are interested
Sure, make an approach even without IOI’s. If not done in a meat market, you need plausible deniability and more comfort.
I’ve been trying to figure out for some time why my fling agreed to my blunt offer some four decades ago. (She is deceased now, no kids, only child, parents deceased, husband deceased–neither she nor any immediate family can be hurt by anything I say.)
Fling was much higher SMV than me–similar to the bride in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOibEyJFr14
So the question for me was–why did she accept?
We were casual friends in a school social circle. She was engaged. She indicated boredom and was flirting with another guy in our social circle–not seriously since she knew that he had Oneitis for someone else, but still flirting. So I told her that I had a question I needed to ask her privately (was afraid of a nuclear rejection in front of my social circle). We went to a corner of the school restaurant, but it wasn’t private enough, so I told her that I needed to ask her somewhere even more private. (Asking her for more comfort.) She suggested her dorm room (this gave me lots of comfort and sexual encouragement and showed her agreement with more isolation). We spent five minutes walking there in silence. I didn’t look at her, but I took her hand. I can surmise now that her hamster was spinning the whole time, building tingles. It just felt like the right approach. Hold hands, but don’t look and don’t talk. I needed comfort and she helped provide it.
When we got to her room, we sat on the floor facing and holding both hands. I had a very difficult time getting the proposal out. (It probably took almost a minute with a lot of awkward silence.) Immediately she popped two easy shit tests. “Do you do this with all your friends?” “Yes.” (A white lie, but who does it hurt?) “You know I’m engaged, right?” “Yes.” Then she thought about it for a few seconds and figured out the logistics and told me where and when. It had to be hush-hush because she was engaged. In a matter of fifteen minutes, I went from neutral to P1.
There’s an important contextual note–she was ovulating, which I didn’t know at the time. If a man wants to move from neutral to P1, it is _really_ helpful to approach when she’s ovulating.
wow a lot of pain here.
Liz,
The best Mike Tyson quote ever is:
“everybody has a plan until they are punched in the mouth”
self-reflection is the hardest thing a human being can do and its much easier to just keep protecting that ego.
Here’s an analogy:
Say you’re on the job market. Would you prefer:
A) An employer immediately contacts you after you send your resume, and mentions they’re very impressed and very interested. You meet with them, do an interview, and by the end of the day they make it clear they want to hire you… Of course there will be contract negotiations, background checks, drug tests, etc. in the coming days to ensure you fit with the company’s values, but it’s clear that they want you.
B) A company contacts you a few weeks after you send your resume and says they’d be interested to talk with you. You then go on a series of interviews over the next few weeks. You always get asked back for another round, but nothing really seems to be progressing and you really don’t know where you stand.
Now it’s entirely possible that situation B could turn out great in the end. You could get hired, and it could be a great fit.
But let’s be honest, nobody in their right mind would take B if they had the choice between the two. It’s no fun getting hung out and twisted in the wind, while the other party has all the decision making power and you’re completely in the dark.
Now again if you have other leads and options, option B isn’t so bad… It’s just another potential opportunity.
But when it’s the only opportunity on your radar, it’s going to cause a ton of stress & anxiety.
theasdgamer,
That, right there.
Jimmy, #382
“nobody in their right mind would take B if they had the choice between the two. ”
The opposite is true for women.
Expanding on Jimmy, when selling high-value software (>$1mm) I believe it’s very important to have a sales model: a filtering methodology, and clear requirements for the customer to demonstrate sincerity such that they are obligated to buy if their stated criteria are met. I actually stopped reimbursing salesmen in my last company if they didn’t follow the model, because otherwise too many of their meetings were just of the “throwing shit against the wall, something will stick” variety.
So. Find customers who know what they want. Otherwise you’ll be bled dry as the frightened corporate managers delay, re-study, complain that their boss took their budget, etc. This is a very expensive scenario, and one that denies the executive any visibility into his revenue stream. It forces me, the vendor, to invest ad nauseum in a potential client who may be sincere, may be entertaining himself, may be a total fraud. And this is Path 2.
And like the job market, option B suddenly becomes a lot more bearable when you already have a job.
But when you’re unemployed, it sucks.
#384 just to show again how different the sexes are. You’re a girl and you post your profile on OK cupid and you ping two guys:
A) An guy immediately contacts you after you send him a message, and mentions he’s very impressed and very interested. You meet with him, do a few drinks, and by the end of the day he makes it clear he wants to marry you… Of course there will be things to sort out etc. in the coming days to ensure you fit with each other’s values, but it’s clear that he wants you.
CREEP.
B) A guy contacts you a few weeks after you contact him and says he’d like to talk with you. You then go on a series of dates over the next few weeks. You always get asked back for another date, but nothing really seems to be progressing and you really don’t know where you stand.
CMON FUCK ME ALREADY YOU STUD! I THINK I FOUND THE ONE! OH GOD I HOPE HE’S NOT CHEATING! AM I FAT!?
Never give away free options. Nothing of value may be optioned for free. Path 2 assigns all optionality to the woman unless Path 1 has been established.
I think the job analogy is a good one, Jimmy.
Tilikum:
“The best Mike Tyson quote ever is:
“everybody has a plan until they are punched in the mouth”
Mike Tyson must be very alpha.
I picture him pulling my hair and saying “suck it, bith!”
Never give away free options. Nothing of value may be optioned for free. Path 2 assigns all optionality to the woman unless Path 1 has been established.
The other part of the equation is that this is why a guy must “spin plates”. It lessens the importance of converting the Path 2 girl into genuine, strong attraction. The worst bargaining position for a guy, and sadly the one probably most operate from, is to focus exclusively on one girl at a time who he is on a potential Path 2 with that may or may not ever materialize into real attraction and a sexual/romantic relationship. That leads to just spinning your wheels, wasting time, and increased frustration. Ironically, that girl knowing you have other options may speed along the process to making up her mind.
#384 “nobody in their right mind would take B if they had the choice between the two. ”
I’m going to point to the first four words I just quoted in order to claim that your following statement
“The opposite is true for women.”
is wrong.
@Yohami 387
Laughed out loud. So true, haha.
@jimmy ok now that makes sense, thank you! That I can do. Showing up at a company naked, in hopes they have a job, that I cannot do. I see the difference.
BTW Badger,
Before seeing your comment to me earlier I was going to mention that you essentially said the same thing as me, except with better detail. Mutual respect.
Jimmy,
I like the job analogy…I was going to post something similar from the employer perspective reacting to a candidate who demonstrates strong enthusiasm for working for the company versus someone who is lukewarm, but I think your analogy works better. In any case, it is a situation of quickly displaying unambiguous enthusiasm and interest, versus sort of a ho-hum let’s see how things go here.
Jimmy, #382
“nobody in their right mind would take B if they had the choice between the two. ”
The opposite is true for women.
Women appear to mostly operate on a variant of the Groucho Marx aphorism:
“I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.”
Any guy who displays very strong interest too quickly MUST have something wrong with him
Jimmy’s analogy is another good one. All of the analogies are signposts pointing to the desirability of Path 1.
#388 “Never give away free options.” Question. Let’s assume some guy tried Path 1 and it wasn’t working but he figured she’d be open to Path 2 (after trying Path 1, remember). Since he is free to go forward, or not, with the option she prefers, i.e. Path 2, under what conditions, quid pro quo maybe, should he make it clear the reason he’s not already Nexting her is because he thinks she’ll like Path 2? Complicated question, maybe, but it’s a complicated assumption. If a guys thinks he *ought* to be Path 1 material, how does he avoid DLVing himself by stooping to Path 2?
#396 Wow! The classic problem of eagerness vs aloofness. Don’t tell me you’re leaning to Path 2 as being more alpha, now, are you?
@jf12 I am not sure a failed path 1 approach can lead to path 2. I will ponder this scenario…
#399 I agree, not if failed in the sense of blown up after launch on Path 1. But if it’s more like failed to launch because the sensor warning triggered automatic shutdown, then another launch on another path can be started later.
@Morpheus and Jimmy:
That job analogy is a really good one, and there’s another ripple to a dating situation that makes path 1 even more attractive. Path 1 offers tend to attract more path 1 (and to a lesser extent, path 2) offers. It’s like a snowball rolling downhill. I’d say momentum is an even bigger factor in the game than in a job situation. Suffice it to say, path 2 offers don’t attract other offers and will not break you out of a slump the way path 1 offers will. You could get into the chicken/egg of this but it’s easy to see what’s going on.
#398 Busted outta my own head there for a moment, sorry. I hereby revoke the possibility of Path 2 being more alpha, not least because it is the strategy I always chose, and I define myself to be beta.
#397. JF, I don’t think Path 2 is really a viable activity, particularly if *he* is opting for it. But I suppose a man could shrug and just be a “good guy” and keep her contact info, in the event he received a text or call from her saying, “Where are you?” I suppose lightning could strike and he would magically grow on her. If not, well, there’s no reason for rancor and a person really shouldn’t act like he has too many friends.
But he would have to have the ability to take back his free option, and in distance, cause her to show some interest. Otherwise it’s Friendzone City, or “I like you but I met someone new”. After 100+ first dates, this did happen to me all of once; unfortunately, or perhaps illustratively, she’s a very confused woman about what she wants and where she’s going. (She’s also eastern bloc in origin, incidentally so the first date was a circumspect snooze fest.)
I think the stories of acculturation (“he grew on me”) as a mating strategy are apocryphal today, except within restricted cohorts, and except when it’s lane-changing time and his demerits become his virtues (AFBB). If I were to apply any generous spin to HUS, it’s that she’s arguing for girls to change lanes now rather than later, and get the best of the greater betas before someone else does.
The NYC woman who’s signaling to me her lane-change now, after friendzoning me a few years ago when I was doing the greater-beta, courting ritual because I was completely smitten, would say I grew on her. I am extremely wary. I’ve no interest in an LTR that is not monogamous, and there is no way she could convince me that our relationship would be highly sexualized after the first six months. Or that, after my next liquidity event, she didn’t say, “That’s all?”
Liz and Theasdgamer,
Upthread you both mentioned the SMP/MMP and its relation to to high value women. Because of unrestricted hypergamy, they’re competing with middle level women for the attentions of high value men. If we could go back to assortive mating, prospects for them would improve.
Liz,
I’m going to guess that you have high SMV. Locking down Mr. Liz early in life was a good idea.
Bloom,
I wouldn’t throw in the towel yet. You’re getting offers from guys who are playing. What you want is an offer from a guy who is playing for keeps. Be patient.
There’s another reason why men might view negatively Path 2 and its questionable investments in a highly volatile, uncertain outcome. And it’s a very practical reason.
It’s just a lingering fact from bygone times that the overhead of dating is disproportionately assigned to the man. The man is doing the bulk of the driving, the spending, and the planning. If you assign your options to a woman who wants to see if you grow on her, you’re actually paying her for your own options. You’ve just valued your options at a negative number. My resources are worth more than that.
It’s a variation on the Pete Gent/North Dallas Forty aphorism: “When you tell me we’re equal, I am expected to do all the investing. When you tell me to do all the investing, you tell me we’re unequal.”
Ton has solved this problem by capping his investments, but this rings alarm bells and distances women in the urban environments I frequent for companionship. I have told Mrs. Smith that she can start paying more, doing more, and driving more. (Yes, I’m shit-testing her.) Usually, in my cohort, asking a woman to walk the feminist talk, and invest too, is a buzzkill.
@ Liz
Yup. Extremely disrespectful on his part. It’s like a woman who marries a beta provider when she’s secretly pining for and trying to get that alpha.
Thanks Fuzzy. I’d like to think so.
Definitely went well for me (and I’d like to think my spouse also, he at least seems to think so).
I’d add for the job analogy, it depends on the job. It’s good to be in a position of abundance where jobs are relatively fungible…but good companies with exceptional benefits can be selective, and they should be…in fact, they wouldn’t be good if they weren’t selective.
#406. I have gotten a few of those “Last chance: if you don’t marry me, I’m going to settle.” She even sent me her fiance’s photograph. She has no clue that she is signaling native hyperdrive hypergamy, and even if I trusted her on other matters, which I don’t, this immediately disqualifies her.
@389
Thanks Liz. I nearly wet myself laughing.
@ jf12
Who says women are in their right mind?
#409:
Hee hee.
#408: That sucks, BV. But at least you know what you’re dealing with.
(and aren’t on the receiving end of that shite)
I’ll add the caveat that regardless of “path” a woman needs to be really really into her man when he commits. And it should show in a very real way.
“nobody in their right mind would take B if they had the choice between the two. ”
I am proudly in my wrong mind. The very few times I was on path 1 ALL led to Barking Moonbats.
Another reason Path 2 is unfavorable is a function of age, which may explain some of my antipathy. Unlike younger guys here, I date in the 35-50 range (Mrs. Smith is 42). There are no fairy tales of unfolding love, as during the tabula rasa years of our innocent youth. If an LTR is the objective, a successful LTR is essentially a merging of interests. (Chas. Murray, I think, calls them “merger marriages”.)
Hence the due diligence begins on the first date; or more likely, before: everyone Googles everyone now. A once-divorced woman who wants to hold all the options and “just see what happens” is doing so while already knowing plenty about the guy. In fact, the most common scenario is that she has discovered what *kind* of guy you are, and the date’s function is to see if you generate what they call “chemistry” (sexual appeal).
So again, unless you want to be in the “men who think they have a chance” bucket, Path 2 argues against the facts. Unless you’re dealing with a woman who does not know herself or what she wants, who are Trouble with a Capital T, why pretend? You’re in the friendzone or you’re beta bucks.
@ 405 BV, great way to explain it; I cap investment. However I have not noticed it tripping alarms with the younger women I date. No doubt their age and naivety plays a part, but younger women have seen divorce etc up close and are generally less hostile toward men and whatever precautions we take. But I am also in a very unusual living situation, appeal to a niche market etc
Seems to me Bloom is doing well in the current SMP Fuzzie
@Chokmah, Liz & Bloom
@Chokmah, Liz & Bloom
Actually, the problem is still that not enough men have that free conscience to decide whether the role they’re playing even exists. Feminine primacy has defined men in these terms.
Liz and Bloom were shocked at the prospect of having to explain the 3 – Strikes rule to a potential daughter. They’re appalled by that because they, like all women, are fish in the feminine-primary water who don’t know they’re wet.
No woman is appalled by the inherent injustices of her own hypergamy. In fact women’s innate solipsism was an evolved, selected-for, survival trait as a result of the need to push these ugly-but-necessary hypergamic decisions to the periphery of their own awareness. And why would they be appalled? The feminine imperative has created such a complex social network of feminine-primacy the questions are never asked by women. Only men, at the risk of social ostricization, are drawing any lines between the hypergamic dots, and women are forced to confront the cognitive dissonance that the feminine imperative has conditioned them for.
It’s appalling for women to think a woman might need to put out in 3 dates or move on because this grates against the woman-as-sexual-selector feminine primacy that the feminine imperative has conditioned them for. The fear it generates isn’t about coming off as ‘easy’, or responding to what they believe amounts to a sexual ultimatum in the SMP, but rather that fear comes from a ceding of feminine agency (sexuality) to male control.
While a man’s investment in Relational Equity being trumped by womens hypergamic impulses is appalling for men, it’s not appalling for a woman to be comfortably oblivious to the fallacy of Relational Equity, or Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks, or the inconsistencies in her sexual vetting of men conveniently according to which side of her hypergamy finds the most use of.
The 3 Strikes Rule is simply a pragmatic protocol to vet women’s genuine interest and desire, but to a society invested in feminine social primacy it’s offensive. However, in a feminine-primary society a woman’s prerogative to “always change her mind” is simply a woman being prudent.
http://therationalmale.com/2012/02/07/three-strikes/
http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/04/taking-things-slow/
@bv I am 42. So are you saying at my age I should be looking for a merger situation? No more true love ever after? Sniff…. I don’t want to believe that.
@fuzzie thanks, I will! Better than kicking tires and getting jaded, right?
@deti are you suggesting a man like Hercules could be a good mate? Or did you mean just for kicks? I am confused… He does not seem at all a good choice? Our daughters, however, would be overjoyed at the thought of becoming sisters. Oh dear…
#412, Liz: it’s okay. At least I understand her. I almost married her a couple of times, however. (She’s the airline captain.) That was when I didn’t know what “hypergamy” meant. Close call.
***
I’m overposting, so I apologize — while adding one more, which relates to Ton’s dismissal of “bravery” as a valued attribute by women.
If I’m being bad and feeling bored on a date, I might discuss such concepts as the tactical virtues with the date I’m torturing with thoughtcrime. (This would be Path 4, as in “Get me out of here”.) One such is to say, “You wouldn’t be attracted to a man who wouldn’t or couldn’t defend you physically.” The best time to do this is when walking down an urban street late at night. Mind you I’m no operator, but I still have some physical presence.
“Oh, no, that’s just neanderthal chivalric bullshit, I’m a post-feminist strong woman.”
“Oh. So we’re equal.”
“Of course. This is stupid.”
“So, if a bad guy jumps out of that alley and demands your handbag, you’re cool with it if I just turn around and run?”
Hahahahaha.
Feminism takes male virtues and destroys their value in the educated woman’s mind, these days. They’re not going to value something they’ve been educated to dismiss. You might even get blamed for “creating” the threatening situation.
A variation was when I asked a friend, who lives alone on a small farm in Catskills, if she had a shotgun.
“A gun? Seriously? Are you one of those guys?”
“You’re all alone out here, everyone knows you’re loaded, and it will take 20 mins minimum for the sheriff to arrive. What would you do?”
“I don’t want to even think about that. A gun? Seriously? I don’t want to live in a world like that.”
They don’t want to think about it. The tactical virtues simply expose some contradictions in their ideology.
BV out.
I respect Rollo a lot, but that’s a lot of words to say women hate the three date rule because it limits their ability to extract resources from men without putting out.
Oh and now my hottie bachelor neighbor, 48, who is out plowing his field, is waving at me sitting on the porch in the sun. Our properties line up nicely, too!
Indeed, indeed…
The preference on Path 2 is also directly proportional to its prevalance. This will most likely be a male-friendly explanation, but let’s give this is a shot:
Assume world is 1% Path 1 Relationships, 98% path 2 relationships,and 1% Beta Bucks. Path 2 is not an option, Path 2 is THE way to get a relationship, for everyone. There is no ego-investment and no value judgement either way. If a girl puts you on Path 2, well, it does not tell you anything.
Now assume the world is 20% Path 1, 60% Path 2, 20% Beta Bucks. If you are in a Path 2 relationship, there is a 1/4 chance you are actually in a Beta Bucks relationship.
Bad odds.
Beyond that, the girl you are dating, likely had a Path 1 relationship in her past. I will abuse the stats here, but encountering a girl my own age and supposing, say, 5 prior relationships:
.8*.8*.8.*.8*.8=
1/3 (appx)
Which means this girl that is putting you on path 2, has a 2/3 shot of putting some other guy on Path 1 in the past.
You are then opening yourself up to BB’s f** phantom territory.
My thought on this is simple, women need to make the actual process of Path 2 enjoyable and lift themselves and their men to high enough value to eliminate F*** phantom fears. This is an extremely easy thing to do, and based on the stories I hear from BV, Obsidian’s “what do men really get out of marriage” question, and anecdotes in my own life, I find that women are generally uninterested in treating the men-folk well.
Now I may be wrong. I haven’t gotten much sleep lately. Last night I was arguing with my fiance’s teddy bear. Month-close!
BV back up.
Bloom, I’m saying that a successful second marriage or partnership begins with hard constraints and requirements that never occurred to us at 23. Whether one is “in love”* or not, to be successful now requires levels of practical integration that didn’t exist before. We’ve had our first loves and all the innocence and unicorns, and those days are over.
*I am highly skeptical of “in love”, though I’m very clear on what “respect, kindness and good sex” mean.
@ YOHAMI
Where? Where?
Oh wait, you don’t have a clue either, do you? :/ The world may never know.
Last night I was arguing with my fiance’s teddy bear.
Ted?
Good post.
@ bv wow, I would not answer that question that way at all! More like “you better not run! Are you kidding me???” Lol, sorry but in that scenario I am pushing you right in line between me and the thugs and praying for your safety! And naturally if you and I survived you would be showered w appreciation and likely be knighted ever after!
that would be my answer.
Thank you Morph.
Unfortunately, no, this was not Ted, and this Bear did not have the Remittance Advice I was looking for.
My co-worker had a worse experience. He got food poisoning and was hallucinating from lack of sleep. He vomitted, and then tried looking for an RA through his vomit, because he was convinced he ate the RA by accident.
Sorry! Little OT! Hopped on energy drinks: feels like ants are crawling in my skin.
theadsgamer,
There – I meant that story where you banged someone else’s fiancee, going from neutral to very visible – path 2 without going through beta comfort orbiting.
Comfort is not the price of admission as long as the cock can be the price of admission, or, comfort is only the price of admission when comfort is all you have, or…
…somebody’s else fiancee, really? poor sucker. File this under never marry.
Ok, so everybody go Path 1 hard. Follow the strategy that I used with my fling, except nail down her cycle calendar and approach her while she’s ovulating. And be sure that Bloom slaps you in front of her and says, “Why didn’t you ever call me? That was the most romantic night of my life!” Then she walks away.
@427 along with the story of the man ready to ditch his bride at the alter! Liz, did he go through with it? How sad
@428 I am in!
“That was the most romantic night of my life!”
“Romantic” – is such a gem word in this context.
@bv and yes, I see what you are saying. No more rosy colored glasses. Life is much more complicated. Tis true. Not impossible to navigate but not as easy, agreed.
“Any guy who displays very strong interest too quickly MUST have something wrong with him ”
One of my aforementioned player friends once got a new gal into his rotation. I asked how things were and he said “they are good but she wants to get more serious.” I asked if he wasn’t feeling it. He replied “she wants to get into a relationship with ME – I could never be in a relationship with someone who had such bad judgment.”
The circularity of the preselection/social-proof processes wrt female attraction continues to boggle my mind. It is definitely one of the more difficult game topics to wrap my head around. I have had countless women openly admit to this effect, yet it still seems so…not based in reality. One girl finds something of durable value in a guy and shows interest, then a bunch of others catch the wave and get interested, and only that one girl has bothered to evaluate him on something tangible. This befuddlement extends to how much social context women will read into a man’s actions wrt how fast he pushes for sex, how quickly he brings up relationship discussions (game tip: don’t do it, let her do that), how assertively he tries to pay for things (“he’s trying to buy my approval!”), and other behaviors.
I’m not really complaining, just observing, but it’s weird to me – much weirder than most other realities about female attraction that were novel, but ultimately not surprising once I’ve been exposed to them.
@ Bloom
It’s not the knighting he wants.
@ Gamer #428
That’s a lot of steps.
I want to woo a wife, not storm Omaha Beach.
#414 “There are no fairy tales of unfolding love, as during the tabula rasa years of our innocent youth.” The only old rosebud is a dead rosebud.
Also, re: bravery, I noticed something interesting while reading the Artha Shastra.
The Artha Shastra, despite its age, appears to be rather liberal in terms of allowing consent to marriage/sex. However, there is one exception. If a civilian man rescued a woman from bandits/accident/whatever, he would have the right to marry her.
Liz, re: high-value men. My first year of being an adjunct prof I was introduced to the term “HEB-M” (pronounced “HE-BOMB”) by students. A HEB-M is a…
-Hot
-Educated
-Badass
with
-Money
…and this apparently represented the peak-male, apex boyfriend/husband material to the female students. I find it to be a useful framework for assessing potential male SMV.
If you look under the hood for exploded detail on each of those categories, you find that there are ultra-premium bumper sticker type resume bullets for each one.
HOT. As I have noted in the past, the “Hot” guy exemplars included Channing Tatum, Taylor Kitsch, Chris Hemsworth, (now) the STRIKE BACK guys (who have a huge young female following), and the old guard members like Clooney, Pitt, and Depp.
EDUCATED. The premium education was an aristocratic one that implied easy command of social dynamics, fluency in the liberal arts (i.e., great cocktail party conversations), and high-level strategic thinking in a variety of contexts (entrepreneurial, military, geopolitical, etc.).
BADASS: The premium badasses of today are professional combat athletes (MMA, boxing, K1, Muay Thai) and a surprising number of the girls are fans of the UFC. The other apex badasses are members of the military’s two premier special mission units, one of which is “Green” and the other is “Blue.”
Other Badass indicators besides hunting and war that were listed: dangerous outdoors sports like high-altitude mountaineering, skydiving, dangerous game hunting, and big-wave surfing. Tats and firearms and strength/muscles. Anger/melacholy/brooding.
MONEY: High levels of male narcissistic personal spending are OK now that women can earn their own $, so the top guy can signal his ability to provide a luxury lifestyle that goes above and beyond the norm. Successful entrepreneurs take high honors here, but so do certain particularly well-compensated and secretive members of the financial services industry.
So where does game/PUA come in…? Game probably helps a man to communicate or produce some credible evidence/behavioral correlates that he belongs in one or more of these really attractive HEB-M categories. If a man is judged to be an ant-HEB-M—that is, an Unattractive, Uneducated Pussy with No Money—then his sexual appeal will no doubt be quite limited.
Oh and a few weeks ago a regular customer at my biz came in, on his motorcycle, we got to shooting the breeze, I mentioned I have my endorsement, my ex had bikes, that I missed the fresh air a d being able to smell and feel the experience in a way you miss in a car, but that I always felt like a “faux” biker chick at the mc events and such, and he invited me to go ride sometime. Which I took as a paternal/friendly offer bc he is married. Then I hear hes getting divorced. oooohhhh. He stopped in this past weekend, and was acting a bit akward, but it was a nice visit, after he had gone I realized he had emailed asking me to go listen to live music with him Friday but I hadn’t seen it until sunday. Oops. Awkward.
Slamming right into that wall
@YOHAMI
Thanks for the clarification.
My fling spent more on the fling than I did. I think I bought her some skittles once. She gave me a place to stay for a week when I didn’t have lodging and couldn’t afford it. She also provided junk food and beer (or maybe her Daddy did).
The engagement was broken off several months after the fling. All that ended up happening was that both her fiancé and I banged her. I ended up going through oxytocin withdrawal from pair-bonding. That was painful. His withdrawal was probably worse. She went through it too–it was obvious the way that she avoided me for about three months. Then we were back to normal friends.
Suggestion: If you marry, marry a virgin and keep her a virgin until you marry. Then you’ll know if she’s cuckolding you before marriage.
I’ve got confidence that my wife hasn’t cheated sexually. I don’t care about crushes, emotional affairs, etc. She’s had a crush before and just hid from the guy when he came around. My wife mate guards herself well. Marry one of those if you marry and you should be fine.
No “girls’ night out.”
No slutty friends.
No facebook.
No texting plan.
Right to audit the cell and email at any time.
These were my wife’s idea, not mine.
#421 “Last night I was arguing with my fiancé’s teddy bear.” Practice wife!
ADBG summed it up pretty well. Most females post college are going to have at least 1 path 1 guy in their past (not necessarily an alpha, but potentially *her* alpha to date), so if you are playing the path 2 game, then you’re playing dangerously close to the beta bux, f-phantom category. The only real solution to never have this be a problem as a man is to not settle for less than path 1 and make sure your game is tight.
Always Be Closing.
@434 I might make a path 1 right here right now exception in such cases of bravery!
#439 By “faux biker chick” I assume you mean you felt out of place due to your lack of personal coarseness, not that he was a faux biker. Therefore, assuming he picked up on you telling him to handle you more coarsely, the Path 1 email (I lol at the concept of Path 1 email) would have included a picture of him sitting back on his Harley with him pointing in front of his crotch area with a caption “You can sit right here.” But I can’t figure out if he should be smirking lewdly or frowning because you’re not there yet.
@ theasdgamer
How are you supposed to verify virginity prior to marriage? Non-destructive virginity testing seems to be rather awkward. “Excuse me, can I examine your vagina?”
#445 Path 1 move right there!
@ Bloom
You’ve got more than enough girl game to climb right over the wall.
@YOHAMI
…somebody’s else fiancee, really?
YaReally.
#399 Rollo has answered this fairly definitively in his “Take It Slow” article. If the man is overtly shot down taking Path 1 and THEN she signals an openness to Path 2 via her telling him to Take It Slow, then Path 2 is just a long path to friendzone.
@ Bloom
I could use the assistance of a woman in doing research for my book. It would involve surveying other women discreetly.
@Fuzzie 246:
“We should hang together or else we will hang seperately.”
-Ben Franklin
Words to live by, for real…
O.
@ BB 438
I was really surprised how damn near tripling my income did basically nothing for my close rate. When I was a broke ass E-6 half ass trying to turn pro in MMA, women would proposition me in front of my wife and while holding my kids. “Bad ass game” is much more effective, much more fun
“EDUCATED. The premium education was an aristocratic one that implied easy command of social dynamics, fluency in the liberal arts (i.e., great cocktail party conversations), and high-level strategic thinking in a variety of contexts (entrepreneurial, military, geopolitical, etc.).”
Note here that “educated” is really a proxy trait for social grooming, moving effectively in high-status circles, and presenting well to the girl’s girlfriends. In the hindbrain’s view, it’s not a marker of raw intelligence and useful life skills as much as correlated signaling of some desirable other traits.
@jf12 no more like while the other girls were slamming it up and running around like girls gone wild, I kept my clothes on! Lol! I enjoyed the motorcycle rides but not the party party lifestyle associated w it. I did however ride to and from sturgis on the back of a bike the whole way at age 33. In 118 degree heat too, mind you! It was an interesting subculture to observe but one I never felt truly “a part of” in the same way my ex did (not that he was in a biker gang or anything…)
The HEB-M sounds like some billionaire playboy who goes on testosterone-fueled adventures.
Hercules is 35 btw, I should add that.
@Elspeth #333
Said every Christian woman after divorcing her husband for his “porn addiction”.
You should c&p this over to this forum and see who agrees with you.
http://www.reddit.com/r/DeadBedrooms/
SfcTon: I hear you, brother. MMA is immensely powerful—I guess it
gets down to some internal female “what would happen if this guy and my current boyfriend had a fight?” question in a direct, primal way. On some level, a hot chick who wants “sexy sons” probably does not want to be with a guy who would get raped on day 1 in some prison shower horror show.
Let me guess: you were 75th + JSOC/Exotics…?
Re: money. I think what has happened is that the minimum hurdle at which $ are truly a sexual-premium asset for men to display has been moved up because of corresponding feminist socio-economic achievements. The peacock’s tail has to be ever-more dazzling to have the same effect it once did.
Re: hot female students. It was taken as absolutely reasonable that there were multiple price discrimination points going on. The girls are (generally) very smart and realistic: a high-value HEB-M is going to be very rare; extremely expensive to produce (i.e., self-absorbed with work, workouts, adventures, hobbies, etc. that make him a HEB-M to begin with); and he has every incentive to be a wildman player and run staggered-maturity book or harem sexual solar system until his female equivalent—the 34DDD-22-34 Gordonstoun/Cambridge maritime archaeologist/heiress/Kate Upton bikini supermodel/big game hunter/CrossFitter/Himalayan trekker/Paleoista/pornstar erotica skills Lara Croft unicorn—comes around.
Scarcity + Extremely High Demand = High Price. The male in this position imposes this high price on the market by requiring a ridiculous checklist to be met for his commitment, and having casual sex with everyone else. Period, case closed. Why would he do otherwise? Guys generally celebrate him and women may protest, but enough still give it up to him. It’s like asking a lion to live on lettuce—he can’t, he’s an obligate carnivore, his neurophysiology is set up to reward this activity with subjective feelings of pride, happiness, self-amusement, etc.
There is also a large subpop of female students who know, consciously or otherwise, that they will never be Lara Croft and that competing with the other non-Laras will probably lead to them being “used” for sex. The HEB-M will never commit to them outside of the absurd scenarios of Twilight, 50 Shades, Anita Blake, etc. They probably just have to avoid this market altogether; they aren’t wired for it.
Oh, Bloom, 35? Crap, Hercules is a bit too young. (very flattering, though)
Side note: I got carded yesterday by a teenaged Asian girl who looked at my ID and said, “wow, you look young!” I skipped out of there knowing it was going to be a good day. Bitter sweet, dat.
Thanks for the response Bastiat!
I think it’s safe to say if the movies pay an actor millions to pretend to be (something) primarily due to its appeal to women, and those actors get a huge following due to that appeal, that (something) is probably seen as something of value to women.
At present, a lot of money seems to be made by playing soldiers/cops people and other types of badass character skillsets (Strike Back guys a very good example). Of course, money is always welcome so a badass soldier/cop/ect type with money is going to do exceedingly well in the SMV.
Absolutely. Imagine Damien Scott and Michael fucking Stonebridge in Lamborghinis and Savile Row.
#460: I can’t imagine that!
I’m married, and watch the show only for the plot line and dialog.
#457 in Memorable Rejections thread. “Do you have to ruin this trip?” Priceless. Going further, sad to say, I think the vast majority of beta males have experienced “Do you have to ruin this romantic mood with sex, again?” statements from our theoretically loving wives, too many times. Or “You just had to go There and ruin a perfectly good comfortable backscratching for me, didn’t you.” And even more sadly, I think the vast majority of theoretically loving wives will categorically, and hotly, deny ever having said any such statement.
#459 “a badass soldier/cop/ect type with money is going to do exceedingly well in the SMV” until they catch him and put him away for good. Ever-vigilant for corruption. Tip of the white knight hat to you, ma’am.
Liz:
But of course, my bad. You would never, ever imagine such naughty things!
#466 “I used to be a big believer in not having sex until marriage” until, you know, …
#467: My own father actually told me it was better not to wait until marriage. My aunt did and married a man who was impotent. And then there was my ex-sigoth-who-turned-out-to-be-a-homosexual experience…
I’m more alligned with the make sure you know him and love him but before marriage it might be best to try it out mindset.
@ Emily see Jimmy’s foment 382, that explained it well I think.
#468 I didn’t even kiss my (first, and not only, for which I am ashamed, although not sufficiently) wife until nanoseconds after the preacher said “You may now k…” and yet despite my most valiant efforts at hiding it I’m sure she knew several times prior that I was (am!) not impotent. Besides, though, impotence has always been grounds for divorce, and besides disclosure of such a condition being mandatory, no penetration no foul, or something.
What is up with the phallocentrism of you gals, anyway? All my other parts get neglected, and they are beautiful too!
@ 458 yep BB, learned my trade in the 75th and worked my way up. Which is how it was done in the early 90’s. I stayed in the sniper role so nothing to fancy for me. Due to injuries I retired out of the 82nd. Losing a lung kind of sucked but it brought me back to my one true love.
Novaseeker did a short, but I thought great, break out on beta bucks game and it’s loss of allure. If I recall correctly, you need 3.5 X median income to even get in the bottom end of decent beta provider game and of course a willingness to spend it.
I was strictly a tweener in MMA; I smashed 90% or the dudes in under a minute and barely lasted 3 when I fought genuine pros. I cannot imagine the shit women pull in an attempt to land one of those guys.
@ BB
” You would never, ever imagine such naughty things!”
Heh. Liz could write the script.
@ Emily
“I believe in sex before marriage.”
That’s good, cuz if you’re like most women, you won’t believe in sex after marriage. Sad, but true.
#472: Never! The script wrote itself!
@ theadsgamer it would depend, I have young kids and so going out to observe nightlife isn’t really possible but if it would not require that perhaps… Let me know what you had in mind. I observe people oddly by nature so might be fun to focus on it for a specific purpose.
* Closely not oddly!
@Emily 465:
People don’t value what they don’t have to invest any effort in getting. This goes double for women. What my comment meant is that so many men, even some that would otherwise be conventionally attractive, are making it so easy for women to get attention and even commitment from them that women aren’t interested in them or lose interest in them. They are too eager and too easily impressed.
The guy that most women want takes time to win over. At the end of the day, women are most interested in a guy who shows that he’s slightly (or vastly) above where they are on the social totem pole in word and deed. In practice that means a guy who they will have to do some (maybe a lot of) work to get and keep.
I was describing the macro view of the “chase” dynamic from a male perspective, and that part of my comment was not to advise you in specific. You don’t just pick any random dude and say “I’m going to work for him”. You would exercise common sense. Like your Charles, he actually has to be *worth working for* in your estimation, for him even to show up on your radar. And obviously, if he’s completely uninterested, you’re barking up the wrong tree. My comment describes how it works in practice. Basically, it doesn’t matter what I say here, women will still want men who they have to put in some effort to impress, and who are at the very least slightly above where they are socially. This is is not really an approach, just a statement of how it’s always been in response to the idea you referenced that guys should appreciate a girl’s effort. I’m saying that too many guys already appreciate a girl’s effort *too much*, which is not helping either party.
#477 “You don’t just pick any random dude and say “I’m going to work for him”.” Why not? Where the downside to any given wife treating her random husband as if he were worth good treatment from her?
Bloom,
Sfcton is right. You’re doing all right. If you’re getting a bunch of “wrongs”, a “right” will come along soon.
BTW, seen any single girl bears in your area lately?
@ theasdgamer
ROFL.
Most of the path 1 or 2 dilemna for men relates to search costs. In converstions with an OkCupid friend, she mentioned her son’s experience. In two years and two hundred first dates, no mutual chemistry. I took her at her word that nothing is wrong with him. Every two years there’s a news story out of New York about how a woman used dating as an adjunct to her income. No doubt, there’s a whole lot more of that going on.
Bloom: “What’s behind the “path 1 is best” thinking?”
See Badger and Jimmy’s description. I co-sign.
Mrs. C. was path 1, I met her one night at a party, kissed a few hours later, and it was on the very next day (about a week, give or take, seeing each other daily). So my life is path 1.
The key insight is that it’s perfectly fine to go down path 2. I really do believe attraction can grow over time, and it’s not *always* men being wolf-in-sheep-clothing (as feminists often say) or women leveraging sex for resources or monogamy (as Roissy might say).
The death knell for men is pursuing a single path 2, one woman at one time. The correct strategy is what Badger stated.
For you, Bloom, it’s different. There are plenty of path 2 guys to choose from. Legions!
Oh, if a man tries path 2 as a “long con”, it’s best to assert sexual interest early on, and *then* put it on the back burner. That means flirt outrageously ASAP.
@ 479
Say the word Fuzzzie ans I’ll take you on a bear hunt. I have a slot for the Great Dismal and men pull some big bears out of there
“two years and two hundred first dates […] no chemistry […] nothing wrong with him”
There’s something very wrong in that statement.
200 dates in 2 years by any measure is making a killing. Doing that on OKCupid is over the top.
Either he looks like Brad Pitt but has the personality of Joan Osbourne, or…
He’s using a fake profile, or…
He’s actually banging all those girls on one night stands and he’s calling those “failed first dates while looking for a wife” to appease mom.
I tried to read through all the comments earlier today and ended up with a migraine but one thing has been eating at me. I know one couple whose marriage was arranged, they are very much in love. What does that say about Path 1 or Path 2?
Yohami,
My source on that story is one lady who didn’t believe in telling tall tales. The story was offered to me as a counter to my laments. Given the population density of NYC and that it is OkCupid’s home town, it is possible. A hundred first dates a year and all of them duds is a bitter pill to swallow and does seem a bit much.
@ practicallyperfect
Arranged marriages can go either way (just as any other courtship), but tend towards Path 1. If they hit it off on the first meeting, then it is Path 1. If they shop around and only become attracted to each other after some time then that is Path 2.
There’s also the rather outdated “meet your spouse on your wedding night” thing which is obviously supposed to be Path 1.
@Rollo:
I referred to men in “free conscience” precisely because most are not operating in “free conscience”, out of the widespread female victimization and shaming they’ve absorbed. But undoubtedly the manosphere is phenomenon of “awakening”, driven by male innate instincts. Although they are appalled by the 3-strikes rule, it’s ironic that they’re being cornered precisely because of them never asking the questions. That’s what I call the ultimate incompetence of the “feminine imperative” and the need to find our our own “creative incompetence” (drawing a parallel with Lawrence Peter’s “The Peter Principle”).
In other words, why front-running and trying to be the most competent just to serve their often hypergamic needs if we can instead find comfort in our own level of “creative incompetence”, also given that those who make the least effort are very often the most rewarded? I do think that in the proper understanding of the inherent incompetence, incongruences of the “feminine imperative” lies an opportunity to find our own level of “creative incompetence” and therefore to find the much needed peace, joy and satisfaction we so much strive for in our relationships with women.
In case anyone missed it on the other thread, I wanted to say thank you, each and every one of you, for all you have shared and all I have learned from it. I am forever grateful and please keep sharing this info! Seriously. My mom was just here and we were talking about all this and she said “everything you are saying makes my heart at rest. I am so happy!” We had the whole red pill mom-daughter moment and she agrees with it all. Ok if you knew my mom, holy smokes, that is BIG! And all this will benefit my daughters as well. Truth is truth. Keep sharing it. :’) sniff.
@Rollo:
Your comment reminded of “Aunt Giggles” and the desperate disqualification of the manosphere she tries to make, while ironically simultaneously pushing more and more of her readership to the manosphere blogs. It looks like the old school feminists are already going through some hysterical crises, as they’re forced to confront the “cognitive dissonance that the feminine imperative has conditioned them for.” Let us leave her alone and with good wishes of farewell.
Bloom,
You didn’t tell your Mom that you were talking to bears, did you?
@ fuzzie I did mention bears specifically. But she was pleased none the less. She said, and I quote, “these are all things your dad would have told you, if he could.” :’)
Every two years there’s a news story out of New York about how a woman used dating as an adjunct to her income.
Yup. I’ve seen and heard about this myself back when I was working in a different environment.
* did not mention bears specifically (but will! Thank you!)
Bloom,
I am sincerely glad that you have been able to take something of value from these conversations/exchanges. I realize it can be potentially discomforting to enter the “rough and tumble” world of how men discuss some of these matters so I have much respect for women like you and Liz who can have these conversations without whining and pouting about “tone”. We’ve tried to strike a balance here and I think we’ve mostly succeeded.
And someone on the other thread mistook it for a goodbye and to clarify, no! Not leaving, just saying thanks.
@ moephus and Deti, even you guys, who I have sometimes wanted to resist every word, thank you. Both. You have challenged me in ways I needed to be challenged and I thank you (and still feel bad for flipping out on Deti, awhile back, sorry!)
@ Bloom
Wow that is amazing!
And also thank you Liz, and elsbeth, and star child, and Emily, and all the ladies too! All who have shared!
* by don’t knife it, I mean don’t do it behind my back, girl style. Let’s talk. Happy to hear all views.
Namaste!
Oops that was a reply on the other simultaneous thread, sorry!
@emily I agree wholeheartedly that married people should be having the best sex! Choose wisely. And then nurture it. Don’t go in thinking divorce is an option. Unless there is abuse, addiction, or infidelity (and even then sometimes these issues can be resolved.) marriage is a HUGE deal, not to be entered into lightly. I did not understand this myself at 23, but I do now.
#505 I think part of the problem is that women KNOW how easy it is for beta males to fall head-over-heels in love, and women wish they could feel that way too that easily.
Also @ Emily, maybe think about what *you* could bring to making that intergalactic (and everyday) joy happen. It’s both parties who do that. It doesn’t just happen…
@Emily 503:
“Jakes/477-that distinction between chase and attraction of the path 1/2 makes sense, but don’t you think it a bit contradictory, or is it a post-phase chase you’re referring to? That’s what it sounds like.”
Not sure exactly what you’re referring to as far as a contradiction. Can you be more specific?
” But nonetheless, isn’t it troubling that a person who wants what’s better than them might end up in a cycle of unhappiness, always wanting the unattainable? I can’t imagine that’s what you mean.”
We make plenty of reference to hypergamy here and that’s exactly what the term means. That women, to varying degrees, want someone better than them. A good few DO end up in a cycle of unhappiness until they learn to tone down that instinct (those women would be the high end of the spectrum of hypergamic instinct). There is a happy medium where a woman has a guy that’s a prize in her eyes (a cut above, a leader) but he’s not so high that she’s bitten off more than she can chew as far as keeping him. In my experience she’ll be happy to do what it takes to keep him around, and it won’t be a lopsided relationship, but he will clearly be the boss. Obviously for some women there will be some introspection needed where they are far overvaluing themselves and getting burned repeatedly. These days, a good number of women fall into that category- society has pumped them up with a false sense of worth. And some know they can’t keep Mr. Big, but they’ll settle with having a fling with him anyway. Either way, they’ll have to come to grips with their instincts versus reality, if the two are in conflict.
“I do, however, think that’s a wrong approach. Basing it on my approach, without being specific, in general I’m a happy person, and when I look for someone to date, I don’t care about money a man might bring to the relationship, I don’t care about his social status, and I don’t care or need someone who will make me look better.”
I think I speak for a fair few of the guys here in saying that you are ahead of the curve just by being here and discussing honestly. I can appreciate your approach. But know this: You DO have the same instinct that all women have, just to a different degree according to your own experience and level of introspection. So I think you DO care about all those things you are telling us you don’t care about, and that’s totally fine- you don’t care about those things that much as long as your specific baseline of attractiveness and social clout (which includes money) has been met, which is normal. The key is to know that you have that instinct, and to manage it by being honest with yourself about what you are offering versus what you want. Doesn’t sound like you have any issues with that.
@Emily
“I also expect a relationship to bring me joy, the kind of joy that doesn’t go away, the kind of joy that makes post-marriage sex remarkably intergalactic.”
Makeup sex can be hot.
How often are you bitchy? Maybe after a couple of years of marriage, you’ll feel comfortable being bitchy a lot. And you’ll piss off hubby and fight. And there will be some problems–financial, etc.
Marriage is bittersweet. Enjoy the sweet and let the bitter make the sweet taste sweeter. Don’t expect too much of marriage and you’ll be happier.
@ liz
Wow, you have a wicked imagination! XD
@ Bloom
I’d spring for a sitter, np. The project would last three hours at a country dance bar. My assistant would 1) interview women I danced with using a small tape recorder discreetly and 2) write a report about the interviews. If you like the idea of being a secret agent, this might work for you.
I know one couple whose marriage was arranged, they are very much in love.
I’ve heard of such things before. I believe it happens that way quite often in arranged marriages but this is because most people in arranged marriages hail from cloistered communities which are not highly sexualized.
Less choice addiction equals greater ability to experience satisfaction in all areas of life I think.
#512 I think it’s quite easy to be very happy to be with someone who is being reasonable, and that it basically doesn’t matter who that someone is.
#510: Hee hee.
Emily: “I don’t demand perfection from men, but I also expect a relationship to bring me joy, the kind of joy that doesn’t go away, the kind of joy that makes post-marriage sex remarkably intergalactic.”
A woman should marry someone she admires and looks up to. “It’ll do” isn’t typically enough to form a happy marriage (unless her opinion changes from it’ll do to something better…which can happen, just as the opposite can happen). I really think there’s something to Sunshine Mary’s idea regarding the power dynamic and attraction. When I met my husband, he looked really young (our 15 year old now looks about the age he did when we met), he didn’t have a job, basically all he had to “show” was a bad wardrobe and big dreams. But after getting to know him I found he was intelligent, charismatic, masculine, persuasive, and all that. So…boom, attraction. At the time it was all an emotional change and I didn’t dissect my feelings as I can now from a distance over time. Whenever it was, I became attracted when I was convinced he was someone I could look up to and depend on (guess that’s beta, but I wouldn’t classify him as beta).
Building up to that was actually pretty hot. Our marriage is great, but it isn’t just a pie in the sky fantasy life of all-joy-all-the-time. We’ve had a lot of life stressors (though none recently, knock on wood…last big conflict was about three years ago). There has never been apathy between us, and we’ve seen some bad times (though many have had it much worse than we have). I’ve always liken that to battle testing (which I’ve mentioned before). When a unit endures combat together, overcomes it and survives, it is never the same…yet it is closer and usually even better for it, ultimately. Anyway, we met 22 years ago and sex is phenomenal still. He’s into me, I’m into him, yadda yadda. Had sex three times before 10 AM yesterday, in fact (that’s a little excessive and unsual though…not sure what brought that on, but we skipped the day before. Sorry for TMI, I’d just say whatever we’re doing as a couple to keep that spark seems to work).
@513
Everyone likes unicorns.
#515 yes, but. A woman wants a man she feels she CAN look up to, since she looks down on so many men. A man wants a woman who WILL choose to look up to him, since so many women choose to look down on him.
@516
Really all I want is to meet someone who is more collaborative than adversarial.
Deti
Very late to the party, i must apologize. I doubt i have anything of value to add to this post or the half century mark of comments i will need to read tonight for all of it’s knowledge and yummy goodness so i will simply say:
Jolly good show and excellent post.
Remember the days when we kept egging you on to start your own blog? It was this type of gold we were trying to get you to spill forth. I’m glad you’re on the J4G contributing crew!
Jolly good show ol’chap!
#517 yep, me too. A man is looking for a unicorn who will not constantly contradict him. A woman is looking for a unicorn that she doesn’t “have to” constantly contradict.
@ Liz 514
“I became attracted when I was convinced he was someone I could look up to and depend on (guess that’s beta, but I wouldn’t classify him as beta).”
No. That’s alpha.
An alpha is someone you can depend upon to take action and do the right thing at the right time. A beta is dependable on predictability alone. The predictable gifts/flowers/assuaging/comforting of feelings in spite of the need for hard truth/etc… the predictability of him always being there for you even if you treat him like shit.
This is why beta’s usually get tagged with ‘doormat’. And we all know women don’t look up to doormats.
There’s a world of difference in knowing you can depend on a man to always be there for you, comfort you, and give relationional/platonic/beta comfort.. (also known as friendzoning) even IN SPITE of the fact you might have done nothing to earn all that free dependability (to quote Ratchek from Starship troopers “Something given has no value”)…. AND in knowing you can depend on a man to tell you a cold hard bitter truth when required, to set you straight, to make the hard decisions that are ultimately the right ones required at that time and to not be a pushover and to make decisions with you/your families best interests in mind.
That is the dominance and dependability you crave and ‘look up to’. He gave you Alpha, but the way he delivered it made you spin it as Beta methinks?
Three times!?!?!? Before 10?!?! Go Liz!!!! (High five!)
Ever seen Taming of the Shrew, Badpainter?
Hi M3! “That is the dominance and dependability you crave and ‘look up to’. He gave you Alpha, but the way he delivered it made you spin it as Beta methinks?”
Heh, I never spun it as beta, myself.
We’ve kind of gone back and forth on the thread about my “path 2″ experience and it’s been brought up that “providing comfort” is beta (the reason I mentioned it). I don’t interpret it that way, personally. There are different types of comfort, too, in my estimation. He has never been, and wouldn’t be, anyone’s doormat.
Lol! High five back at ya, Bloom.
Funny thing…he doesn’t like it when I use words like “superior” to refer to our relationship dynamic. I think it’s because he likes women very much in general and doesn’t view me as inferior, just different. But I did have to feel he was superior to me (not in everything, some things I do better, but overall) to form a strong attraction.
#522 Petruchio’s scheme doesn’t work in reality.
http://shakespeare-navigators.com/shrew/ShrewText21.html#sd168
I wish it did. It didn’t work for Socrates either.
@522
Burton and Taylor?
Yes, seen it, but the fantasy doesn’t translate to reality. Fighting about trivialities quickly kills my interest in the relationship.
#526 Even within the play itself, other men do the exact same kind of “banter” with Kate and she just gets worse with them.
More than anything else, if anything else at all, it is Kate’s realization of her total economic dependency on her husband that forces her into submission.
http://shakespeare-navigators.com/shrew/ShrewText32.html
Roughly speaking, we know what works with women: speaking roughly, and bandying the big stick of Dread. I literally have no idea of anything else that might work; I wish I did.
Dread Game Report
Five days straight Mrs. Gamer has been happy. It’s a record. She wants to be with me all the time, leans into me in the car, grooms me in the car, etc. Apparently, too much dread may cause a woman to disqualify herself.
@ liz
Woman, you’re slowing down! Oh wait…three times sounds like a lot unless it’s 3 x 5 min.
I’m not gonna give any stats from the Fun ‘n Games Dept. P
@ theadsgamer, that would be interesting but I can’t.
@liz agreed, the way I read your description of how your hubby calmed you down about your worries about the test and such, I read that as alpha. Making you chill. Women can spin out like mad, not all guys can manage that. Few, really.
#531 re: stats. Of all the things I miss about pre-menopausal sex life, I miss quickies the most. And statistically that is true of 99.99999% of men. In each marriage, whenever things were going well sexually, which by definition means approximately daily, at least, there was always at least one or two quickies per week. In each marriage, as soon as the frequent sex evaporated the first thing to go was the quickies, but even then, at the typical statistically average married bare maintenance levels of a couple or so times per week, there was always one or two quickies per month.
Post-menopausally the typical statistically average married less-than-maintenance levels are a couple or so times per month. We still do one or two quickies per year, *per* *year*, each time of which my wife thinks is an amazing accomplishment, but I consider the lack of more to be total defeat.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but is there any useful advice here to give to a man who finds that he has to use Path 2, other than try to use Path 1 by making himself more attractive?
[…] in mind I’m writing this more for the average guy who tends to have mostly path 2 opportunities, not for the highly attractive guy that’s swimming in female attention. Of course, the easy […]
I know this is going to sound terribly naive of me, but I didn’t realize this whole judging/sizing up a guy is so common among women. I have to admit this is a character flaw that I struggle with. I’ve tried to change it, pray about it, and often rebuke myself for being petty and critical over things that some guys have said/done that just don’t matter. I feel embarrassed and guilty that this is an issue I have. And then there’s been times in the past when I’ve overlooked certain traits in men that were arguably red flags (which I now know that I should have been more discerning about) I want to clarify, that although I’ve never been tricked into sleeping with or entering relationships with cads, players, and bad boys, etc, as I believe intimacy is for marriage and marriage alone, that I simply gave some of them the time of day during brief, platonic interactions where I often ended up as the subject of their mockery, criticism, and judgement, led to pain, heartache, lowered self esteem, and insecurities (which I’m sure some will say I deserved for giving them the time of day.)While other times, (but not all) I was cool and ignoring to guys that probably would have been good to me had I given them the chance.
Believe it or not, I actually do have a lot good traits and I am an overall decent human being. And I am often told I’m a caring person, which is all the more reason that I really struggle with this darker aspect of my character. I really want to overcome this, I just don’t really know how.
[…] I revealed this to the men, they did not believe it. They accused me of misleading them. Of planting false hope. But I think the ladies would back me […]
Trying:
I’m confused. I take it you’re a woman, and you size up and judge men. I think that this is not something you should be concerned about, because it’s the way women determine what men are attractive and what men aren’t. It’s not a character flaw or a bug. It’s a feature of your femininity; a sign that your operating system is working properly.
What happens is that the most assertive, most masculine men are the ones you see and pay attention to because they are the ones who pop up on your radar screen. The most attractive men get attention not only from girls like you who are not interested in fast sex; but also from girls who will readily give these men everything they want. One of the reasons you often would get the comments you did was because, in my opinion, they were attempting to see if you were interested in sex. The objective of the PUA, the player and the cad is to move a woman toward sex as quickly as possible. Trust me – if you will not sleep with these men, they will find women who will. It’s no skin off their noses that you won’t sleep with them.
Another problem is the declining attractiveness of most men. The most attractive men aren’t interested in marriage because they don’t have to limit themselves to one woman to get sex. The rest of the men are so unattractive that they just don’t get noticed. They are unattractive mostly because they aren’t learning any attraction skills. They aren’t improving themselves because they see no need to do so – it’s mostly futile and won’t yield results.
Good men are out there; but you will have to look for them. If you want to find a good man, you should do the following:
1. Acknowledge what you find attractive. It’s not good or bad; it just is.
2. Stop rejecting good men. Be honest – you’ve probably turned down a lot of men.
3. Go where good men are. That’s NOT church and it’s NOT seedy bars or clubs. Good men frequent places where they can do, build, make and create; and then show people their labors.
4. Lower your standards. I would be willing to bet that your standards are ridiculously high. Newsflash: You might be really, really attracted to Alpha McGorgeous. Guess what? So is every other girl; and if you won’t put out for him, YOU WILL NOT GET HIM. So you need to look elsewhere.
5. Enlist the help of your father, or other older men. Depending on how old you are, you’re probably not very good at picking out men who will be good for you. You need help vetting and screening men. Older men are quite good at that.
6. Make finding a good man a priority in your life. You are not going to find a good man by just hanging back and “letting it happen”. YOU will have to look for him. YOU will have to take risks. YOU will have to make it very, very easy for a good man to approach you. You will have to make it very clear that a good man will not be publicly embarrassed or accused of sex harassment if he asks you out.
Good luck.
@Deti 539:
Boom!
Nuff said…
O.
“I think that this is not something you should be concerned about, because it’s the way women determine what men are attractive and what men aren’t. It’s not a character flaw or a bug. It’s a feature of your femininity; a sign that your operating system is working properly.”
Thanks deti. My main concern is that I feel that sometimes my judgements are petty and trivial. I know I wouldn’t want men judging me for some of the things that I judge them on. However, since I’m a believer in Karma I sometimes worry that I am being judged by guys in the same way I judge them and this bothers me.
“One of the reasons you often would get the comments you did was because, in my opinion, they were attempting to see if you were interested in sex. ”
So you’re saying some of these players were being insulting towards me thinking (quite wrongfully in my case) that being an a-hole would get them sex?
“2. Stop rejecting good men. Be honest – you’ve probably turned down a lot of men.”
Very true. I wouldn’t deny this for a second. And it’s not even because I wasn’t attracted to some of these guys. Quite the opposite in some cases. I guess I was kind of just scared of getting close to someone.
“4. Lower your standards. I would be willing to bet that your standards are ridiculously high. Newsflash: You might be really, really attracted to Alpha McGorgeous. Guess what? So is every other girl; and if you won’t put out for him, YOU WILL NOT GET HIM. So you need to look elsewhere.”
I actually don’t think my standards are ridiculously high. I like tall and fit guys, but then again, I’m slim and have been described as fairly attractive by many people (and not just by men trying to sleep with me either). I like a guy with a good personality and values to me, and again I feel like I have those things to offer too. Aren’t standards only considered unrealistic when the person with those standards does not possess the traits they desire and expect in a partner?
Trying:
Are you saying that one of your “flaws” is sizing up men physically and screening men on looks alone? Please tell me more about this.
Another thing I just noticed about your first comment: You seem to think that women who sleep with cads and players are “tricked” into doing that. Not so, not so at all. Women are not “tricked” into sleeping with or getting into relationships with anyone. That’s Churchian, “Family Life”, Focus on the Family bullshit. Women are fully personally responsible for all of their decisions, sexual and otherwise. The only reason a woman has sex with a cad or a player is because SHE WANTS TO. If you sleep with any man, it is never, NEVER, because you were “tricked” into it.
“So you’re saying some of these players were being insulting towards me thinking (quite wrongfully in my case) that being an a-hole would get them sex?”
Trying, what was going on here was probably crappy neg delivery. The “neg” is a PUA trick or technique in which the man delivers a backhanded compliment to a woman he’s interested in. Negs aren’t really very good technique for most men because most men don’t know how to deliver them without sounding like complete assholes. The idea here is supposed to be gentle teasing. Most of the time it’s some inexperienced player wannabe who doesn’t know what he’s doing, and he screws up an attempted neg which only makes him look and sound like a dickbag.
I won’t get into any more detail about that except to say that if a man ever does run proficient level Game on you, you probably won’t be aware of it. If you do become aware of it, you will quickly rationalize away most objections.
As for rejecting good men: Your not wanting to “get close to” someone is a big part of it, because everyone around you is telling you to go for “hotter/better/richer”. You think you can do better and you don’t want to be tied down, because that would limit your choices. You don’t want to hitch yourself to this guy because, well, what if a better guy comes along?
It all comes down to this: You have to make a choice – do you want to lock in a good man NOW; or do you want to have your fun now and take the chance that a good man will still be willing to have you later? I won’t lie to you – if you choose a good man now, other men will come along – possibly better men. You will have to live with the fact that other better men are no longer options for you because you are already spoken for.
If you have your fun now, you are taking an enormous risk. There might be no attractive men willing to marry you when you are done having your fun. Far, far better women than you are finding this out the hard way. Google “where have all the good men gone” if you want to know what I’m talking about.
With all due respect, make your choice, be done with it, and don’t complain about it. Be sure you can live with that choice, because I promise you that your friends and other men will enforce that choice upon you HARD, and you will HAVE to live with whatever consequences they bring.
“ Aren’t standards only considered unrealistic when the person with those standards does not possess the traits they desire and expect in a partner?”
Not necessarily. Look, have whatever standards you want. Just know that you’re competing with other women for the men you want. And be willing to compromise. You are not going to get everything you want in a man. That’s just how it is. And you are going to have to live with that. The man who eventually ends up with you isn’t getting everything he wants either. In fact he’s giving up a whole hell of a lot. He is taking on enormous risk and responsibility just by standing at an altar and saying “I do” to you. The least you can do is compromise a little.
“Are you saying that one of your “flaws” is sizing up men physically and screening men on looks alone? Please tell me more about this.”
No. Although I do take looks into consideration, I don’t size them up physically and screen them on looks alone. The flaws I was previously referring to were more to do with sizing up a man based on something he said, or the way he said it, even though it’s not really relevant to whether or not he would be a good partner. As I’ve been thinking more about this, I’ve realized that maybe it could just be that certain communication/interaction styles just don’t mesh well with my own and perhaps it’s not so much a flaw, but rather a preference?
” Women are fully personally responsible for all of their decisions, sexual and otherwise. The only reason a woman has sex with a cad or a player is because SHE WANTS TO. If you sleep with any man, it is never, NEVER, because you were “tricked” into it.”
Agreed. There are women who sleep with players/cads because they want to. But these are not the women I was referring to in my first comment. I was referring to instances when players/cads lie to women, and make them think they want to be with them and them alone, only to get them into bed and then bailing after getting what they want. Yes, perhaps these women should have been more discerning, but I guess that feelings/emotions/wishful thinking/only seeing what you want to see, can definitely cloud better judgement.
“If you do become aware of it, you will quickly rationalize away most objections.”
Sorry, I’m not sure what objections you’re referring to. Could you please elaborate?
“As for rejecting good men: Your not wanting to “get close to” someone is a big part of it, because everyone around you is telling you to go for “hotter/better/richer”. You think you can do better and you don’t want to be tied down, because that would limit your choices. You don’t want to hitch yourself to this guy because, well, what if a better guy comes along?”
This is true. This is probably the main reason I’m still single. Although sometimes I think it would be nice to have a partner, if I were to get marry, I can’t help but think I wouldn’t always be wondering “what if a better guy comes along?” as you put it. The uncertainty would be difficult to live with. And I wouldn’t want to hurt and disrupt my partner’s life with an “I’m just not haaappyy” divorce. So for now, while I do remain open to a relationship, it’s not something that I’m actively seeking. I don’t think I want kids, I’m not looking for financial support, and I don’t have an uncontrollable libido, so I actually do pretty well on my own. However, I do worry about missing out on the love and companionship of a relationship if I remain single.
“It all comes down to this: You have to make a choice – do you want to lock in a good man NOW; or do you want to have your fun now and take the chance that a good man will still be willing to have you later?”
I know. It’s a tough call. It’s not that I’m preoccupied with having my “fun” now, or that I ever was. My core values are actually pretty conservative. I just worry that I’ll regret the choice I’ll make to the point that I actually think it may just be easier to remain single. Still, as I said before, I do also worry about missing out on the love and companionship of a relationship if I remain single.
“Far, far better women than you are finding this out the hard way.”
I’m just curious to know what you mean by “far, far better women than [me]?” Since I haven’t really given a whole of information about myself, it’s really my curiosity (and not my ego) that would like to know more.
“Be sure you can live with that choice, because I promise you that your friends and other men will enforce that choice upon you HARD, and you will HAVE to live with whatever consequences they bring.”
And I would be enforcing that choice upon myself hard. My own conscience, much more so than what anyone says or “enforces” upon me is what would mainly be keeping me accountable.
Trying:
It’s a common thing for a woman to reject a man over something very minor. Everything can be great, until the guy says or does one little thing that really sets her off, and that just completely destroys any attraction she has. Once that happens, it’s over. It’s happened to me numerous times.
I suppose that could be a preference for certain communication styles, but consider whether you are being too nitpicky, and thus are screening out good men. Consider whether these little things really are dealbreakers, or if these are things you can live with. Remember that if you want a long term partner you must compromise. You are not going to get everything you want.
Cads many times lie to women to get them into bed. You’ll find that players don’t often do this; they’re usually very up front about the fact that they’re in it for the short haul and that anything long term or exclusive is out of the question.
What I meant by “rationalizing away most objections” is that women usually cannot see that an attractive man is running game on them. If they can see it, or they suspect it, it’s usually ignored because the attraction is so strong and/or the excitement and fun is so heady. Players understand the female mind and how it operates; and use it to their advantage. They allow you to run away with your thoughts, feelings and emotions, because a woman is more pliable in that state. If you’re attracted, or flattered by the attention, or caught up in the moment, they’re going to let you run with it; and so will your own mind if it’s fun/exciting enough.
It sounds like you’re doing OK on your own, and you’re not ready to make a choice yet. That’s fine. Just know that you don’t have forever. If you don’t make the choice yourself, time, age, and circumstance will make it for you. If you really “worry” about missing out on having a long term partner, the only thing you can do is make a choice to either search for a husband, or decide you don’t want one right now and will wait. But: time is not on your side.
WRT “far far better women than you”: What I meant by that was not a value judgment of your attractiveness or value. Rather, it was simply a statement that a lot of women before you who thought they knew what they were doing when they delayed marriage to the last minute found themselves unable to find marriageable men they were attracted to and wanted to marry. These were women who were quite physically attractive, intelligent, well off, well rounded, personable, and seemingly with much to offer; and yet they found themselves out of luck, out of time and out of options. These stories are so common around here that they’re almost cliched. Most of the time, it’s simply because they waited too long to get serious about finding a husband.
[…] have a tendency to put men into two general categories for dating and relationship purposes: select and non-select. The men in the select category are the ones judged by women as having sex appeal, or a respected […]
[…] She and her husband met in college where they were both studying engineering. They had a short courtship that began when he asked her to start meeting him for study dates. Soon he made his romantic […]