Part II: The Empire Strikes Back
Leia is still as icy as ever but Han’s feelings have heated up by the beginning of Empire Strikes back. In part I, Han Solo Doesn’t Pedestalize the Princess, we saw how Han didn’t immediately fawn over Leia because of her beauty and status. But what’s a man to do when he does have feelings and those feelings aren’t reciprocated? We’ll see how Han deals with rejection and how he ultimately breaks through to her heart. If you’re rushed for time, go to the “Best Kiss Ever” section since that is the most instructive and meaningful part of the post.
Han Solo Walks Away
When a woman is cold and not interested, sometimes you just gotta walk away. Sometimes we think we can come up with some magic line that will make her realize how much she cares and once in while that’s possible but usually not.
This is one of my favorite scenes. Han just told General Rieekan that he has to pay off Jabba the Hutt. He then comes to say goodbye to Leia. Watch from the beginning to 0:57.
Here’s the dialogue with my comments in [ ].
HAN: (with feeling) Well, Your Highness, I guess this is it.
LEIA: That’s right.
HAN: (cooly) Well, don’t get all mushy on me. So long, Princess. [Is Han showing butt hurt here? Perhaps he should have remembered the same nonchalant laugh we saw in A New Hope but sometimes a sarcastic line and then just walking away is in order when dealing with ice queens. Clearly he now likes her and is emotionally invested in her. The ways of the charming rogue are harder to always follow when you have a galactic crush on someone. In contrast, the needy Rebel beta (NABALT) would have tried to soften the situation and said, “Hey, you should add me on ForceBook.”]
LEIA: Han!
HAN: Yes, Your Highnessness? [He always negs/teases her with this.]
LEIA: I thought you decided to stay.
HAN: Well, the bounty hunter we ran into on Ord Mantell changed my mind.
LEIA: Han, we need you!
HAN: We?
LEIA: Yes.
HAN: Oh, what about you need?
LEIA: (mystified) I need? I don’t know what you’re talking about.
HAN: (shakes his head, fed up) You probably don’t.
LEIA: And what precisely am I supposed to know?
HAN: Come on! You want me to stay because of the way you feel about me. [Irrational self confidence? Delusion? Or does Han have some insight into her true feelings that she’s trying to repress because in her mind he’s not good enough for her and she’s too busy with her (admittedly worthy and noble) career?]
LEIA: Yes. You’re a great help to us. You’re a natural leader…
HAN: No! That’s not it. Come on. Aahhh — uh huh! Come on.
LEIA: You’re imagining things.[These following lines are classic.]
HAN: Am I? Then why are you following me? Afraid I was going to leave without giving you a goodbye kiss?
LEIA: I’d just as soon kiss a Wookiee.
HAN: I can arrange that. You could use a good kiss!
We can debate about whether Han was too butt hurt here but if you’re going to attempt a low-likelihood “conquest” (like going for a beautiful princess) and it’s not going anywhere, sometimes showing some passion is what’s needed to break through the icy barriers.
In the prelude to my best girlfriend ever, and some would say she was a bit out of my league, she dropped a tactical-sized nuke on me and told me I needed to learn from Clint Eastwood on how to be more of a man! lol (Talk about a woman basically confirming that masculinity and game are attractive. And in all honesty, she was right. I was too needy and had too much antigame.) Splendid and indifferent isolation probably wouldn’t have gotten through to her in that moment and I unleashed a passionate discourse on how too many women loved substanceless assholes that treated them like shit and that I had a lot of substance and even if I wasn’t as flashy as some other guys she was a damn fool for not seeing it in me. The words may or may not have been beta but at least I spoke my mind and was fighting for what I wanted–her. We were in bed at the time (we’d made out before a few times but no sex yet) and I laid down on my back after this, kind of shaking my head, inwardly realizing that everything was probably over with her. I felt totally emasculated, disappointed and numb. Then, after a couple minutes of us each just lying there, she pulled an utter mind fuck on me and asked me if I had a condom. It may surprise women but there are certain emotional states where men just simply have no desire to have sex. Usually, after being emasculated is one of them. For a split second I debated whether I should be proud and say that I wasn’t going to or realize that I had made a breakthrough and that she was finally opening up to me a lot more. I steeled myself, grabbed a condom out of my backpack and numbly began to fuck her. It really felt weird for the first few minutes…gradually the feeling of numb emasculation melted away and my deeper feelings for her, and hers for me, took over.
Han Avoids Contact
Returning to Empire Strikes Back, Han does what every self-respecting man should do after having spilled his heart to a woman only to be rejected, he turned off his “cell phone” so that Leia couldn’t contact him. Threepio had to come deliver the message that Luke was missing.
THREEPIO: Well, it’s Princess Leia, sir. She’s been trying to get you on the communicator.
HAN: I turned it off. I don’t want to talk to her.
Back to his Roguish Ways
After rescuing Luke from freezing on Hoth’s frigid plains, Han has recovered his irrational self confidence and is back to smugly telling Leia what she feels about him. See 0:57-1:19 in the video above.
Han turns as Leia enters the room. He looks at her with a
big, devilish grin.HAN: Well your Worship, looks like you managed to keep me around for a little while longer. [Frame everything as her liking you.]
LEIA: (haughtily) I had nothing to do with it. General Rieekan thinks it’s dangerous for any ships to leave the system until we’ve activated the energy shield.
HAN: That’s a good story. I think you just can’t bear to let a gorgeous guy like me out of your sight. [His facial expression is awesome here.]
LEIA: I don’t know where you get you delusions, laser brain.
Chewie is amused.
HAN: Laugh it up, fuzz ball. But you didn’t see us alone in the south passage.
HAN: She expressed her true feelings for me.
Leia is flushed, eyes darting between Luke and Han.
LEIA: My…! Why, you stuck up,…half-witted,…scruffy-looking…nerf-herder!
HAN: Who’s scruffy-looking? (to Luke) I must have hit her pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that, huh, kid?
Leia looks vulnerable for a moment, then the mask falls
again, and she focuses on Luke.LEIA: Why, I guess you don’t know everything about women yet?
With that she leans over and kisses Luke on the lips. … With some smugness, Luke puts his hands behind his head and [beta] grins.
Serendipity and The Falcon
After the Empire invades, Han attempts to get Leia to her transport but the way is blocked off by an explosion that collapses the ice tunnel. He’ll get her out on the Falcon. See 1:20-2:50 in the video above as they take off and head into the asteroid field. (After that the audio doesn’t match the video so you can stop watching the video.)
They find an asteroid cave to hide in. We’ll switch over to a new video here. Watch 2:47-3:07 and notice the lustfully-sly look on his face when he says, “Sorry, sweetheart. We haven’t got time for anything else.” He kept his butt hurt under control by switching from the annoyance of being rejection to the suave “we haven’t got time for anything else.”
The Best Kiss Ever
Now we arrive at the best romantic scene in the whole Star Wars universe. You have to watch this clip!!! 
Pay close attention to the facial expressions and tone of voice.
Here’s the script:
Leia finishes welding the valves she has been working on
and attempts to reengage the system by pulling a lever
attached to the valve. It doesn’t budge. Han notices her
struggle, and moves to help her. She rebuffs him.HAN: Hey, Your Worship, I’m only trying to help. [Han constantly negs/teases her with “your worship” and “your highnessness.” I once called a girl Kathleen instead of her real name, Katherine, and when she told me her real name I told her to stop trying to trick me and make me look like a fool. lol She loved it.]
LEIA: (still struggling) Would you please stop calling me that?
Han hears a new tone in her voice.
HAN: Sure, Leia.
LEIA: Oh, you make it so difficult sometimes.
HAN: I do, I really do. [Agree and amplify. Now that Leia is letting down her bitch shield a bit Han is also creating a bit of comfort by admitting he sometimes acts like a cocky jerk.] You could be a little nicer, though. Come on, admit it. Sometimes you think I’m all
right. [A needy beta would be abjectly apologizing, “I never meant to hurt your feelings! Please don’t be mad.”]She lets go of the lever and rubs her sore hand.
LEIA: Occasionally (a little smile, haltingly) maybe…when you aren’t acting like a scoundrel.
HAN: (laughs) Scoundrel? Scoundrel? I like the sound of that. [Especially notice his facial expression and tone of voice. He’s greatly enjoying this. This is perfect agree and amplify, with more of the amplify coming later. The needy beta would protest too much, “I’m not a scoundrel. I’m a nice guy. I just want to make you happy.”]
With that, Han takes her hand and starts to massage it. [Han escalates.]
LEIA: Stop that.
HAN: Stop what?
Leia flushes, confused.
LEIA: Stop that! My hands are dirty. [The needy beta would recoil and mewl out an apology, “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to make you feel uncomfortable.”]
HAN: My hands are dirty, too. What are you afraid of?
LEIA: (looking right into his eyes) Afraid?
Han looks at her with a piercing look. He’s never looked
more handsome, more dashing, more confident.HAN: You’re trembling.
LEIA: I’m not trembling.
HAN: You like me because I’m a scoundrel. There aren’t enough scoundrels in your life. [More agree and amplify from before, owning the term ‘scoundrel.’]
Leia is now very close to Han and as she speaks, her voice
becomes an excited whisper, a tone completely in opposition to her words.LEIA: I happen to like nice men.
HAN: I’m a nice man.
LEIA: No, you’re not. You’re…
He kisses her now…. He takes his time, as though he had forever, bending her body backward. She has never been kissed like this before….
I absolutely love this scene. And notice how her hand is holding his head at the end. She’s definitely into Han in that moment.
When did she start to have feelings for him? Was it sooner or only once they were in the asteroid field? Was Han delusional or irrationally self confident before or could he sense she liked him too and was simply denying her feelings?
And of course that golden cock block of a droid, C-3PO had to come in at just the wrong moment and ruin it!
I know
We’ll end now with a favorite Han Solo line and a great one at the very end by Vader. Watch the whole clip and go forth and add some Han Solo inner and outer game to your repertoire:
[…] ← Previous Next → […]
And then, several years after Leia and Han get married …
jf12,
Han Leia go on to enjoy a mostly fairy tale marriage breeding the new generation of Jedi. Haven’t you read the books? Luke goes on to be sort of Messianic religious leader as the grand master Jedi. I think he eventually mans up and marries a former sort of almost-but-not-quite-sith-groupie whom he saves from the Dark Side.
Or Luke becomes the Celibate grand Master. Then after centuries of peace a Sith office intern seduces him, starting chain of events leading to new galactic war and new trilogy.
I am putting this here because, well, just because. (h/t for original link to Heartiste.)
http://pandce.proboards.com/thread/297388/bjs-give-month#page=1
http://pandce.proboards.com/thread/297228/wonder-bjs-given-life#page=1
http://pandce.proboards.com/thread/297348/believe-2-5-day-average?page=1
The middle one is the most informative, but you need to read the all for context.
There is much to be learned from this. It makes blue pill denial a quantum leap more difficult to maintain.
I believe that Disney decided that the novels were not canon; so they never happened.
LEIA: I’d just as soon kiss a Wookiee.
HAN: I can arrange that. You could use a good kiss!
Does Chewbacca ever get any?
@Farm Boy
“Does Chewbacca ever get any?”
He likes ‘em hairy.
LEIA: Stop that.
HAN: Stop what?
Leia flushes, confused.
LEIA: Stop that! My hands are dirty
Did they have VAWA long ago and in a galaxy far away?
#2 I’ve read various books, mostly kids’ series, and games, but they’re all over the place, aside from Luke becoming an oddball grand Jedi trainer. I know what should have happened, though.
“Does Chewbacca ever get any?” — He likes ‘em hairy.
There are Feminist Wookies? Scary stuff
First the shield generator has to be shut down the hard way, either via infiltration by individual units and penetration of the secret access tunnels, or massive assault.
jf12m- “…I know what should have happened, though.”
Me too. The Empire should have had its stormtroopers spend more time on the range engaging in basic marksmanship.
Which raises the question: just how inept were the shooting skills of the average Tuskan Raider?
The unleashed dark side of Force from Anakin’s rage as he slaughtered the Tusken raiders enabled Qui-Gon’s netherworld breakthrough. Plagueis was correct: immortality was achievable.
Han, magnificent tactical analysis of Solo’s uncanny ability to cycle between butt-hurt/sensitive and accusatory, almost psychopathic confidence.
Note that in either case he becomes the wildman, the scene-stealing, unpredictable source of drama within what might otherwise be a fairly boring crew (boring in terms of personalities, not skillsets). He just will never allow himself to become normal/boring.
If the DJ is taking requests, please do one of these on James Tiberius Kirk next time around.
Dooku’s influence on Qui-Gon cannot be underestimated. Yoda’s greatest student, Dooku had always been a maverick and he had learned some Dark knowledge he had passed on to Qui-Gon. This knowledge included Plagueis’ search for immortality, even prior to Dooku’s leaving the Jedi order. Shmi’s conception of Anakin most probably was a direct result of Plagueis’ midichlorian experiments.
Yoda trained Dooku who trained Qui-Gon who trained Obi-Wan who trained Anakin, and who trained Luke (who was also trained by Yoda). From the netherworld, Qui-Gon trained Yoda and Obi-Wan, who each also trained Luke from the netherworld. Plagueis trained Palpatine who trained Maul and Dooku and Anakin, who specifically wanted to learn immortality.
Maul killed Qui-Gon. Obi-Wan killed Maul. Anakin killed Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan became the first who was bodily united with the Force through death. Anakin also killed Dooku and Palpatine (among many many others!), who killed Plagueis. Yoda was killed, basically, by the midichlorians and bodily united with the Force. Anakin was also bodily united with the Force eventually.
In one sense Palpatine killed Anakin, but more directly the proximate cause was Luke’s removing his breathing apparatus knowing full well Anakin would die as a result. Anakin made Luke kill him so he could personally breath his last words: “Tell your sister … you were right.” The outcome of all this questing for immortality led Anakin, in sum total, to want his daughter to think well of him.
@Han:
Excellent work! This is a series all Gamesmen in Training should bookmark and refer back to often as Spring Mating Season approaches.
Since we’re on the topic of Star Wars, sometime back I wrote an extensive series on Game using the SW universe as a model. Over the course of the next few posts I’ll link them into this thread. Readers are encouraged to discuss!
OK, so let’s begin:
Styles Makes Fights & Game (Peter Parker Remix): http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/62202
O.
The previous link discusses an overview of Game through the lens of the SW universe; now we go into detail with the specifics of how Game can be deployed in differing “styles”. Here’s part one:
Shii-Cho Game & Killing The “Brainy Guys Don’t Get Laid” Fallacy: http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/62839
O.
As Dooku was mentioned upthread, the following post I wrote a little while back should be of interest:
Makashi Game: Silver Tongued Seducers: http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/68316
O.
For those who are more aligned with Obi-Wan, the following installment in my “series” should have appeal:
Soresu Game: The True Seduction Form: http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/67087
O.
…And since Yoda was mentioned, the following is actually a two-part piece discussing what I refer to as Ataru-style Game:
You Should Be Dancing: Tony Manero & Ataru Game: http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/62661/
Part two in the next comment…
O.
As promised, here is “part two” of my mini-series of posts detailing what I refer to as “Ataru Game”:
On Short Men, Tall Women & “Ataru Game”: http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/66861
More in a sec…
O.
The following post deals with the sixth “form” or style of Game that Ihave identified as per the SW universe:
Being In The Zone: Niman Game: http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/64505
O.
I never completed the series, which would have included detailed breakdowns of Djem-So and Juyo-Vaapad Game styles, though I brefily discuss them in my lead-off “Styles Makes Fights” post above; perhaps you all will assist me in rounding out the series in discussion here? Also, please feel free to share your comments and observations on my previous installments and framework. Thanks!
O.
If the DJ is taking requests, please do one of these on James Tiberius Kirk next time around.
Or do one on Anakin and anti-game.
If the DJ is taking requests, please do one of these on James Tiberius Kirk next time around.
Bastiat, I’d love to see you deconstruct a film or TV figure!
@Badpainter
“The Empire should have had its stormtroopers spend more time on the range engaging in basic marksmanship. Which raises the question: just how inept were the shooting skills of the average Tuskan Raider?”
LOL I’ve often thought the same thing.
@Bastiat 15
Thanks. I think the most masterful one is when the space worm in the asteroid shakes and she falls into his lap:
@Bastiat
Kirk would be an interesting character. I’ll have to watch some old reruns and see if I see anything. And as Morpheus said in #26, if you want to do a film or character deconstruction guest post, more than welcome.
@Obs 17 Thanks. I’ve read some of those before and recommend them. I’ll have to look at them all.
I have watched all of Star Trek more than once (*ahem*). I might be able to come up with something.
The greatest red pill episode is definitely “Space Seed” but the alpha hero is Khan, not Kirk.
@Farm Boy 25
It’s interesting how Anakin had no real paternal figure as a small boy. Then he was mentored by the Jedi from 9 years on. No doubt, being separated from his mother was very hard but I think the Jedi were kind of blind and stultified back then.
I think that Obiwan and Yoda were wiser by the time it came to mentor Luke. Luke’s uncle was a kind of a beta-mule pack horse that wanted to keep Luke away from the Rebellion but he must have been fairly capable and tough to survive out on the Tatooine Desert. It seems like he was successful in teaching Luke to be a reasonably good hearted and responsible young man (to the extent he had an influence on him).
I’ll put Anakin into the hopper of future post ideas.
@Esc. 31
We would welcome a Star Trek guest post. Let us know.
Let’s do a post bitch-slapping Harry Potter while we’re at it, and then maybe how Katniss Everdeen is a manipulative whore who disproves the feminist ideal by failing to do anything besides look pretty for cameras when the war finally starts.
Mmmm, fictional characters.
Spock, chicks dig.
Satanic, he appears
This was a good post from a game theory standpoint, but what it really reminded me, is that we all could have used a lot more pictures of Carrie Fisher in bikinis and negligee when she was between the ages of 21 and 30.
@Joe Blow 36
+1
Amongst my many flaws I have apparently misread The Hunger Games trilogy. I thought it was one of the most subversive pieces of political fiction I’d ever read. I thought Katniss was just the sugar coating for the bitter pill of the books anti-authoritarian/anti-government/anti-feminism polemic.
Space Seed was a great illustration of the power of dark alphas. Reminds me of contemporary reporterets going all goey over Castro.
I quite liked the Hunger Games trilogy as lightweight fiction to pass the time (apologies if I missed any major thinking points, they didn’t really feel like that kind of books).
Bit of three way love triangle (check)
Love triangle resolved acceptably (morally, without teh sex) (check)
Girl gets to dress up in fantastic clothes (check)
She’s kind of the heroine without being manly (check)
She takes no delight in killing (check)
Drunken old fart comes good (check)
Positive demonstrations of personal loyalty (check)
Life without a Dad in the house was harsh (check)
Takes action to help provision the family (check)
Takes charidee from nice boy (not too proud. realistic) (check)
I didn’t think that it was too bad, I can see why teh gurlz liked it, it was a totally tastefully tingly trilogy of teen trauma-lite with a wholseome young gurl centre stage to the action, but sort of removed from actually doing yucky things personally unless unquestionably forced into it. I thought that she was a good character while recognisably female – good stuff, liked that.
Much better than ‘Gurlz’ the tv show, ‘Teh Bonobos of Jersey Shore’, ‘Teen baby-mommas without conscience, agency or ability to think but with emotions and drama out of their wazoo (sp?)’ etc…
just a casual opinion
Red-pill mega-mall
http://radishmag.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/pump-and-dump/
links to all over the place in the manosphere and the boobospheres.
“Wazoo” is how I’ve always spelled it since St Francis of Zappa stuck it on an album cover, later ramming the point home by pairing it with the Oil of Afrodytee (sp?). Kinda hard to miss when yore skinnin up.
‘jf12“Maul killed Qui-Gon. Obi-Wan killed Maul. Anakin killed Obi-Wan … Anakin also killed Dooku and Palpatine (among many many others!), who killed Plagueis. Yoda was killed, basically, by the midichlorians ..”
I cannot rest easy at night until somebody tells me that Jar-Jar Binks has been killed. And a stake driven through his froggy heart. And they bring me his ears.
Gotta add my agreement with Khan in “Space Seed” as the “dark alpha.” Khan when he is looking at Marla’s paintings of famous conquerors and says, “Such men dare take what they want.” And he does. Great stuff.
#43 a better new ending to Return Of The Jedi would have Luke groveling at the Emperor’s feet beginning to turn to the dark side until Jar-Jar, improbably disguised with parts of a Stormtrooper’s armor, wanders along and accidentally knocks the Emperor down the reactor shaft and then shooting while stumbling a ricochet also breaks Vader’s breathing apparatus.
Esco, 5:
Thanks for posting that. I only made it through page 3 on the second link, but I got the gist.
Everyone on this board should read the links. Basically it’s about women giving blow jobs and how many average in a month or lifetime.
The averages range from almost never to twice a day.
Proving that one important measure of how much a woman is into you is how willing she is to go downtown. If she is into you sexually, she will be a happy, even eager, participant. If not, she wont. If your girl resists oral sex, know that she probably is just not all that into you.
Esco:
And note that some of these women were talking about husbands, and how the frequency of oral sex with their husbands had fallen off over the years.
Gee. I thought I’d heard somewhere how women never, ever marry men they don’t love and are not TOTALLY into sexually. I thought women always, always were totally hot for the men they married. I could have sworn I read that somewhere….
#46 all men and all women know this, but women force men to pretend to misunderstand to save face. MMSL has the unquestionably accurate relevant statistic :” the modern male faced with a smaller, insulting, toxic person not doing what they want, typically loses about 79.3% of his brain capacity to the task of overriding normal lizard brain functioning and NOT slapping her.”
#47 Last month Family Circle published its survey of tens of thousands of mothers.
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/valentine-moms-lovin-poll-article-1.1613145
Fully one-third of almost entirely married, almost entirely middle class, Family Circle readers and venturous survey filler-outers admitted having gone years without sex after having a child.
deti, I read through all four links. Perhaps not as carefully as I could have. But anyway, I noticed that responses tended to be in four general categories:
1) I was a huge slut before I married and blew hundreds of guys, but I never blow my husband.
2) I blew my husband before he put a ring on it, but not since.
3) I hate BJs and will never blow anyone. Ick!
4) [responding to the rare poster who claims to enjoy BJs and give them regularly]: Oh my poor hubby, I am such a bad wife, I hope he never reads this, lol.
All four are written in a jocular, triumphalist tone. There are a couple of truly hair-curling responses. One is from a woman who claims she can’t possibly remember how many guys she has sexed or blown. Her avatar is a pic of herself looking all maternal holding an infant. The second is from a woman who claims to hate it and to have given only two in her life—and brags that her husband was not one of the lucky guys.
You know, I really do believe—I think—that NAWALT. I really, really do. But threads like that make it difficult, they really do. I mean, nothing any man has ever written about the red pill is as powerful as those threads.
That whole forum, I may add, is the most compelling evidence I have ever seen that 99% of what the culture says about women is wrong.
Re: the Family Circle survey, note how the article spins it so that it’s the moms who are desperate. I’m sure that’s true in some cases. It’s a big country. But the overwhelming probability is that in most cases, when sex isn’t happening, it’s because she doesn’t want it. But that can’t be said aloud, so it has to be turned around and blamed on the man.
Also, deti, while I think you make many great points, I have long believed that you go too far when you say that the *majority* of married women are not attracted to their husbands. But now I wonder …
Roughly but accurately, 100.1% of women’s bad behaviors towards their LTR partners are intended to dissuade their LTR partners from sex.
Esco 52:
Regarding most women not being attracted to their husbands:
I think there are several things going on and it’s all brought about by the problems we all know about. Mostly it’s about women having sex with much hotter men in their youth, then settling for and marrying men who are not nearly as attractive as the men they used to have sex with. It’s really all about alpha widowhood; or if not that, then it’s about marrying out of fear.
And I don’t think it’s as simple as women NEVER being attracted to the men they marry; though it definitely happens. Exhibit A for that is Jenny Erikson, and I can think of a few other real world examples just among people I know.
I think it all falls into the following categories:
1. Most common is the woman who had a few sex partners before marriage, one of whom was a serious boyfriend who she loved and wanted to marry but it didn’t work out. She then has several more sex partners of varying seriousness before she settles on her husband for whom she has some attraction and affection. They marry, couple of kids; attraction and affection wanes over the years as he becomes more beta, his hairline recedes and his waistline expands.
2. Next most common I think is the slut who racks up a nice high double digit N with quite a few ONS and flings with STRs and maybe a serious BF or two. She is also an alpha widow because one or two of those guys were hawt as hell and could push every one of her attraction buttons, and sexed her juuuuuust right. She likes the guy she married, but he never really pushed her buttons, She hamsterized herself that her liking this guy and her genuine affection for him is “sexual attraction”. This marriage is almost certainly doomed to eventual failure. She isn’t attracted to him and never was. (By the way, the fact that she has regular intercourse with him doesn’t at all mean that she’s attracted to him.)
3. Then there is the woman who marries a man she’s not attracted to at all, but marries just because she wants to be married or expects to be married, or others want her to be married. The guy is her beta orbiter. This is what Jenny Erikson did, and I know of two couples just from my church who fall into this category. These women married these men out of fear and pressure – fear that no other man would want them; or pressure from the guy or from others. I suspect these are more common than we think. I would bet a lot of marriages that look like category 2 are really in this category but we don’t see the level of self-revelation the lovely and gracious Ms Erikson has blessed us with.
#52
It’s probably more accurate to say that the majority of wives gradually lose attraction to their husbands, and this happens earlier and more commonly than the other way around.
I think there are several things going on and it’s all brought about by the problems we all know about. Mostly it’s about women having sex with much hotter men in their youth, then settling for and marrying men who are not nearly as attractive as the men they used to have sex with. It’s really all about alpha widowhood; or if not that, then it’s about marrying out of fear.
I’m going to echo this strongly. This is a big one. Because of projection and solipsism, the vast majority of women really don’t understand the two ladders for men, and find it difficult to fathom that men will have sex with women they wouldn’t consider as girlfriend material. And this is where the simplistic, reductionist “restricted” versus “unrestricted” dichotomy misleads women. There are guys who would have sex with woman A but not commit to a monogamous relationship with her, but commit to woman B. FOR A WOMAN, PROPER FILTERING would be less about determining whether a guy is restricted or unrestricted since only a small minority will be in either extreme, and more about whether he seriously considers her a relationship prospect.
I’ve met a number of women over the years where there is some initial physical attraction, some “fun factor”, but over time various reasons pop up that you think “no way could I be in a serious relationship with this girl”. I remember one waitress who I was attracted to, and she was definitely into me. Now she was a hardcore NASCAR fan (negative right there FOR ME), cussed like a sailor, and had some cultural mannerisms I couldn’t stand. Still, she had some fun aspects as well. At the time, I did not have a monogamous girlfriend so it defaults to “this is good enough for now” type scenario. There is a enough attraction and fun to warrant spending some time with her, but way too many negatives to go all in with my chips. We messed around a few times with the furthest it going her giving me a handjob.
And I was in a monogamous relationship just 3 months later.
deti, again, what slays me about those responses is the bragging. Only one woman (IIRC) brags about satisfying her husband, and how that gives her satisfaction, etc.
The rest are all bragging about either their past sluttitude, or their present attitude (“I don’t do windows, lol), or both in combination (“I would do that for a hook-up but not for hubby, lol).
AFBB is supposed to be a myth, but these women are open about it. They wanted a husband/household/provisioning/(legitimate) children, and so they grabbed that stuff. But the husband is a commodity.
What I have noticed elsewhere is that sphere-aware women tend to very carefully hedge their language. They know what the red flags are and they couch their words so that everything they say maintains a veneer of plausible deniability that *they* are not like that. But those threads seem to show the “girls locker room,” if you will. Those are not sphere-aware women, and they are speaking freely.
And, amongst the girls, it appears that it’s “cool” to brag about how hubby gets nothing while your exes got the whole package.
Morpheus 56:
A couple of further thoughts:
1. This is really dangerous for men, because most women fall at the very least into my Category 1. If she’s in her early to mid 20s, there have been at least a couple of men before you; and it’s likely she really loved and was serious about one of them. It’s likely there was good sexual attraction between them, even if her status doesn’t rise to the level of alpha widowhood.
2. Almost invariably, most women who pursue the Category 1, 2 and 3 strategies end up married to men with SMVs roughly corresponding to the men who were showing relationship interest in those women when those women were at peak attractiveness.
I saw commenter Novaseeker express it this way: If you’re a woman, you can either (1) get married to a relationship/marriage minded man at 22; or (2) have sex with yummy hot men from age 18 to age 29 with whom you have an extreme longshot at a commitment; then when you fail at that, at around 30 you marry the man who would have married you at 22. And if you’re a woman, absent faith, you’ll opt for (2). And why wouldn’t you? The opportunity costs of (1) are simply immense. And, the man who would marry you at 22 is going to marry you anyway 8 years later, why not wait?
Well, the reasons for not waiting are becoming more and more obvious – alpha widowhood. Inability to bond. Infertility, STDs.
High N women probably do have alpha memories, but the cessation of frequent sex after a too-short honeymoon period is behavior that is also exhibited by low N and virginal women.
The vast vast majority of older women always claim that their best sex is with their longest term beta-est loving-est partner. And the same vast vast majority insist on having sex extremely infrequently. The quantity of sex desired by females, especially older females, is antipositively correlated with the quality of sex and with the quality of the relationship.
Here’s a rough out analysis of James T. Kirk.
1. Master of the frame. Consistently rejects others’ attempts at reframe and always able to redirect back to his frame. He doesn’t like the rules? He changes them, using fraud and deception if necessary. (See: Kobayashi Maru)
2. Surrounds himself with capable friends and coworkers. Able to extract the very best from each of them at all times. Has an uncanny ability to spot talent and ability in a crew member. Inspires to-the-death loyalty from his subordinates.
3. Has one close friend and confidant whom he keeps closer than his lovers. Kirk and Spock are the original television bromance. The relationship between these two men is borne of the deepest mutual respect, admiration, affinity and need.
4. Women are never, ever a focal point of Kirk’s life. At best they’re a fun momentary distraction.
5. The mission is most important. Never loses sight of the mission. Willing to sacrifice himself to the mission.
Deti, can you think of an episode in which Kirk used game the way Khan did? Because I can’t. He kissed a lot of chicks to be sure, but at best you would have to say he was just “a natural.” There didn’t seem to be any effort on his part. Women simply fell into his lap.
Esco:
Khan clearly out-alphaed Kirk every time Khan appeared. In Khan, Kirk met his match, and his alpha superior. Khan’s undoing was always hubris and megalomania. What always saved Kirk’s bacon in his clashes with Khan was his crew and his forward thinking.
Wait, I thought of one. Elan of Troyus. She was the spoiled bitchy princess he had to deliver to some husband as a diplomatic gesture. She was unbearable and when Kirk stood up to her and even smacked her around, she fell hard for him.
I saw commenter Novaseeker express it this way: If you’re a woman, you can either (1) get married to a relationship/marriage minded man at 22; or (2) have sex with yummy hot men from age 18 to age 29 with whom you have an extreme longshot at a commitment; then when you fail at that, at around 30 you marry the man who would have married you at 22. And if you’re a woman, absent faith, you’ll opt for (2). And why wouldn’t you? The opportunity costs of (1) are simply immense. And, the man who would marry you at 22 is going to marry you anyway 8 years later, why not wait?
Right…I mean at the end of the day it is an excellent strategy if you can pull it off. If the average to slightly above average guy could bang young hotties (8s on average) from 18 to 29 and then at 30 switch lanes to the decent looking Plain Jane who will be a good homemaker and wife, it wouldn’t surprise me if that strategy was followed to a large degree. But of course that is impossible for the average to slightly average man.
I can’t find the link now, but what struck me about a few of these women who had pursued more “alpha” types (like the woman with the Brazilian guy) and then changed lanes is how utterly plain and average looking they are physically. None of them break the 7 barrier, and I’m probably being generous to even give them a 6.
Now the key though…is for this strategy to work, the guy who she marries at 30 (or 28 or whenever she “changes lanes”) that would have been her natural counterpart to marry at 22-24 has to either A) Be somewhat ignorant to what has transpired or B) Be somewhat content to be the sloppy seconds second choice, to embrace what Lori Gottlieb says Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough.
What various Red Pill blogs and online sites do is expose the strategy and the reality of what is happening to full sunlight. I believe much of the furor, and attacks, and all the various drama is because for various strategies to work it is important that they remain hidden, misunderstood. Those who point at the naked emperor and say “he has no clothes” are attacked.
Esco 57:
It’s not just the boasting and the evidence which strongly supports AFBB. It unwittingly shows men how women talk to each other about sex when they think the men aren’t listening. And from this you can tell what a woman will do with a man she’s sexually attracted to versus a man she’s not attracted to. And what we see is that if a woman is into you, she’ll do pretty much what you want, including oral sex. If she’s not into you, she will let you do P in V, but she’ll balk at oral sex.
Re: the Family Circle survey, note how the article spins it so that it’s the moms who are desperate. I’m sure that’s true in some cases. It’s a big country. But the overwhelming probability is that in most cases, when sex isn’t happening, it’s because she doesn’t want it. But that can’t be said aloud, so it has to be turned around and blamed on the man.
I don’t know. I think this may be true. In an earlier excellent comment Bastiat hit on a great number of points (still been meaning to respond), but one of his points is we really don’t have a handle on just what impact the availability of online porn may be having. Deti has often used the term “attraction floor”. I think this is a very useful concept. What happens if and when a woman crashes below a guy’s attraction floor? At what point does he switch to more porn consumption?
Yes, I get that (I think I said that) but I still find it striking that, when the gals talk amongst themselves, they high-five eachother over NOT blowing their husbands, and over blowing non-husbands. That is something they are, apparently, all proud of. No explanation is needed. Girls just know that other girls will “just get it.”
“I never blow my hubby, lol.”
“You go grrrrl, me neither, lol!!!”
Gee. I thought I’d heard somewhere how women never, ever marry men they don’t love and are not TOTALLY into sexually. I thought women always, always were totally hot for the men they married. I could have sworn I read that somewhere….
Ha. I heard the same thing somewhere. We must be reading the same sites
“ What various Red Pill blogs and online sites do is expose the strategy and the reality of what is happening to full sunlight. I believe much of the furor, and attacks, and all the various drama is because for various strategies to work it is important that they remain hidden, misunderstood. Those who point at the naked emperor and say “he has no clothes” are attacked.”
All true. But I don’t think that this is what’s driving the increase in age at first marriage. At this point I don’t think it’s the fact that a lot of men are getting wise to what women are doing; because I doubt most of them are figuring out the strategy women are using.
I think what’s going on at this point is that most men are just dropping out because they can’t get anything, anywhere. They can’t get any traction with any woman of even middling value, they can’t get a woman who’s even minimally attractive.
It isn’t until they’re in their early to mid 30s they’re finding any women who are even remotely interested in them.
I took a lot of heat elsewhere for saying it, but one of my best filters has always been noting girls’ behavior when they’re drunk.
IMO, it gives a glimpse into the kind of person they really are when social politeness has been removed (works the same for guys too). Makes it a lot easier to get them talking about their pasts and their honest opinions on things.
Of course that was ridiculed as being manipulative and untrusting, while any kind of test girls employ is regarded as necessary and virtuous.
Morph, guys are probably not aware that it is a conscious strategy. And to some extent it isn’t even conscious.
But for the past 25 years there can’t have been a guy alive who didn’t know that he wasn’t his wife’s first. Guys just accept that, for a variety of reasons. They’ve been shamed into not caring, is one (though most do still care). The lack of virgins is another.
And I think the biggest reason is scarcity mentality. Most guys are not players and have no chance at being players. If they want sex and companionship, a wife or LTR is their only hope. Or at least so they think. Hence, they feel they have no choice but to accept the reformed slut.
Regarding attraction floors, I agree with the concept. I still would speculate that the majority of sexless marriages arise from the wife’s preference, not the husbands. IN cases where she bloats by 100 lbs, I could see it, but how many of those are out there? An extra 20 probably won’t, at least of she continues to dress OK, keep her hair nice, etc.
I can see preferring porn to a 2, but does any man prefer porn to a 5?
But after I wrote that, I remember Roissy put up a post recommending to take note of how your SO treats you while she’s drunk…
Does she act affectionate/want to jump your bones? Or is she easily annoyed and constantly pushing you away?
Obviously it’s not the only thing to look at, but I think it’s good advice… One of my good fridnd’s GF definitely falls into the latter camp, and it’s pretty concerning from my perspective.
I took a lot of heat elsewhere for saying it, but one of my best filters has always been noting girls’ behavior when they’re drunk.
Jimmy, that is money.
In vino veritas
#65 “if a woman is into you, she’ll do pretty much what you want” and also the contrapositive: If she refuses to do pretty much what you want just because you want it, then necessarily she is not into you.
Morpheus, 64:
“I mean at the end of the day [AFBB] is an excellent strategy if you can pull it off.
Thing is, Morpheus, I think most women who employ this strategy ARE pulling it off. The problem is it doesn’t make them happy and they still feel like they didn’t get what they wanted or deserved.
We all know the numbers. More than 90% of all women have been married at least once by age 40. These women are still finding men to wife them up regardless of their pasts. Today, the vast majority of women don’t make it past age 25 as virgins. Any man getting married now knows that he probably isn’t his wife’s first. He knows he’s not marrying a virgin.
So most women are still marrying. It’s just that many women are vaguely dissatisfied with their marriages because they know they had sex with more attractive men. And they know that the men who were willing to wife them up are the TRUE measure of their value. This is too much for many of them to bear. So, hubby doesn’t get blown, because she deep down resents him for not being as hawt as the guys she used to fuck.
Other bloggers can spin this till the cows come home; but this is what’s going on, and those discussion threads Esco linked to are strong evidence of it.
This is why I think it’s problematic to call it a “strategy,” unless a strategy can be subconcious.
#71 my principle stands. Her gaining 100 is one of the behaviors that is designed to dissuade her LTR from sex.
@deti
Your point stands but just a slight correction on the numbers, ~90% of white women have been married by 40-44 and 85% of all women have been married by 40-44.
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/more-grim-news-for-carousellers-hoping-to-jump-at-the-last-minute/
77. very effective indeed.
RE: Attraction floor:
Yeah, it really just names and describes a concept that all men are aware of.
The attraction floor is just the lower minimum threshold below which a particular man will not go for sex. If offered sex from a woman “below the floor”, he will decline even if he is so thirsty he’d chew water. He’d rather masturbate to porn than have sex with a woman “below the floor”.
Every man’s floor is different depending on the man, his situation, and surrounding circumstances. Most girls at 4 or above will be “at or above the floor” for most men.
Escoffier,
Perhaps “strategy” is the wrong word in that it attributes too much deliberate forethought. I think it is more an “evolution” over time. For the most part, I think women say 18-22/24 just don’t give much thought to really long-term and what type of guys realistically fit into that. They are just “going with the flow” and if the hawt smooth guy hits them up, they likely roll with it. It isn’t until they get burned a few times/several times/countless times over a number of years that maybe some introspection/reassesment takes place and that is when you see the “lane changing”.
I remember vividly a conversation I had with my sister with her relaying what several female friends had told her who were married with kids (she is not). It basically distilled down to “find a good enough guy who would make a good Dad” and settle on him. These are all women who would have been in their late 20s at the time. Do you think they were saying this at 18? 22? Of course not. So it isn’t a deliberate strategy planned several moves ahead (how many female Chess grandmasters are there?) but something that simply evolves one move at a time where you reevaluate where you are at that point, and then make a change or not.
Every man’s floor is different depending on the man, his situation, and surrounding circumstances. Most girls at 4 or above will be “at or above the floor” for most men.
IMO, a man’s “floor” is also connected to the level of his previous partners.
But that would constitute “changing lanes,” which we also know never happens.
But that would constitute “changing lanes,” which we also know never happens.
Correct. Women who are “alpha chasers” stay alpha chasers forever to 35, 40, 45, 60, and beyond.
Re: The infamous “Fap Floor.” Totally based on anecdotes, but I think that the porn/real sex indifference among men is now at about female SMV4 or even 5 for many guys. The indifference shows in how much effort will be made to secure a real sex opportunity.
The floor seems to be going up, probably in part because the quality of porn is increasing, hotter girls are doing it, and because men are getting better at the “skill” of creating porno virtual worlds to fap to. As the video game companies get more involved (they are predicting full-blown Herbivore stuff in the US), who knows what will happen.
Re: BJs. Perhaps declining frequency and quality of oral sex is a leading indicator about a relationship turning into a horrific transactional sex disaster scene, and maybe a woman’s enthusiastic BJ orientation towards a guy has a useful role in the AFBB construct.
I think there was an episode of “Cougar Town” in which this was discussed.
On the other hand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hXcY_PXq08
Re: Family Circle. Apparently a high percentage of American marriages are clinically sexless (<10x per year), and, interestingly, the men in said marriages are on average reporting that they are "very happy" with their sex lives.
Re: Kirk and Khan. I am extremely excited at the prospect of reading an Escoffier piece on the lessons of the Star Trek mythos, particularly where comparison and contrast of Jimbo and Khan Noonien Singh are concerned.
RE: AFBB, Changing Lanes:
For women who pursue the strategy, there is always an event which precipitates the lane change and the shift from AF to BB.
1. Most commonly, she got burned one too many times. She has decided that the hawt alphas have used her, pumped and dumped her, and tossed her aside for the last time. This is her “epiphany”, the
Helen Keller moment. This is when the light bulb has finally come on. She finally at long last realizes that these guys are not going to marry her, not now, not ever, and in fact they never were. Rollo has written extensively about this. (Why can’t these women “Just get it” and “Just figure it out for themselves”?)
2. Her indiscriminate sexual conduct finally caught up with her. She got knocked up. She picked up an STD.
3. The bio-clock roaring in her ears is too loud to ignore.
4. She had an LTR or marriage to an alpha, but the relationship/marriage ended usually with him cheating.
5. She lost a job or went bankrupt, and could no longer afford to live in the bustling sprawling urban area where all the hawt guys congregated. She’s returned home in disgrace. She’s failed at her job/career, and now needs a fallback option. She’s trying to please mom and dad, and not be a burden to them at the same time.
PS: By “high” percentage, I mean estimates of about 1 in 5.
Regarding female epiphany:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/12/19/the-epiphany-phase/
RE: 60-63 Kirk.
Kirk had high status as a starship Captain. He was good looking and had charm and charisma. One might say Kirk had very tight “inner game.” He didn’t have to build attraction because he had made of his life all the things women find attractive.
In “Shore Leave” we learn Kirk was a stack of books with legs at the academy and in “Where No Man Has Gone Before” we had Gary Mitchell having set up Kirk with a girl he almost married. “Shore Leave” suggests Kirk was prone to a bit of “oneitis”
Total agreement on “Elaan” being the more on par with Khan in a dark alpha way. Kirk is able to overcome the effect of her tears because of his dedication and love for the Enterprise and her mission.
You’d probably want to include “Mirror, Mirror” and his interactions with Marlena in your episode review.
On no woman ever changing lanes, this is from the horse’s mouth, so to speak:
“It’s literally like someone flips a switch. You calm down, you have different expectations, the drama isn’t as interesting anymore and you don’t indulge it,” Julie said. “Drama for the sake of drama is not interesting anymore. At a certain point you’re like ‘Am I really going to just hook up at a party? I’m 29!’”
Of course, that must not mean what the plain words say.
Re: sexless marriage.
Not surprisingly about 30% of post-menopausal couples are currently literally sexless, literally zero piv sex in the past year, and about 25% more have had sex monthly or less in the past year, making fully 55% of older couples clinically sexless. Maybe somewhat surprisingly, over 20% of younger couples (25-49) are clinically sexless. Sadly, but not surprisingly, only for the very youngest couples (< 24) are the majority of couples having sex anywhere near as frequently as men want it.
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html
Center for Sexual Health Promotion, Indiana University. Findings from the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Journal of Sexual Medicine, Vol. 7, Supplement 5.
If you’re a woman, you can either (1) get married to a relationship/marriage minded man at 22; or (2) have sex with yummy hot men from age 18 to age 29 with whom you have an extreme longshot at a commitment; then when you fail at that, at around 30 you marry the man who would have married you at 22.
3) receive a proposal (the only one you’ll ever get) at age 25 from a man that your religion deems unsuitable (therefore necessitating your rejection of him), and spend the rest of your life single and celibate.
jf,
Interesting stuff…I’m not sure what to make of this compared to some stuff elsewhere that seemed to indicate it was married couples having the most sex, and that married men have a lot more sex than single guys.
Of course, that must not mean what the plain words say.
There are those who are extremely skilled at spinning anything into “meaning” something else than what the words appear to mean in the English language. Of course, I’m just a simple-minded guy who lacks knowing all the context and emotional complexity behind the words to know what they actually mean.
Here’s the Kinsey table of sexual frequency:
http://www.justfourguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/KinseySexFrequency.png
Here’s the female frequency:
http://www.justfourguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/KinseySexFrequencyF.png
#93 Bastiat Blogger recalled estimates of 1 in 5. The fact of 20% (or so) being clinically sexless is well known. Although sometimes there is a tendency towards apples-to-oranges, such as comparing the subset of marrieds who aren’t sexless to the full set of singles, believe it or not most singles have even less sex than most marrieds. For example about 60% of singles of all ages had not had sex in the past year.
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html#frequency
Although definitely worse for older singles, about half of young men 25-29 had not had sex in the past year. So even apples-to-apples, marrieds have more sex.
@Spawny 40:
You know what, I too like “The Hunger Games”, and I’m talking about the film now, a lot more than I thought I would have. And pretty much for all the reasons you laidout.
Haven’t seen the sequel though, so maybe the thrill will be gone…
O.
From the chart above, single men have the least sex, by far.
29 or younger, married, have more sex than partnered.
30-39 partnered have more sex overall than marrieds but there is that blip up of 15.6% with no sex in the last year.
40-49, that no-sex blip bulges to 30% for partnered, but they also out-sex the marrieds at the more-than-once-per-week frequency range.
I remember reading somewhere that the ways that the terms “single” and “partnered” are defined on these types of surveys can be problematic because so many of those with any current sexual relationships tend to be identified with or to self-identify as being “partnered”.
Anyone have insight into this…?
all spot on, deti;-
1. Most commonly, she got burned one too many times. She has decided that the hawt alphas have used her, pumped and dumped her, and tossed her aside for the last time. This is her “epiphany”” and IME, the time that the charge “AMAB!” * appears on her bitch-shield, and feminism becomes entrenched.
Thus justifying the shitty, backstabbing, (barely) secret hate with which she condescends to being treated to the entire life’s work, wealth and commitment of the corresponding SMV man she is eventually “forced” to glom onto (for the sake of the cheeeldren or some such lie, fear of teh Cats more like. What happened to the Glorious Career, eh? It’s not like you were married with kids or nothin’ until then).
Bizarre. They demand everything be made “equal”, the high places brought low etc., except when it comes to sex and relationships. There, they will only accept an “unequal” man, i.e. a good few notches higher. An “equal” man must be ground into the dirt with one’s kitten heel on his neck, to ensure his inferiority. The rest are famously invisible.
*All Men Are Bastards
#95 request for Han. Can you post for comparison the png for the Percentage Of Women Reporting Frequency Of Vaginal Sex so we can has us a laff about the single women having more sex than the men until age 29, and then instantly having less. E.g. 72.3% of single women in their 30s had zero piv sex in the previous year, compared with 39.6% of single men.
“All the men I’ve been with have been vain, two-timing, uncaring meanies! It’s, like, a recipe for getting into my pants …”
‘cheeeldren’
A Leg-Iron fan?
#100 For this NSSHB questionnaire, if I recall correctly, “partnered” was defined as unmarried and having a mutually exclusive sex partner within the prior year. “Single” was then by definition not having a mutually exclusive sex partner.
Here’s the female frequency:
http://www.justfourguys.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/KinseySexFrequencyF.png
#58
This, of course, is built on the assumption that a 22-year-old woman isn’t capable of eliciting commitment from a man she’s attracted to. Which, if you think about it, says a lot about these women’s unspoken perception of their own MMV.
Again I wonder if women have only a finite amount of sex to give, it would make sense given their finite fertility, and frequent lack of orgasm. The sudden drop in sex after age 30 might have as much to with conserving the last drops of a limited resource, as it does with a lane change. Women have no trouble getting it when they want it, but the threshold to achieve the need to satisfy want is very high. Why is that? Is Hypergamy a way to maximize both aquisition of various resources (material, emotional, etc.) and minimize expenditures (pregnancies, time wasted with the wrong man, and sex generally)? Think of this in terms of “sponge worthiness.”
#106 thanks. Either partnered men and women have vastly different memories, or slightly different definitions of partnered …
Tam the Bam, 101:
Yeah, one response to “I’ve been burned by the players and that’s not gonna happen to me again” is as you said, which is “AMAB”. She hardens up and plays the wizened, cool as a cucumber “wont-get-fooled-again” chick.
But the common response I see is one of tacit “defeat” and acknowledgment of the cold hard facts. I see less indignation and more resignation. She’s at long last accepted that getting commitment from the top men isn’t an option. So she more or less resigns herself to marriage to a “lesser” man. The attitude is one of requiring “proof of good faith and commitment” from the men who will be willing to consider her. Her attitude is more like this:
“I’m really just a nice, sweet, good girl who spent lots of time looking for a good husband, but I wasn’t successful. I dated lots of men who were good looking and high flying, but either (1) they took advantage of me, or (2) I figured out they weren’t right for me. Besides, most of them just wanted to have sex with me, and we did, and it didn’t work out for one reason or another. Either way, I’ve learned my lessons. No more players or games for me. I’m going to do it the right way this time.”
This is where the lane change happens. It’s also the source of the hated “price discrimination”. Billy Beta, Eddie Steadyman, Louie Lawyer and Paul Plumber will pay full price and wait indefinitely for what Alpha McGorgeous and Harley McBadboy gor immediately and for free.
The funny thing is: This is the strategy that young women of 17, 18, 19 and 20 used to get Billy, Eddie, Louie and Paul to marry them right away at those young ages. And it seemed to work OK for a lot of them. The difference is now you have women in their 30s using that same strategy, rewriting and putting the best face on their histories to justify it. And it is still working, to a large extent.
#108 Occam’s Razor sez both the dropoff in single sex and the lane-changing are due to a single cause: the decreased interest from the strictly hottest men.
#110 “And it is still working, to a large extent.” Yes, but, one hopes it is not working as well.
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/11/24/more-grim-news-for-carousellers-hoping-to-jump-at-the-last-minute/
See comment #95. I added the female table so you can see the two close by each other.
#95 you gotta love the 23.1% of partnered 70+ women who claim 4 or more times per week. This outlier helps us decide between women’s faulty memories and men’s faulty definitions of partnered.
Spawny@104 [Tam pretends to ignore, as would otherwise have to admit to not having a scooby as to what that means]
Leg-Iron is a blogger from up your way. During the Brownstainovitch administration he used to do PC it’s for the cheeeldren pisstakes…
https://underdogsbiteupwards.wordpress.com/
Escoffier @71: “But for the past 25 years there can’t have been a guy alive who didn’t know that he wasn’t his wife’s first. Guys just accept that, for a variety of reasons. They’ve been shamed into not caring, is one (though most do still care). The lack of virgins is another.”
I’m doubtful that this commonly reflects a secular mentality these days. For such guys, marrying a virgin might well be a no go–since they themselves would rather try before they buy. After the sexual revolution, many men realize that there can be great variation in women’s ability and interest in sex. For guys with options, leaping with commitment into a sexual unknown can be more risky and unpleasant than committing to a low-mileage woman they can test drive.
Recently, I strongly advised a friend not to consider taking the leap with an early 30s virgin. I regard her disinterest in sex or supposed resolve not to have it (by then) as a red flag. If she were 25, say, my strong advice would turn to moderate caution.
There is honesty here, including about women
#118
Test-driving before marriage was pretty much the norm before the Sexual Revolution, so such male attitudes cannot be considered anything new.
#85, Bastiat: “Re: BJs. Perhaps declining frequency and quality of oral sex is a leading indicator about a relationship turning into a horrific transactional sex disaster scene, and maybe a woman’s enthusiastic BJ orientation towards a guy has a useful role in the AFBB construct.
I think there was an episode of “Cougar Town” in which this was discussed.
On the other hand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hXcY_PXq08“
Heh, had to delete my history after viewing that link before the kids got home!
I agree with the above, and her.
But the line, “for your boyfriend, or some guy you’re hooking up with” painted a funny image for me. Maybe something along the lines of what Badpainter was refering to as “sponge-worthiness” for the over-thirty set. I just can’t imagine husbanding (pun dat) up the energy to suck on a bunch of strange dicks over time. For MY man, highly enjoyable. But just for the benefit of some random guy thinking I’m the best fellater in a string of different hookups? Prostitution seems comparatively far more elegant and dignified. Just my .01.
@Obs #97
Signs aren’t good, though I’lll prolly flix it when it’s free (as the books were to me).
#122: I thought the film was actually very good, Spawny.
I like this triology, and the movie represents the book pretty accurately (though of course, there are differences).
Sie note: I wish the smilie was just a smile.
Like those buttons in the 60s. This wide mouthed, coprophagic grin seems a bit overdone.
Hmm, did not post my several smilies. Try this one within text ☺ for ordinary albeit unaccountably small.
Where is the Han Solo alpha smirk smilie?
Jf12, I only know how to copy and paste…but that small smilie is perfect! I’ll try it:
☺
I’m like an idiot savant on computers. Without the savant.
Squee it worked!
Re: 118,
This is my impression as “a middle-aged man” (Hi, SayWhaat!), but I think that’s hamsturbation. Men realize that virgins are not an option so they rationalize their concerns away. “Well, since she’s had sex, at least I know she’ll have sex! She’s not frigid!” Etc. Men are wired to want chastity or as low an N as they can get, for a prospective wife (or LTR). This I have found to be well-nigh universal. As Cail Corshev has often said, ask a guy “what’s the optimum number of cocks you’d want your wife to have sampled? How many more would she need to have tried for your to be happy?” The answer is “Zero.”
You can still “try before you buy” when your GF is a virgin before you marry her. I think it was Athol who said, if she’s not clawing at your clothes before you first bang her, don’t marry her. She’s either not into you, not into sex, or both. This idea that it takes a ride on the carousel to figure it out is, frankly, preposterous.
Beyond this, I would point out the parallel risks to the path you outline. More cocks = more chance of alpha widowhood. Great, your slutty bride likes sex, her N proves that. But, alas, just not with you. D’oh!
#85 @bastiat: The floor seems to be going up, probably in part because the quality of porn is increasing, hotter girls are doing it, and because men are getting better at the “skill” of creating porno virtual worlds to fap to.
I would argue the reverse. True, the cost of fake sex is dirt cheap, while its relative value is increasing. The real driver, though, is the cost of real sex skyrocketing with its relative value cratering.
I suspect it’s a combination of the two, with the driving factor being dependent on the man in question. No argument that the floor is going up overall, though.
“The real driver, though, is the cost of real sex skyrocketing”
Only for “betas” or “the 80%” or however you want to define it. For the minority of desireable men, sex is basically free.
Only for “betas” or “the 80%” or however you want to define it. For the minority of desireable men, sex is basically free.
Escoffier,
Bastiat had proposed what I think is a better model. Sex is traded in two different currencies. Currency 1 is “hotness and charisma”. Currency 2 is “provisioning ability and willingess to commit”. Sex is extremely cheap if the man is “paying” with currency 1. It is very expensive if he is “paying” with currency 2.
Re: 118,
This is my impression as “a middle-aged man” (Hi, SayWhaat!), but I think that’s hamsturbation.
???? You think 118 is SnarkWhaat/SayNothing? Well, if she is, she is welcome to comment here anytime and doesn’t have to worry about her comments getting deleted even though she appears to enjoy her petty tyranny as a mod over at HUS.
@118: You might well be right; I don’t know the numbers. But then it seems somewhat surprising if/that men would still have such a strong preference to partner with virgins.
@130: My perspective isn’t an ideological one; I have no need for hamsturbation; and I had in mind (secular) men who don’t fear alpha widowhood, despite being aware of the phenomenon. Since you’re dismissive about non-negligible possibilities that don’t conform to your view, there’s nothing worth discussing.
No, I don’t think it’s her. I was just referring to the last comment I made there. She deleted it and then sent me a private email which read: “That’s nice, but as a middle aged man, you will in the future refrain from making comments that are outside the purpose of this blog.”
I was not, AFIAK, formally banned, but after that I lost interest.
But, Morph, now that you mention it, 135 does read a little like her, doesn’t it?
Regarding the “substance” of that post, such as its, yes, I am dismissive of the notion that after 5,000 of caring about chastity men suddenly stopped caring after 1965. There is no question that attitudes have changed since then, but there are “non-negligible” ways that the change was forced and not sought, and forced against deep-seated beliefs and preferences. Once such response, from all people in all times and places and of either sex, when forced to change attitudes they don’t want to change, is to tell themselves “Well, it’s better this way anyway and here’s why.”
When the stated reason why it’s better is preposterous, you can bet that it’s a rationalization. The notion that your wife needs to have fucked around with other guys to prove she likes sex and won’t leave you stuck with a frigid woman is preposterous. It’s a pure invention of post-Sexual Revolution feminism, concocted to bully men into not merely tolerating but even celebrating female promiscuity, and (this is the kicker) into “manning up and marrying those sluts” when the time comes.
(As an aside, I have said and I do believe that “man up and marry those sluts” is overused and often indiscriminately applied in the sphere, but it absolutely fits the bill here. Were any modern male to admit to a female or feminized male “I like Jenny and she might have been the one, but I just don’t think I can ever get completely over her past,” the reaction would be fast and furious and entirely along the lines of “Man up and marry that fine woman whose past is none of your business, you insecure small-dicked loser. That is, you’ll be a loser if you let her go, but if you man up and marry her, you will have Done the Right Thing, which for a man means doing what we women want you to do. Which may not make you not a loser, but it will earn you our explicit approval, at least at first, until your betatude and insecurity alienate your wife, at which time we will as a matter of course take her side.”)
But, Morph, now that you mention it, 135 does read a little like her, doesn’t it?
IDK…I think you would need more snark/petulance.
Regarding the “substance” of that post, such as its, yes, I am dismissive of the notion that after 5,000 of caring about chastity men suddenly stopped caring after 1965. There is no question that attitudes have changed since then, but there are “non-negligible” ways that the change was forced and not sought, and forced against deep-seated beliefs and preferences. Once such response, from all people in all times and places and of either sex, when forced to change attitudes they don’t want to change, is to tell themselves “Well, it’s better this way anyway and here’s why.”
I think the cultural component has influenced where guys draw the line, and I think there is some variation amongst guys. Take a guy with a real high N himself. He might be more inclined to accept and not be too bothered by a somewhat higher N assuming mostly relationships, maybe a fling or two. But even that guy is going to balk if he finds out she was part of a gangbang. Early in dating my wife, I found out she had had a one-night stand. It viscerally bothered me because I thought she was “different” from most of the girls I was encountering in the bar environment. It took some time to work through it, but no doubt it was a process. But I think you are right, that is ridiculous to suddenly think something that mattered for a thousand+ years is suddenly irrelevant. It simply becomes a negative factor in an overall pro/con mental calculation.
“It simply becomes a negative factor in an overall pro/con mental calculation.”
I agree with this. My point was more, as my algebra teacher used to say, “isolate the variable.” Take two women, equal in every respect: looks, body, style, manners, education, family background, temperament, etc. One has a past, one does not. Which one will the average man choose?
I would venture that less than 1% of men view a past in and of itself as a net positive factor, something to be sought for its own sake. I know that players and guys looking for flings want to avoid virgins because the first time is usually lousy and she might turn into a clinger. But who thinks this way about a wife?
“Well, I might have proposed, but you simply haven’t ridden enough cocks, so …”
And, I meant to add, it “becomes a negative factor in an overall pro/con mental calculation” because there is no alternative. There are no virgins, outside of very small religious communities. And perhaps women who simply aren’t interested in sex (which is a real danger, I admit, but a very small one). Any woman with a normal sex drive these days will lose it very early and rack up a non-trivial N by her late 20s, which is the age before which she simply will not even consider marriage.
So, any non-alpha man who wants companionship and sex must make peace with her N out of necessity. He has no choice. He is not doing so because he genuinely views that N as a positive good, or even neutral. He’s doing it because he wants companionship and sex and to get that he must swallow (ahem) whatever reservation he has about her past.
This is a sacrifice that men—nearly all men—have to make in today’s SMP/MMP for which there is simply no parallel for women. I tried to make this point elsewhere a few times with predictable results.
For the minority of desireable men, sex is basically free.
And worth every penny.
#139 “I would venture that less than 1% of men view a past in and of itself as a net positive factor” undoubtedly accurate. It cannot be the case that women do not know this unchanging fact.
RE: 133,
I see what BB is getting at, but thinking it over, I think the price is still “high” either way. After all, the attractive man must be extremely attractive, not merely above average. Women thus demand a high price in hotness and charisma, just as high as they demand in “provisioning ability and willingness to commit.”
The difference is that currency 1 is far more effortless for the attractive man to achieve. He has these traits or he does not. If he does, he is in like Flynn. If he does not, he can try to build them, which takes effort, but the good news is, that’s more of a one-time investment. He learns game, upgrades his wardrobe, etc. Well, except for exercise, which must be continuous. So, he makes the initial investment, which raises his value a great deal, after which point he cashes in. And keeps cashing in for as long as he wants with as many women as he wants.
Whereas, the man who has only or mainly provisioning and commitment not only has to pay a high initial price, he never stops paying, ever. His wages are garnished forever, as it were. And for all that, he gets only one woman, whom he may not even be able to keep, AND he will still have to pay for her even after she leaves him.
So the price women demand is high either way. The difference, it seems to me, is less the “price” women demand but rather the “cost” incurred by men. The natural alpha incurs virtually no cost for sex. He is gifted by nature with the traits women want and he cashes in, pure and simple. The “learned alpha” or upgraded man incurs a high initial cost, and moderate ongoing cost, but this initial investment pays him dividends more or less in perpetuity. (To say nothing of the other benefits of getting in shape, etc.) The beta, on the other hand, pays a huge up front cost and then never stops paying.
@Liz
“coprophagic grin seems a bit overdone”
dammit madam, I didn’t need that image. I was perfectly happy just mildly disliking them without analysis of why, or worse; adding mental pictures to the why.
@Liz
good to hear that the film was liked. I’m sure to watch it as a freeby then.
I watched Archer series 4 last night and the night before…now that’s good stuff.
“dammit madam, I didn’t need that image”
Hee, hee. Sorry Swithy. I should have said “toothy grin”.
Hormonal day for me, and all (sorry for the overshare).
@Escoffier
“As Cail Corshev has often said, ask a guy “what’s the optimum number of cocks you’d want your wife to have sampled? How many more would she need to have tried for your to be happy?” The answer is “Zero.””
As every cock diminishes the bonding ability of a woman, according to analysis of the marriage/divorce stats (was it The Social Pathologist who did that analysis? Can’t remember), it shows that the male hardwired preference for virgins for LTRs and Marriage is well founded. The fact that women so frequently lie about their N shows that they know men’s preference.
A virgin till 30 does raise some issues of sex-drive and/or/vs religious convictions (other reasons exist). As a purely academic question, I believe I’d favour the virgin over the N>30, hell even over the N>10…or maybe 5. Very hard to judge what a
respectablereasonable N is for a woman aged 30 nowadays. I understand that women have sex drives too, it’s just that increasing N increases divorce risk.@Liz
“Hormonal day for me”
DOH! you done gone done it again!
have a nice, relaxed day Liz, you probably deserve it (I’ll grant you the benefit of the doubt, seeing as you’re a groupy).
I think Morph had it right (with my additions, ahem). Men today do a CBA. Hardly anyone outside religious communities will even consider marriage before 25 today and for many the cutoff is more like 30.
And, we’ve completely internalized the SR and the “normalization” of premarital sex that it’s just preposterous for a man to think he can find a virgin. So for him it comes down to three considerations: 1) Can I live with being alone? 2) Can accept this N? 3) Do I have what it takes to be a player?
For most men, the answer to #3 is “no.” Hence, it’s either celibacy or make peace with her N. Period, end of story. <5 is “acceptable” to most men. Hell, many would consider that the jackpot.
But no one considers it OPTIMAL or a good in and of itself, to be sought. It’s a concession we make so as not to be celibate.
My larger point is, this a concession made only by men. Part of the “cost” they incur that I described above. There is no parallel cost that women bear as a result of the SR. High N for a man is either a matter of indifference for her or a positive good (pre-selection). She gets the best of both worlds: the carousel and a husband, alpha AND beta, timed to her wishes. Men, on the other hand, compared with the old regime, give something up and gain nothing for it.
I’ve heard the rebuttal to this along the lines of “Men get to have pre-marital sex too.” Well, some do. Many don’t. And ALL men who eventually marry will have to marry an “experienced woman.” This was not true in the past, and to the small extent that some men did, the “experience levels” were much lower. Plus, again, this is something that men see as a negative and women see as neutral or positive. So, the attempt to draw an equivalency fails.
I think Morph had it right (with my additions, ahem).
I agree completely with your additions.
RE: the point that “women have sex drives too,” yes, they do. The problem is, they operate differently than men’s. Alpha widowhood, etc. The instances of men pining for a past lover must surely exist but to a far greater degree than women do. Hence the danger is far larger.
I would put it all this way.
Regarding attraction floors, men’s on average are much lower. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, 4. That is, men will always prefer higher to lower but they will be willing to get with a 4 if all other considerations line up. That could range from, she is in every other respect a perfect wife, to “I need somebody right now and you’ll do.”
In other words, for men women are somewhat commoditized. But with an important caveat. Men want women a great deal, much more than women want men (though this also has an important caveat, which I will get to later). Most men would take as many women as they could (until they got too tired) entire serially or as part of a soft harem. However, since this is impossible for most men, they have to settle on one. And they are going to settle because they want a woman very, very badly. The upside for men is that, since women are commoditized, almost any women above the floor (and with a decent personality) will do. The obvious downside for women is that “commoditization” undermines the “soul mate” narrative.
But there is an upside for women in this “commoditization” point which becomes clear I we examine how attraction works for them. Women’s floor is much higher, let’s say 7 (and that’s being generous). It’s a more fluid 7 because it is less looks-weighted than the men’s 4, but still when you factor in status, money, dominance, etc., women’s attraction floor is still significantly higher than men’s.
Men are not commoditized for women. She wants what she wants and is indifferent to the rest. Men are quite unhappy if they have to go years without a woman. But a woman can easily go years without a man if her only option is a suboptimal man. She won’t necessarily even be unhappy, much less burn with sexual frustration the way a man will. For her it’s USDA Prime or starve, and starvation surprisingly has no ill effects.
The peculiar irony is that when she has or can get attention and investment from Prime, she goes all in, completely nuts. Suddenly she burns in a way that most men never or rarely do (and if they do, the flame subsides quickly). For men, the “flame” is like a steady boiler: it never goes out, it’s always active, it’s always heating him from the inside, but he has learned to control it. Occasionally it flares up, but almost never as hot as a woman’s does and it always cools more quickly.
For her, it’s either flickering like a pilot light or raging like a furnace. And the object of her love/lust is in no way commoditized. It’s him or nobody—or somebody better.
Hence, there is in nature a fundamental and unbridgeable mismatch. Women can’t understand how men can’t just turn it off completely, the way they can with ease. Hence they think we are all dirty horndogs. And, for the 80% of us who fall below their attraction floor, dirty CREEPY horndogs. Thus, most women hold most men in contempt, at least as far as the potential for sex and relationships go.
For whatever reason, we (men) seem to understand them (women) better than they understand us. That is to say, we (en masse) don’t really understand them. But the vast majority of men do “get” that women’s sex drive is lower. This is a misinterpretation of the phenomenon, of course, but one that points to the truth. Women’s sex drive is not so much lower as it is all or nothing, on or off. When it’s on, it’s actually more intense. You don’t much read about men going to quite the reckless lengths that women will just to have sex with a paramour. About the dumbest thing horny men will do is cheat on their wives. They don’t tend to throw all caution to the wind and heedlessly destroy their whole lives. Think, e.g., Ginger and Lester in Casino (based on a real story, I might add). Not that many women do this but—like writing love letters to serial killers—it seems to be something that ONLY women do and hence something characteristic of female (base) nature.
Or, to borrow and paraphrase the language of my favorite philosopher. For in every society, these two diverse humors are found, which arises from this: that women think no man is good enough for them and men are angry that no woman thinks he is good enough for her.
Ugh, in the 1st graph that should have been “far LESSER”
#71, Escoff:
“I can see preferring porn to a 2, but does any man prefer porn to a 5?”
Alas, yes. Add a time axis to the man’s decisionmaking on this matter, and the farther out one goes the less mysterious and desirable sexual relations become. Motivation declines with familiarity. I’d say the floor rises over time for this reason, and because sexual relations are better understood in the *context* in which all sexual relations occur.
(I think one could say this about just any human activity: professional, sporting (exactly how many times does one wish to ski eventhe North Face at Crested Butte?), artistic (how many times does one wish to read the same book?).
Many ironies here, one of which is that as one’s floor rises, so does one’s evident diffidence. Meanwhile, this occurs just as the women become more intent (if not desperate) to score, close, lock down. And as we know, a proper diffidence enhances one’s desirability.
Of course, I’ve never looked at porn so I’ve no idea what it’s really like. However, I have heard from other mature men who are far more debauched than innocent me, that there is a real danger with porn consumption and the mature man: it will dangerously inflate one’s expectations for novelty, some basic sexual skills, and fulfillment, rendering the easily available female cohort (the nominal 5’s) even less likely to inspire. But that’s not the worst of it. When one finally encounters genuine hotness one may be far more likely to throw caution to the winds, compromise one’s filtering, and attempt to lock her down.
An anecdote (because that is what I do) illustrates a couple aspects of this:
Divorced at 42 after 23 years with the same woman (and in truth, I had never consumed anything stronger than centerfold images the entire time), I remained a committed bluepiller. My best flying buddy was 15 years older, and he was attempting to wake me the fuck up. (At the time I was dating an amazonian airline pilot, already a regional captain at 23.) Older buddy was in a longterm, successful marriage, but he had thirty years flying high-end corporate (thus spent his days in the company of the superprivileged, and his evenings in the company of whomever else was hanging around superprivileged flight crews).
“Well, it’s cool that you’re dating M., BV, though she doesn’t have the face that will hold up over time like your C’S (my ex’s). You’re going to find that to stay interested as you get older now, you’re going to need either young or strange.”
Basically, he was telling me that he’d lost interest in banging his wife, whom he otherwise doted upon.
At the time I thought he was speaking outrageous sexist lies. LIES LIES LIES! I thought. YOU CAN’T SAY THAT!
However, I still know M., and the Wall has been unkind. She’s engaged again, and she still is hustling me; I’ve no interest for that as well as I can now see her many other manipulations. Dodged a .50 there; he was right. Second, faced with the dilemma of personal pursuits or mundane sexual activity that had become mundane, he’ll take the hobbies.
Esco 151:
Extremely well said.
Though men want women, when you get all the way down to it, men want women mainly for sex. The interest a man has in companionship with a woman is decidedly in second place. When you get right down to it, the main reason a man wants a woman is for sex; and the primary “thing” of value she has to offer him is regular sexual access. Men want women, but men don’t NEED women. If he has to, a man will subsist on porn and avoid women altogether.
Though women want men, it’s more accurate to say (as you said) that she wants a man, the best man she can get, for sex. But more pressing, she NEEDS men, she NEEDS a man. Most women aren’t cut out to work 40+ years in a job to support themselves and kid(s). If they were cut out for it they’d do it in much, much larger numbers than they do. A few do so. Most do not. Most women I went to college with are working jobs but are on “mommy tracks”. The few women I went to school with who do not have children don’t earn enough to live on their own; and they need their husbands’ incomes. For women, it really is all about preserving as many options and choices as possible.
Deti, maybe I am a sap, but I think that for most men sex and companionship are close priorities. Sex may be more powerful, based as it is on biology, but I don’t think it’s a distant #1. Men like sex but they want to feel that the woman is into them. They want to be able to spill their guts from time to time. Etc. This is another reason why most men are not cut out to be players, even though most men have the biological urge to be a player.
BTW, one point I meant to clarify is that the upside of “commoditization” for women is that, because men are so much less picky, a woman can have a man whenever she wants, and if she is willing to look down from the summit, her pool of men is vast. She can’t quite have any man she wants. But her ranges of choices outnumbers the choice available to most men by 100 to 1 or more.
“proper diffidence enhances one’s desirability.”
Intellectually, I believe this, and yet I never see it in action.
#156: I think it’s the current form of the old, WASP saw: “Never complain, never explain.”
One of the things that is endemic to female discourse now is the aggressive, challenging, femme talking-point endless shit-tests. Components: ‘rape culture’, ‘patriarchy’, ‘empower’, all that stuff. Not giving a shit, nodding and smiling, and being indifferent to sexual outcomes seems to inspire raging attraction. Contrary to your impression, that’s *all* I see. It would seem that the only thing a guy has to do is refuse to debate (as if one could debate talking points) and refuse to criticize, while remaining what aloof in regard to scoring? They always come back. They just never go away. Also, Roissy #14.
Like I said, I don’t disbelieve; but belief is literally all I have because I don’t see the evidence.
#85
I see no evidence that the quality of mainstream porn has risen over the years/decades or that women who enter the porn biz are more and more prettier. A much more simple explanation is that porn is more accessible. If a man wanted to watch porn 20 years ago, he either had to shell out big bucks to pay for cable TV that had porn channels, or buy a VHS player and actually walk/drive to a video rental shop and shell out money to rent tapes. Yeah, one had to actually leave the house to find porn. Imagine that! Today all you need is a computer that works and reliable Internet connection, and you don’t really have to spend much time seeking out the specific stuff that you like, if you have peculiar tastes at all.
#153
It’s not just porn. Mainstream media and entertainment as a whole paints an unrealistic picture of average female quality. How many fat, disgusting, ugly women do you see on TV? How many do you see in real life? Look at female characters in TV series and movies. Most of them are either hot or above average.
“Well, I might have proposed, but you simply haven’t ridden enough cocks, so …”
ROFL
#143
Donal has a plausible theory that women’s sexual behavior has indeed changed considerably, but their general attitudes towards sex actually hasn’t:
sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/women-are-heavily-influenced-by-mens-opinions/#comment-50459
If I run into an ice queen, I’ll just walk away. No point in wasting time on someone who clearly isn’t interested…
Re: N > 30
http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/lindsay-lohan-s-list-of-a-list-lovers-exposed-handwritten-list-reveals-lohan-s-hollywood-hookups-with-zac-efron-adam-levine-justin-timberlake-and-more-35972
25 going on 47.
@Han
I’d like to see you review “3:10 to Yuma” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381849/), a film dripping with testosterone and filled with alphas. The outlaw Ben Wade is massively alpha and puts a move on Mrs. Evans right in front of her husband. Her husband does some effective mate-guarding, showing his own alpha status. Even a despicable bully is an alpha and the young Evans boy as well. The Pinkertons are alphas and so is the veterinarian. Only the railroad guy is a beta.
Very enjoyable film and very redpill.
@theadsgamer
I have put it on my list to watch. From there I’ll see if I get inspired to write a post on it.
You’re welcome to write a guest post on it and we’ll put it up here (though consult with me/us first about the broad outline).
@Liz & Obs
have just watched ‘the starving games’ on your netflix. Not saying that it was a great film, because it wasn’t. But if you’ve seen the original it does have a few LOL moments…watch when in a very indulgent mood…
two diverse humors are found, which arises from this: that women think no man is good enough for them and men are angry that no woman thinks he is good enough for her.
Hence the reason that humility was stressed more in girls than in boys.
“When did she start to have feelings for him? Was it sooner or only once they were in the asteroid field? Was Han delusional or irrationally self confident before or could he sense she liked him too and was simply denying her feelings?”
Ok since nobody else has gone here, I will answer my best guess based on female intuition… She felt it on first sight and hoped he had too. In fact her “bitch shield” was likely even higher because of it. No intergalactic princess and alpha female wants to get played a fool, after all.
And a follow up question to ponder. Had Leigh folded on first sight or copped to her attraction, how would Hans have responded? By confessing his at first sight attraction as well? Dropping to one knee? Or by freaking out and jumping in the Millennium Falcon, heading at warp speed for the closest hyperspace jump (perhaps after a quick royal romp for the road?)
Or had Hans made his interest known, would the “bitch shield” have come down sooner? (Maybe) Leigh been repulsed? (Probably not.) or start plotting her afbb strategy? (Very unlikely.)
Imho neither Leigh or Hans know if they hold the love lotto ticket and so they dance around it, testing the water and building the bittersweet tension. While at the same time battling the larger forces of evil, as well, a passion they can safely agree upon openly, allowing continued contact.
Ain’t love grand? Good thing the force is with them! (Interesting they eventually marry!)
#169 “He certainly has courage.” Leia’s first positive words about Han, spoken to Luke. Up until just then, Han has come off as an oaf, a slow-witted incompetent unfunny reluctant clown making a series of dunce faces, NOT a reluctant hero. It was Luke’s force of will which insisted on saving the Princess. It was Luke and Luke alone who came up with the daring plan to use captured stormtrooper armor to pretend to have Chewbacca as their prisoner. It was Luke who bluffed their way to the right cellblock and released her, and it was Luke who first took the brunt of her contempt, with her remarks about his small stature and lack of intelligence, but it was Han who messed up by dimwitted failure to communicate a cover story and drawing the guards down, and it was Han who nearly killed them all with the ricocheting blaster in the garbage compacter.
Han’s lunatic charge at a squad of troopers was unnecessary bravado and did not buy any extra seconds for Luke and Leia’s escape, since the way back to the ship was cutoff anyway, unlike Obi-Wan’s later requisite self sacrifice. But it was good for comic effect, and to get Leia’s notice.