After reposting my seminal essay on Vagintine’s day last week an interesting topic arose. One of my assertions in the V-Day post was that a man ought never to buy his wife or girlfriend lingerie as a gift for Valentine’sDay, and, by extension, any other occasion, special or otherwise. As I considered the input from both Sunshinemary as well as commenter ‘Lingerie’ (odd for a male commenter, OK) I began to come to a better understanding of why I’ve always promoted this principle.
This is Lingerie’s take:
This is nuts:
“Note: Never buy a woman lingerie, she will never be happy with it. A woman has to do this on her own to “feel sexy”, make sure it fits her right, and it’s HER IDEA. When you buy it for her it’s contrived and it is overt and overt is often the kiss of death for a try-hard guy.”
Women in my home wear what they are commanded to wear. It’s not a decision left to them. In the beginning of a relationship I have to train them on proper apparel, which means taking them to the store and having them model garments for me so that I can show them what works and what doesn’t work, and why. After that, they know what clothing for themselves to buy for me so that I don’t have to go shopping with them.
This was Sunshinemary’s (albeit christianized) take:
LOL. Of course you should buy your wife lingerie. So what if she thinks it’s “really a gift for you”? Isn’t her body supposed to be a gift for you per 1 Corinthians 7:3-5? She should be happy you still want to see her in it.
In the interests of full disclosure, in the past, I have bought lingerie for both past girlfriends and Mrs. Tomassi; and I have learned my lesson. This is a lesson in genuine desire versus mitigated, obligated desire. If a woman doesn’t take the prerequisite effort on her own part to want to make herself more desirable and more sexy for you as your fuck-buddy, your girlfriend, your fiancé or your wife, you are not her first sexual or mental priority. It’s a simple as that.
Whether it’s the result of a prior ‘training regimen’ as in Lingerie’s case or the gift giving scenario Sunshinemary alludes to, the effect is the same – a genuine desire to please someone is always preferable to a coerced obligation to please them.
As I’ve stated before, a woman who want’s to fuck you will find a way to fuck you. If a woman needs to be ‘trained’ to be more sexual and less self-conscious than it takes for her to take the minimal effort to buy something to make herself look and feel more sexually appealing and less self-conscious to fuck you, then you’re dealing with a woman who (at least subconsciously) believes herself to be of a higher SMV status than yourself. In other words, if she has no desire to buy things, or prepare herself to be sexy for you, to entice you, to make your sexual experience with her more memorable than her prospective sexual competitors – you do not merit the optimization of her hypergamic interest, and her involvement with you is predicated upon something other than your genuine sexual appeal to her.
As I’ve elaborated before The Medium is the Message; when single women painstakingly prepare themselves primping and preening before a night out with her girlfriends to meet random guys – that medium is the message. When every look, every clothing option, every makeup and accessory selection is carefully considered to draw potential sexual attention to herself, the message is pretty clear – she’s making an effort to be more attractive for what she values as a reward. Women who are experiencing the hormonal changes associated with the proliferative phase of their menstrual cycle (just pre-ovulation) have a psychological predisposition to want to fuck the ‘good genes’ Alpha. This phase-condition also triggers shifts in female ornamentation; in other words, when women ovulate they dress to impress.
When a woman will put forth this concerted effort to achieve a socio-sexual reward, yet later fail to, or discontinues her previous efforts to, make the same effort to sustain your socio-sexual interests in her, that medium is also a message she’s broadcasting; she perceives your status (SMV) to be less valuable than the effort necessary to sustain your interest in her.
That isn’t to say every sexual instance you have should always be this side of professional porn, but it is to say that sexual spontaneity and her maintained effort to please you of her own volition are indicators of her perception of your sexual market value (SMV) as well as the biological dictates of her menstrual phase. In other words, (perceptual) Alphas get the ornamentation and enthusiasm of women who want to impress, Betas get the comfy, phone-it-in sex, after doing the convincing.
A Gift Must Be Given
Isn’t her body supposed to be a gift for you?
Yes, but a gift must be given, not taken by force or by due, else it’s not a gift anymore.
One principle I always suggest for Men spinning plates is that they make their attentions and interests in a woman a reward for that woman’s efforts and investments in him. From a PUA perspective this a flipping of the feminine script of qualifying for her rewards, but it’s a very important principle to understand and internalize on your own. Dread Game is founded on this principle, but it goes beyond just this utility – your merit, your attention and what it’s worth for a woman to invest herself in it will set the frame for any future relationship you have with her.
When that attention is given too liberally or a guy, as the result of his feminized conditioning, thinks women want full disclosure of feelings and a man gives his attention away without some kind of earning it dynamic on a woman’s part, his attentions become effectively worthless to her.
I’m prefacing with this because it’s important to recognize the value a Man’s attention has for women when you are assessing her real estimate of your personal value. Generally, women aren’t going to overtly give a man she’s involved with an honest assessment of his value to her. This is part of him Just Getting It and the unspoken understanding that he does get it, and on some level does understand what his value is to her. An Alpha doesn’t ask direct questions about his own status with women, he intrinsically understands it as reflected through women’s behavior around him.
However, women rarely disclose a Man’s impression on her – in fact the only time a woman is prompted to reveal ‘what she really thinks’ about a man is during or after a breakup. Rather, her continued assessment of him in a relationship (long or short term) is expressed in her attitudes, behaviors, physicality, ornamentation, and her willingness (or reservations) to want to please him.
I have a real tough time with the concept of a woman’s sexuality being a gift to give to a man. When a woman perceives a man’s SMV (or Alpha assessment) to be less than what her hypergamy could merit (realistically or not) for optimization, that is when the gifting-of-sex social convention becomes the dominant psychology for her. For a man who doesn’t merit it, or a Beta provider unused to the ‘reward’ of sex, this gifting becomes a situation of intermittent reinforcement of desired behavior (your continued Beta provisioning and comfort).
One, feminized, social indicator of this dynamic is a constant, male-psychological condition of self-deprecation. For example, I mentioned in last week’s post, most Valentines Day card’s messages from men to women is one of an unworthiness of her divine love, sex and patience with him. Essentially it’s a precondition of never meriting her intimacy. When this is a man’s operational psychology with respect to women, it only serves to perpetuate his qualifying for her gift and telegraphs his status of (at least mentally) being Beta. Men often ask me where the dynamic of pedestalization comes from and why it seems to be men’s default psychology with regard to women, its root is in this gift-to-merit social/psychological dependency.
Alpha Fucks & Beta Gifts
As with the woman in my illustration in Good Girls Do, Alpha men, or men that women preselect as possessing Alpha traits and attitudes, aren’t “given the gift’ of her sexuality, she simply has desired sex with him as opportunity and environment allow. The conditional reward, or sex-as-gift dynamic isn’t even a consideration, only sexual urgency and opportunism as buffered by the filters of her conscience, convictions or emotional barriers (or lack thereof). Alpha fucks isn’t a gift, it’s desired sex of opportunity and urgency.
I think it’s worth pointing out the obvious contrast this gift dynamic has with regards to the man who’s wife was provably more sexually adventurous in her past than she ever was with him for the duration of his marriage – Saving the Best. That post, and the 700+ comment thread that followed were cause for a lot of righteous indignation from men who’d also been on the receiving end of being sold one sexual personality, but later discovered his wife (previously or concurrently) had quite another.
As callous as this is going to sound, while I can understand feelings of betrayal at the duplicity, I also understand the mechanics behind women’s dualistic sexual strategy. The most common criticism of this husband was that he was a fool for ever having married a woman unwilling to give him her best sexually. He should’ve seen the red flags and avoided investing his life, and the life of a child, in a woman with sexual hangups,..with him.
It’s very easy to be an armchair life-coach after the fact, but I’m not sure most men realize what those red flags are when they see them. Most men, by way of a lifetime of feminine sensitivity training, take women at their word rather than see the message in her medium. They never have the opportunity to truly grasp the socio-sexual strategy women employ over the course of a lifetime to optimize hypergamy and Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks. And even after he’s been on the sharp end of that equation, most guys still don’t want to believe her medium was ever the message.
If a woman is reserved with you sexually, if her conditions for being sexual are based on a perceived reward or a gifting mentality, that is the message. If a woman needs convincing to be more sexual with you, that is the message. If a woman is sexually aggressive with you, if she exhibits behaviors that indicate she’s planning to create an environment that would facilitates your having sex, that is the message. Women who are into you won’t confuse you. Understand the mechanics of how her sexual strategy works, how the particulars of it are manifested in her words, attitudes and behaviors, and how to leverage it to your advantage or see the warning signs in it, and you will be better prepared to see those red flags before you invest yourself in a woman worth or not worth investing in.
February 20th, 2014 at 6:06 pm
I’m sorry, what?
February 20th, 2014 at 6:08 pm
@ DeadTree:
No? Don’t be so confident of that, I’m pretty perceptive (even though you may not like what I have to say).
I see very little evidence of “perception” on your part; you’re all over the map. Projection maybe.
Broken-hearted nice guys? Catastrophically broken person. Little idea about what he wants?
That’s not perception: that definitely projection and wish-fulfillment. Typical feminist and female-imperative bullshit. Anyone’s “liking” what you say is irrelevant; what you say is simply wrong.
And I said nothing about sex being a transaction.
Combined with extreme lack of self-awareness and reading comprehension. You directly equated being “hot” as the better way to “pay the bills” Even if you try to argue that being hot has nothing to do with sex, you’d be disingenuous because withholding sex is often part of the transaction.
It breaks my heart, but that’s the world we made.
Speak for yourself and your feminist sisters this is the world you made. You broke it, you fix it. We’re just rationally adapting.
Those people have to accept less than the best. That may include you.
If they accept less than the best in themselves or others then they are fools. It no longer applies to me. Five years ago I lost 50 pounds, have been a regular in the gym, gotten a better job and, even as a middle-aged man, have little problem attracting attractive women. Your self-esteem may be low, mine’s never been better.
Do you have the will to make sex back into being a sacred duty, a marital gift, or do you think that all you should have to do for it is pay the bill?
This is where you are all over the map. Above you claim that women use their looks and sex for personal gain. As for changing the paradigm, it’s not my job–or indeed the job of men in general–to return society to the previous state of dating and marriage 1.0.
Talk to your feminist sisters. Until they throw in the towel, they’ve made this sexual market place. Sex won’t return to a “sacred…marital gift” until women want it to be so and act congruent to that. Women sometime say, like you do, that women want that but their action completely deny. If you want sex to be a sacred marital gift, why do you say that Sex doesn’t have to come with the complications of marriage, its usually better when it doesn’t. You don’t want marriage, therefore you don’t want sex to be a sacred marital gift. You want unbridled sex with the same marital respect (and potentially financial benefits) of marriage, but only on the part of men. Sorry, not happening.
And since we’re apparently all just broken nice guys with low self-esteem with hostility problems, why the fuck should we bother. (Though the reality is that more men are adapting quite well. You just don’t like it. Too bad.)
Could you guys maybe wear a certain color shirt or something to tell us which of those guys you are before we date you? Dating men is like a psychological fucking minefield.
See, guys, Game works! And no, we won’t wear colored t-shirts. You’re more likely to find us well-groomed, rocking a tailored suit. And that’s the point, dearie.
But enough of your rather idiotic, boiler plate feminist ranting. You’re not confused by what you read here, you’re willfully blinding yourself.
It’s been amusing, but I’m out of here. Have a date tonight. And a FWB is visiting this weekend…
February 20th, 2014 at 6:12 pm
Ok thank you Rollo, you have yet again backed me up with more content that apty illustrates my point.
Thus it is even more unsurprising, then, that women in the post-feminism-yet-still-commodified future have become confounded with their historically, culturally and religiously sanctioned inability to make their bodies into something other than a gift for men. So now, we have three choices: 1) we have the freedom to choose the “traditional” path, 2) the freedom to exploit the rules to our financial advantage, or 3) the freedom to dissociate ourselves from those archaic ideas that bind us socially.
Most women in this scenario opt for either 1) or 2), which are versions of what I call “empowered compliance”, because they are choices that are guaranteed to validate our externally obtained sense of worth.
I’m not even kidding a little bit when I tell you how incredibly hard it is to give women positive encouragement to invest in their internal worth instead, that self-worth is far more valuable than supply-demand can ever be, because validation is far too powerful a motivator for an insecure person.
February 20th, 2014 at 6:22 pm
The problem inherent in all 3 of your ‘options’ is that women’s motivation to have sex either as a gift or a commodity is still prompted by their biology.
Alpha’s get gift sex, Beta’s get transactional sex. So sayeth the goddess of biomechanics
February 20th, 2014 at 6:24 pm
And Rollo, its not that I’m not willing to engage you on the horridly oversimplified, one-dimensional evo-psych theory of human interaction, its just that its only of scant relevance to the topic. You seem to haphazardly drop them in to the comments section to create a shiny thing to derail the conversation, like you think it’ll make me predictably freak out and put on a histrionics display for your buddies. Not gonna happen. I’m not that easy to manipulate.
February 20th, 2014 at 6:26 pm
Your loathing of options 1 & 2 are well noted on many other comment threads here, but I wonder if you ever take a breath and consider why those option came to exist in the first place.
February 20th, 2014 at 6:27 pm
@ Rollo – Could part of the problem be that LT and many others have so internalized this “social construction of everything” crap that they believe they can ‘think’ their way to any new state they desire for human relations and society? The entire Gender Studies crowd believes so. Yet evidence for the primacy of biology grows every day.
February 20th, 2014 at 6:28 pm
LT, you dealing in how you think things ought be, I deal with how things are.
February 20th, 2014 at 6:35 pm
Does it derail the conversation you’d like to have for your own affirmation, or does it derail any validity you thought your argument had?
February 20th, 2014 at 6:46 pm
Oh yes, I’m well aware of it Rollo. My point, here and everywhere, is that options 1 and 2 do a disservice to us all – they are both created out of a scarcity mentality. It is not a desirable or stable mindset to be in, long term, and the only way it can be sustainable is if there are protections (ie. marriage without the option of divorce) to prevent loss. Insecurity. Possessiveness. We’ve gone through all this already.
Yes, evolution, I say, because it is (or hopefully will be if we continue to work on our inner strength) a social progress to be unbound by the conventions that make us into servants. It may seem ugly now, so many guys in the manosphere seem to believe that the dissolution of traditional marriage is detrimental to us as a society, but by thinking so they are fighting against the truly transformative potential of it!
Transformation is always painful, but it IS what you needed to become more genuinely confident, is it not? Isn’t that a good thing? Wouldn’t it be fantastic if we all had healthier outlooks on sex, and about ourselves and our own intrinsic worth that wasn’t based on what other people want us to be? Isn’t that the goal? Or am I wasting my time here?
February 20th, 2014 at 7:43 pm
Point being, it is our clinging to outdated traditions which no longer serve us that makes us resist against personal transformation. If we behave the same way, forever, we cannot possibly change. Tradition and biology are kind of corollary in keeping us down as a civilization. Biology cannot genuinely be overcome, at least not with much ease, but tradition can be, and it is, by its very nature, the exact opposite of transformative.
If we are, or were, actually benefited by our cultural traditions, I’d say heck, maybe this feminism thing was a total waste of time. But I just don’t see that, and I think maybe, just maybe, you guys might be coming to that point in your lives too.
I dunno, I could be totally wrong about this. :)
February 20th, 2014 at 8:17 pm
when you have sex with a woman there are only a few alternatives in her mind…
1.) it’s a ONS and has no meaning ….
2,) it’s just casual which means either that she will later try to ramp it up into a full relationship though all manner of manipulative and emotional games OR her or you will end it…. or it will just fail off when she or you move on…
in both 1.) and 2.) you are open to gossip, games, hassle, hearing all her BS. (even rockstars say they get fed up with listening to groupies drivel.) and aside from getting sex of extremely variable quality, with a certain amount of disease risk … you will also tend to spend money on her more than she spends money on you… you will also spend a certain amount of time and energy wooing her, arranging dates, taking her out or even the best players have to put time into SMS game etc. etc. …. while she sits back and enjoys the ride….AND The sex is generally about the man going at it like a bull… and her being the judge of your performance.
While your value may be enough to get her panties off in the beginning, there will rapidly come a time when she will question the transaction that is taking place, and angle for more value. At the very least you will constantly have to play a game with her to validate her and that will slowly escalate as she gets more comfortable…. first you are a mountain to climb but later you are a summit to stick a flag on…. then she slowly wants more and more value, until it either ends or she gets more of what she wants. If you ditch her you have to repeat the process all over again, with a not inconsiderable amount of time and energy (and risk).
THESE are all unspoken rules that even the best of players are governed by…. and many men enjoy this kind of chase…. however even the best of players agree that the novelty wears off… options 1 and 2 are therefore good only as a temporary passing phase in a man’s life… something you grow out of…
3.) You move beyond 1 and 2 and are in an LTR… this provides in theory more steady access to sex, with a better risk reward ratio on many fronts…. HOWEVER it’s all in return for a massive truck load of unspoken covert contracts that are put in place on bothsides and even an army of lawyers could never type out her side in full… PLUS the transaction is subject to constant change and re-evaluation on her side.
4.) You see sex for what it is … a transactional interaction between two people… thus instead of angling for value, ‘gaming’, dominating, and all of this manipulative monkey business…. basically bartering with no way of defining who is truly getting the best value… (pay peanuts get monkeys) – instead you firewall the whole mess and make it purely transactional…. the most basic and hassle free way of doing this is with MONEY – although there may be other ways, its quite clear that most of them DO NOT WORK, or work only in a roundabout way and cause endless confusion, mistrust and manipulation on both sides.
Imagine a boss that hires people and does not pay them, they work only for fringe benefits and because he is a great and dominant leader… well it might work in a revolution where there is some massive ideology or common cause, but not in day to day business.
The upside to making sex a transaction is not only the removal of all time and hassle needed, but also completely tips the balance in the buyers favor so that there is no gift, game or ‘hope’ involved, you simply ask for what you pay for and expect to get it….
In this situation you can have all manner of sexual interactions that are not dependent on your performance IN ANY WAY. She will serve you however you wish.
If 99% of hetero men are honest with themselves this is what they want… and that is why the brothels of the world are doing a roaring business 24/7/365. A wife can compete on some pseudo emotional BS level of emotional fluff, but never in the bedroom, because few wives even entertain learning the skills that working girls have. They’ve never been put into a position where they have to make the effort to treat a man properly in the bedroom, and most women will do almost anything to avoid this situation because it means putting in REAL work and REAL effort.
call me an asshole… but if you wife can’t do Swedish massage, prostate massage, dress up like a stripper and do deep throat and all manner of sexual antics…. she’s not really trying.
February 20th, 2014 at 9:05 pm
@LostSailor
I’ve actually seen women say this, out loud, to mixed company, on multiple occasions. Women like to convince themselves of nonsense in this regard.
@livingtree2013
You should ponder that before you put wear-and-tear on your keyboard with little more to gain than the disdain of people who think.
February 20th, 2014 at 9:12 pm
Richard, have you read this post? http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/09/services-rendered/
LT might lose her mind over it, but it goes into what you’re saying here.
February 20th, 2014 at 9:36 pm
@LT
“Women have only learned to treat sex as a commodity because of so very many centuries of being reinforced to believe it.”
You’re neglecting evolution. Even female primates (no written language, no capitalism) trade sex in exchange for comfort, for association with alphas, for protection from alphas, for political advancement, for status (female primates will moan more loudly when mating with a high status male) and to obtain sperm from alphas — even the notoriously gynocentric female Bonobo exhibit these behaviors.
February 20th, 2014 at 9:56 pm
@WitheredUpandDriedOutTree – You are wasting your time here, yup. Except as a demonstration of gynocentric lunacy that is…
February 20th, 2014 at 10:01 pm
@ Richard – The problem with prostitution is that it’s not out of her desire, it’s a transaction. Casual sex with a woman who wants to have sex with you is totally different. I’ve had sex with prostitutes and while mechanically it can be fun on its own terms, it’s actually not a substitute for the real intimacy that comes with a women who desires you. Desire can’t be negotiated – and cash for sex is the most pure negotiation there is. It does have the benefit of being transparent but for me, it’s just not as satisfying.
February 20th, 2014 at 10:22 pm
You may hold Dr. Phil in much regard, but he was correct about arguing with a right-fighter.
February 20th, 2014 at 10:23 pm
-May not hold- meant to say
February 21st, 2014 at 12:01 am
[…] Rollo’s recent post is about not buying lingerie for a girl, as she should take it upon herself to express her level of […]
February 21st, 2014 at 12:06 am
It’s true that you can’t negotiate or demand desire, however it’s also not true. Just as if you force a smile you will feel happier, if you force a girl into the exterior situations of displaying shared love, her brain will look at what she’s doing and interpret it as a sign of an internal emotion. So you can and should enforce outward signs of devotion from a girl, such as telling her what to wear and even what to say. “Say I love you Daddy! Say it!” Silence. Slap!! “Ow! I love you Daddy!”
You have to really be in the flow moment and know her psychology and internal state inside and out to be able to pull that off with an actual slap. She has to actually love you. It’s provoking a shit test. If she won’t say it you punish her, and then that creates passing a shit test even though she didn’t initiate the shit test. You demand her love. And that is admirable, on a deep visceral level. You will accept none other than her full devotion.
But it’s very, very subtle. Because you also give her complete freedom. She’s free to either be your totally devoted slave or to leave at any time. There are layers and layers to it. But every now and then you touch into that cave man level of all the layers. Even if just as role play. Every now and then you own her like a piece of property. And then you say “You are my property”.
February 21st, 2014 at 8:18 am
Re: “Do you have the will to make sex back into being a sacred duty, a marital gift” is a question strictly for women. When women were liberated, the current sexual marketplace is what women created. The majority of men do not get to choose, ever. I believe it is only the fact that undesired men have only recently belatedly, in the past years or decade, attempted to game up themselves in response to the existing market, that has caused women to react negatively. “Yes we want to sleep with desirable men freely, but we don’t want you creeps learning to be more desireable. Eww.”
February 21st, 2014 at 10:23 am
The basic question is – WHO holds the power. It is NOT SEX. Men give women so much power over their own life, happiness, ego, that they are simply destined to be slaves and victims. They derive such unhealthy accomplishment from their abitlity to be recognized and admired by women….that they are destined to loose.
If it weren´t for this, we all would be using escorts just for sex and living our lives happily by our own terms. It is clerly observed that this is not the case. and it has never been so. The best advice that could be given to average male is – how to play this game, as trained puppy, so that hypergamous impulses of his woman, wife, girlfriend, remain somehow…ehm…satisfied.
How are we different from worms, my friends.
It is very sad just to read those blogs and answers of men. We have MANY informations now, but we are not using them to free ourselves form this stupid paradigm. We are using them to better please and satisfy our GOD – Woman.
February 21st, 2014 at 10:41 am
@ Gregg – You have the paradigm all wrong. This is not a PUA site – this is about intersexual dynamics. The fact is that “game” as discussed here is about men valuing themselves more and women less. It’s the antithesis of running one’s life around women. You don’t see articles on “text game” or “day game” here, right? However, what is also acknowledged is that sex and relationships with women are important for men so Rollo gives game advice from the perspective of how men can optimize their interactions and relationships with women. How is that becoming a slave?
Are you one of those guys who instead recommends intellectually induced asexuality? How do you suggest we escape our basic instincts for sex and the company of women? Of course, Rollo also doesn’t spare men’s egos when he discusses all this, noting how many men are groveling Betas, and in many case are simply whiners who believe it’s “unfair” that women want to fuck and be with attractive, socially dominant and successful men. Tell me, which one are you?
February 21st, 2014 at 10:41 am
@Richard
It is NOT the sex. If it was the sex, all men would be paing the pros. Instead of this they are FUCKING the SAME, worn out, old bitch for 20 years, while they endure constant nagging, demands, continue feeding her and sacrifice their very lives for her. They are even bullshitting themselves that …”their wife has still the body of 20 years old, she is still hot” while it is clear that 99 percent of young women beat their wife every fucking time in terms of attractivity, energy, kindness…everything.
Silly souls of men an their stupidity, this is the reason of this senseless slavery to women. Woman as the queen bee is producing men as the working slaves of her and her young sisters…
February 21st, 2014 at 10:48 am
@glenn
“The fact is that “game” as discussed here is about men valuing themselves more and women less. It’s the antithesis of running one’s life around women.”
Your endless, incurrable obsession about women, this is the message. Women are very simple, yet we have those 200 blogs – just in this site, about the same. What the FUCK are you still repeatedly discussing here?
Sex? NO FUCKING WAY. The stupidity of men. No reason to say anything else.
February 21st, 2014 at 11:22 am
@ Gregg – You are barely coherent, you do get that, yes? I get the sense that English isn’t your first language – is that it? Or are you just out of your mind?
February 21st, 2014 at 11:23 am
@Gregg “[Men] derive such unhealthy accomplishment from their abitlity to be recognized and admired by women….that they are destined to loose.”
This is what game is designed to WIN at: producing the healthy abundance mentality so that recognition and admiration by any one woman is no longer such a big thing. And it’s not at all a bad thing that women enjoy game. That fact actually helps game succeed.
February 21st, 2014 at 12:02 pm
Advocatus Diaboli and I have had the same discussions about the validity of Game that Gregg takes issue with:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/09/services-rendered/
Why not simply hire an escort every other week? Economically it’s cheaper, you get more variety in appearance and service, you can cater your choices to whatever your preferred sexual tastes are, and lets be honest, assuming you can afford it, statistically twice to three times a month is probably as much or more sexual frequency than most monogamously committed men are getting in their marriages or LTRs.
So why not?
But lets not stop there, why pay anything at all if the end result is simply sexual release, right? You can’t pay a woman to genuinely desire to fuck you, so the whole experience you’re paying for is really about your orgasm, not a mutual pleasure. So why pay $300 for an hour with a pro instead of simply beating off to free internet porn? From an economic perspective this is really the most pragmatic solution.
The end result is still the same; your sexual release. And really, lets face it, the virtual potential of unlimited access to unlimited sexual variety with none of the downsides of rejection or paying a fee dependent upon quality really solves the problem much better than strictly using escorts, right? You can have sexual release on demand, none of this ‘wait until pay day’ budgeting shit, it’s right there.
Only losers pay for it right? You’d be just another stupid man with an obsession for pleasing women. Why can’t you see the simple solution of ‘using’ internet porn to free you of the yoke you place on yourself in endlessly appeasing women’s fickle whims? Think of all the free time you’ll have to improve yourself, and focus on your financial situation free of the liabilities of ever interacting with a human female.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/the-unbearable-triteness-of-hating/
February 21st, 2014 at 12:44 pm
I just got a really good idea for a novel…
Gregg, fed up with being expected to play the BS skirt-chasing game, dares to be A Man and states an opinion different from the others.
Glenn, loyal devotee, trained to defend the “game brotherhood” by humiliating all dissenters, insults him.
A battle of wits ensues.
Glenn assumes by Gregg’s silence that his superior tactics won the battle, that Gregg will soon be back in conformance, worshipping the cock and digging for pussy, in short order.
Subtle praise follows from the brotherhood’s ringleader.
Gregg goes on to live his life quite happily, paying not even a little bit of heed to the trifles of little-m men.
Too predictable, you think?
Gregg, for what its worth, I think you’re 100% right. Not that it matters to the point you made, but women do this too. Its a disease in the human race. A curable one though, I think.
Incidentally Glenn, I read through earlier comments on this article, and found several written by you that were almost verbatim of what I said. And yet here you’re now insulting me for “gynocentric lunacy”. Literally, I actually thought I had read my own writing, they were that similar! How very fascinating. I assume that the mere fact that it was said by a woman it is what makes it “lunacy”. You really have some kind of mess going on in that head of yours.
Jeremy, if there’s one thing I’m absolutely certain of, its that its impossible for a woman not to “earn” disdain from most of the little-m posting on this forum. Doesn’t really matter what she says or how she says it, you’re predisposed to disdain by your long-instilled sense of entitlement.
JF12, you are one of the few clear-headed thinkers among this crowd, kudos to you. As the song says, girls just wanna have fun! WOMEN on the other hand, Women actually want something different in addition to fun…. But that’s not for you to worry about. Just have fun with girls, and let Women worry about getting their higher level needs met. It’s way easier, and most men don’t have that kind of skill, or concern, to be honest.
Your last comment intrigues me though.
“Re: “Do you have the will to make sex back into being a sacred duty, a marital gift” is a question strictly for women. When women were liberated, the current sexual marketplace is what women created. The majority of men do not get to choose, ever. I believe it is only the fact that undesired men have only recently belatedly, in the past years or decade, attempted to game up themselves in response to the existing market, that has caused women to react negatively. “Yes we want to sleep with desirable men freely, but we don’t want you creeps learning to be more desirable. Eww.”
First thing, learning to be more desirable will hopefully make a man less of a creep. If you’re genuinely creepy (and not just socially awkward), maybe you want to work on that. Like with a therapist or something. Because staying creepy and learning game will probably land you in jail in a hurry.
Second thing, interesting point about sex as something sacred being a matter for women to decide. You may be right about that, but I posed the question only because I’m pretty sure that you guys do have thoughts about it, though they rarely talk about them, and I actually wanted to know what those thoughts were. Crazy, I know, a woman that actually wants to know what a man thinks. :)
February 21st, 2014 at 1:01 pm
“But lets not stop there, why pay anything at all if the end result is simply sexual release, right?”
That’s the critical distinction; sex + emotion, just sex or just sexual release.
Achieving just sexual release only requires imagination. Anyone can do it. Sex on the other hand work. Time and money to secure access on the SMP, or time spent at labor to gain money to buy access. There isn’t a lot of difference in the investments.
I’d say for the guys who can’t achieve the “just sex” option without a lot of effort, frustration, failure, rejection and expense in both time and money, that paying for sex is not a terrible option. It’s nice to know what exactly it is one is working so hard to obtain. This is especially true when ones limited successes are only with flatbackers who refuse to give BJs. A purchased experience of good quality sex can be a powerful motivator to keep trying.
Ultimately the sex + emotion option is most desirable, but that can’t be negotiated or purchased. So there is a compromise as to what is the acceptable emotional aspect. A ONS is not in any way emotional intimacy, and any claim to the opposite I think is every bit a wrong as claiming to have an intimate connection with a pro. But there is certainly the emotional boost, the self satisfaction, from having successfully pulled off the ONS.
February 21st, 2014 at 1:09 pm
@ LT – Have you lubricated the bearings on your hamster wheel? They must be smoking at this point. As for me, women are less important and mysterious to me than ever – you can’t have an opinion on that as you don’t know me. You seem to think that I’m obsessed with women because I post here occasionally. This is the only blog I comment on of this type. I don’t spend much time on this subject otherwise. My focus is on my life, my happiness, creating abundance and happiness again after shaking off the delusions our gynocentric society handed me and the suffering that accompanied it. For some reason you can’t accept that – whatever, that’s on you, not me. I am exactly who I say I am.
You are not some enlightened, wise being pressing through my delusions. Rather you are a presumptuous and obnoxious loudmouth who is very frustrated with her own love life and relationships with men. it’s pretty obvious to me that you come here to take out your feral rage on anonymous men as way of aggrandizing your own worth and sense of power, working out your own demons along the way. In case you don’t realize it, that’s pathetic and sad. Do yourself a favor, take all that “wisdom” you believe you have and all your judgments and focus it back on yourself and your life. That’s where the most gains are available for you – and that’s what I’m up to. If you care to be supportive and helpful in that regard, I’m all ears. But that’s not you at all. Instead you are a vicious, know-it-all harpy who’s screeching is about as appealing and intersting as vomit. Go away angry girl, just go away.
February 21st, 2014 at 1:44 pm
Hey, here’s a little support for the awesome theory of evo-psych!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2090226/When-men-war-blame-sex-drive-Males-evolved-aggressive-outsiders.html
Love the comments section, especially the one that says men have a limbic need to fight off “outsiders” because women can’t be trusted, if women were loyal, men would have no need to fight. As if to imply that women being sexual makes men angry. This is incredibly pitiful, weak and irresponsible, and appears to be quite in line with what is routinely said on this forum, and others in the manosphere.
The problem I have with the whole evo-psych theory is that falling back upon it to justify your behavior actually negates your defensive claims that men aren’t merely primates obsessed with sex, as “feminists” would have the world believe, because evo-psych theory actually posits that men are primarily dispossessed by an insecure need to possess a woman, and that they simply cannot bear the thought that their woman is free to choose someone better, that she isn’t under full submission to their magical manly awesomeness.
You want to have sex with a woman, she doesn’t want you. Oh my GOD!! The worst thing EVER! You can’t get what you want, you can’t put your P in a V!!!! Depression! Unworthiness!! Rage!!! Oh wait, no, I need to campaign, to design inventive ways to make women be devoted to me so I can put this obsession behind me finally, I can put p in v whenever I want, and I can go on with living. But we’d best be keeping all these tricks to ourselves, or other males will get wind of them and then where will I be?? Panic! Depression!! Unworthiness!! Rage!!! Repeat…
Unbelievable. THIS is who you want to be? Primates who have been unsuccessfully struggling for tens of thousands of years to make the females of your species pretend to be monogamous beings so you can simply function.
The whole theory really makes men look ridiculous and weak, I simply cannot comprehend why you would WANT to rely on this theory at all to defend your behavior and your inability to evolve, because you are actually defeating your own interests by doing so.
It actually makes me nauseous, and more than a little embarrassed for you. YOU ARE BETTER THAN THIS!!
February 21st, 2014 at 1:50 pm
Glenn, thank goodness!
I’m glad you have worked your way out of that mythology, because women aren’t mysterious at all. At ALL. Women think men who think women are mysterious are really quite daft, and they often disrespect you guys for it.
Yes, some women contrive to be more mysterious than they are so to keep you coming back for more and questioning yourself. We call them “crazy”. “Crazy” is the female equivalent of game. It is definitely a ploy that works though, dudes love the crazy chicks. Go google “why are men attracted to crazy women”.
February 21st, 2014 at 2:00 pm
And Glenn, not that its any of your business, but you couldn’t be more wrong about my lovelife, its been very fulfilling and educational. And I don’t have a problem with men. I have a problem with character weakness. A big, big problem with that. If you think its limited to men, you obviously aren’t paying much attention to what I’ve said here.
But that’s not surprising, you invalidated me for being female, we saw that in your first comment back to me, and pretty much every comment since.
February 21st, 2014 at 2:28 pm
@ LT – More vomit, yawn…Get some professional help.
February 21st, 2014 at 3:37 pm
@Badpainter
a thought for the day for my bro. The only thing worth our aspiration is air. Just. Plain. Air.
February 21st, 2014 at 3:51 pm
jf12,
Have you been listening to The Hollies again?
February 21st, 2014 at 5:33 pm
Re: “A ONS is not in any way emotional intimacy” True, but I’m certain it can *feel* like instant intimacy. Since any kind of intimacy results, I suppose, from sequences of shared vulnerabilities [that have not yet resulted in death or other relationship disruptions, an oddly necessary caveat], the hopefully exquisite vulnerabilities of sex ought to feel like instant exquisite intimacy. That’s one reason I can’t imagine myself having sex outside a relationship, since the sex would create, for me anyway, the feeling of a relationship: she would be my girl. And if I wasn’t being vulnerable sexually, I wouldn’t see the point in doing it.
February 21st, 2014 at 5:36 pm
I lifted this comment from SSM’s thread today. Very relevant to the discussion here:
February 21st, 2014 at 6:21 pm
@Badpainter, an outside-the-web barbershop discussion about aspiring to love reminded me of you [how romantic!]. And yes the Hollies’ song is what made the connection [that, and thinking about choking, since one old gent in the other girl’s chair sounded like he was death rattling]. Would trying to breath love feel like trying to breathe water, or more like trying to breathe vacuum?
February 21st, 2014 at 6:44 pm
“Would trying to breath love feel like trying to breathe water, or more like trying to breathe vacuum?”
Perhaps it’s more like huffing paint or sniffing model cement; temporary euphoria followed by a sever headache, over do it and suffer permanent brain damage, or even death.
February 21st, 2014 at 6:47 pm
@ gregg
“Silly souls of men an their stupidity, this is the reason of this senseless slavery to women.”
I am the first to blame men for the male-female dynamics in our society. But when I see some poor bastard dominated by his wife, kissing her ass, working his ass off and shortening his life to please her, I feel bad for the guy. He thinks he’s making her happy by being a beta provider pleaser. He doesn’t know he’s turning her off. I have good buddies (some high on the alpha scale) caught in that miserable circle of hell. It’s not easy for a man to extract himself from such a situation.
I’ve heard from women I date how these dominating wives talk about their provider husbands when “out with the girls.” They don’t respect their husbands, they make fun of them, some even make fun of their husband’s dick and ability in bed, and they love to be picked up by alpha guys. These are upper-middle class women with high earning husbands who’ve been freed from working and these women are pampered more than 99.9% of all human beings who’ve lived. And they disrespect their husbands for essentially giving their wives what the wives used all their wiles and cunning to get. How do these men feel about their wives? They love them, pedestalize them, and worship them.
See why I feel bad for them?
As Chris Rock says, “you can’t make a woman happy.” And why is Rock right? Because, as he says, “because you ain’t her first choice.” Her first choice was a top end alpha. And beta provider pleasing behavior will not satisfy her.
So, there’s three ways a man may avoid this: 1) be a Bachelorocles and bolster your natural abilities with game so as to maximize opportunities for sex and female companionship, 2) be a MGTOW hermit, or 3) as Rollo recommends, use game in your marriage.
February 21st, 2014 at 7:10 pm
The Gift of The Big One. Although women in LTR have better orgasms, stronger and more per sexual event, they refuse to have sex more frequently than women in STR. Seriously. Women are intrinsically ungrateful sexually. We all know it, and there are lots of studies, even though it seems counterintuitive. Men just kind of roll their eyes and say “Ah, well, women and cause-and-effect don’t go together.”
An observation I’ve shared before merits repeating here. It’s been a lot more noticeable in the years (and years) since menopause, but with all (both) of the women that I’ve had sex with, if she ends the night with a big bang, then she is much more likely to be all smug and cocky and contentious the next day, almost (!) as if she wanted to ensure she wouldn’t be having sex. Whereas if her fireworks got off the ground but failed to explode, then the next day she is much more likely to be all lovey-dovey and sandwich-making and wanting to have more sex. Which, again, makes a kind of horrifying sense, but it’s kind of like women try to train men to be bad lovers, but we betas resist.
I can’t be the only one.
February 21st, 2014 at 7:48 pm
@jf12
In many areas of life, having is not so pleasing a thing as wanting. Women seem to need wants more than satisfaction. By contrast, men need satisfaction and thus seek to solve their wants.
February 21st, 2014 at 10:43 pm
These articles are great but the comments section is gold. I have gone from envying guys who are married or about to get married to genuine concern and/or pity.
February 22nd, 2014 at 3:49 am
@rollo
“We are all doing the bidding of our biomechanical overlord, and on our knees to his will we surrender, by force or by choice. You fool yourself if you believe you have some plenary indulgence from this stark reality.
Or: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.”
I completely agree – male kneels before his Lord, represented by Women and his emotions of the slave. He actually has to persuade yourself that there is no escape from this reality. He is no different from worms and HE KNOWS and openly admits it. This is from Roissy I think, isn´t it? For Roissy…Woman is GOD. He is trying to please and control his unsatisfied impulses and ego pertaining to women, every fucking minute of his life. He can´t win of course. Little child.
MAN does not kneel before anyone, be it Woman (your God) or his dick. He USES them to his advantage and his mission, he is not used by them.
A side remark – If you have to please women to be recognized by them, you have little attractivity – and power. Every attractive man knows that WOMEN would find a way to fuck him just for his genes…he just takes them…
February 22nd, 2014 at 4:01 am
if12…but with all (both) of the women that I’ve had sex with, if she ends the night with a big bang, then she is much more likely to be all smug and cocky and contentious the next day,…
Peg a girl in the butt, with a stream of water or slapping the booty, and she likes it, she’ll at first act as if she didn’t. But will later display more mischievous behavior as a way of getting you do something.
Besides, if you made the fireworks go off, that’s a method of control and power that women don’t want to openly admit you have over them. And dare I say there may be some biology involved, with maybe higher levels of testosterone released.
Does Gregg fit into the alpha white knight description?
February 22nd, 2014 at 4:13 am
@ livingtree
“You want to have sex with a woman, she doesn’t want you. Oh my GOD!! The worst thing EVER! You can’t get what you want, you can’t put your P in a V!!!! Depression! Unworthiness!! Rage!!! Oh wait, no, I need to campaign, to design inventive ways to make women be devoted to me so I can put this obsession behind me finally, I can put p in v whenever I want, and I can go on with living. But we’d best be keeping all these tricks to ourselves, or other males will get wind of them and then where will I be?? Panic! Depression!! Unworthiness!! Rage!!! Repeat…”
It is not that easy LT. Again and for the last time – IT IS NOT ABOUT SEX!
You, as a woman, have tremendous power over majority of men. They have to be recognized by you, just to exist, to have value in their own eyes! You can observe it on this blog as well. All those insults, aggresivity towards you….what is it? FRAGILE EGO, WEAKNESS!!
If you reject them, you are rejecting their whole existence. For you as a woman, with emotions designed to USE, TRAIN and RUN males, it is hard to imagine the level of pain, through which majority of males – with their emotions of a slave, have to go, when they are rejected by their masters – women. Suddently, they cease to exist, they are not worthy. This produces rage, aggresivity, or apathy, everything..
You correctly observe that men are slaves and you pity them. To our defense – we can not change how we were desinged. But … majority of us does not even want to be free…and this can be pitied.
February 22nd, 2014 at 6:48 am
And what have we learned today, children?
Living Tree, avowedly speaking on behalf of all women (not only everywhere, but throughout history, apparently), fears price discovery in a free market.
February 22nd, 2014 at 9:13 am
Rollo,
Living Tree’s brand of feminism is really just a fetish, and its likely she cant help herself.
When dealing with an individual with a very narrow range of behaviors, the inability to change this behavior and impart greater control on a situation via said behavior change merely causes them to amplify what isnt working.
its probably kindest to her to just ban her.
after all, managing female solipsism and their feral natures is in fact closer to animal husbandry than anything else.
February 22nd, 2014 at 10:01 am
@Tilikum – No, please don’t ban LivingTree! I learn at least as much from the fembots here as anyone else. She is an interesting version of it. What I find most amusing is her “campaign” of trying change the nature of human intersexual relationships. This necessitates her rejection of biologically driven, evo psych arguments completely so she can “believe” that the whole subject is negotiable.
I made a comment towards Rollo earlier in the thread that he didn’t respond to but I would love to hear his commentary on. The entire Gender Studies and second wave and forward feminist movement is based on the idea of the “social construction” of gender and sexual identity. This idea essentially posits that we are lumps of undifferentiated clay wrt to gender and sexual orientation when we are born and then all of this stuff is just imposed upon us by the oppressive Patriarchal society evil straight men have created to control the world.
This is why gender is up for grabs for them – and why Facebook now has 50 different terms for gender. The most horrifying part of all this that there are literally mountains of science that show how sex and sexual orientation are biologically determined and that much of our behavior in this sphere of life is likely heritable. But it’s very convenient for their victim memes and their political orientation. It also helps them fold all of this into a Marxist frame in the sense of society being controlled by oppressors and the innate nature of the family and gender roles being oppressive (read Engels essay on the family if you aren’t aware of this).
So, LT can prance around lecturing us all on how her enlightened ideas can be implemented by all of us just thinking harder and acting differently. It’s a conceit of huge proportions, actually, but she has the entire edifice of Gender Studies in academia behind her. Hence she can come here and offer her dime store pop psychology analysis of me and others, crusading for her enlightened views with all her self-righteousness. She can be an obnoxious, overbearing, judgmental and preachy jerk to us all because society eggs on her gynocentric supremacist views. That she’s a fool and babbling nonsense evades her utterly – but we need to have it demonstrated to us so we can see how vicious the world is to a reality that actually empowers men.
What I love about Rollo’s ideas are that they are firmly rooted in how things are, as he says. LT is on some kind of crusade whereas I’m just trying to live a happy, empowered life in which women’s behavior doesn’t surprise me. There are major consequences to understanding how different men and women’s motivations are however, and how women’s priorities have defined our society so utterly. The most important lesson that I’ve learned is that women for the most part don’t actually care about men’s suffering. They prattle on about “objectification” but it’s men that have been so deeply objectified by them, to the point where society can run deep cons on men like “romantic love” and chivalric ideas to keep men in line while women run amok. When women are dumping husbands, men and fathers like last year’s purse, men have to respond. We have to deal with them like they are, not as we wish them to be.
Ultimately it’s women who lose out in this game. A man’s loyalty and protection and provision is an amazing thing to be given. I’m actually okay with moving on, but unlike LT, I understand how crucial the family is to human civilization. I don’t cheer on the destruction of the family, seeing it as roadkill on the way some ill defined victory of emancipation that she wants to lead us to. Of course, I will be castigated by her and others as simply wanting to put the bit back into my mouth and maybe as a tradcon or purple piller – i’m the farthest thing from that. But what I understnd at a much deeper level is that all this feminist bullshit has in a short 50 years destroyed the family as a building block of society – and nobody is happier as a result. Women are less happy, men are less happy and children of broken or ill formed, fatherless family are less happy.
You see, it’s not that I don’t understand what LT is peddling – it’s that I’ve weighed, counted and measured it and found it wanting. But I’m also not so naive to believe that I can just change this cultural convulsion that is wrecking our society – too many people have been brainwashed by the elites who use these ideas to aggrandize their egos and gain power. And I’m happy to stop provisioning and protecting and being monogamous – fuck them all – I’m just out to get mine now. But I also don’t kid myself, this is nothing short of a recipe for societal suicide. Just look at reproduction rates of societies that have adopted these ideas? Just look at how insane politics have become (exactly what Nietzsche predicted would happen when women tried to become masculine, fyi – read it if you haven’t). I mean forget relationships, look at what women do with political power? They vote in totalitarian regimes that commit fiscal suicide (NPV of U.S. promised obligations – 205 trillion). Look at what they do with economic power? Personal debt skyrockets and consumerism overtakes society.
Again, I know I can’t change any of this. So, I use what I’ve learned here to make my way through life with more happiness and personal empowerment – and LT thinks I’m a dummy she needs to school. Have at it sister, I need a reminder of how fucked up you and everyone of your fellow feminists are. Next time I let a door slam into a woman, just know that you have helped me get to the point where I just smile when they look surprised that I didn’t hold it for them…
And whatever you do, don’t stop lecturing is – we need the reminder every day of how little our views and ideas matter to you and most women in our society.
February 22nd, 2014 at 10:05 am
Guys,
I gave LT every courtesy, every ounce of patience I had in attempting to get her to see things from a perspective other than her own. I was rewarded with little more than re-interpretation of what I said to her own FI frame. She is a troll. She has absolutely no interest in understanding anything that anyone says on this blog. She arrogantly presumes she has understanding where she does not. She appeals to authority, sometimes her own. She begs the question in just about every comment. And her writing style leads me to believe that she is terrified of actually following any thought on this subject to it’s conclusion. I’m convinced that what she does understand about her own female nature actually terrifies her to her core and she won’t face it.
Ignore her until such time as she demonstrates a willingness to learn.
February 22nd, 2014 at 10:54 am
why do the beta males keep replying to Lying Tree’s dried up ovaries?
February 22nd, 2014 at 10:59 am
How do we tell whether a poster is a beta male? when he spends more than 1 minute responding to a washed up has been Lying Tree.
February 22nd, 2014 at 1:36 pm
@Victor King @Andrews
Islam has a terrible track record when it comes to freedom and scientific progress the last eighthundred years. People who value those things less than a society where women are submissive, have strange priorities that smell of desperation.
February 22nd, 2014 at 2:20 pm
@ UrbanMeyer
They deserve our sympathy. I know of one or two who’ve made it work, but these guys are naturally alpha – their wives still want them, they aren’t dominated, and they know how to thwart her never-ending shit tests and will to dominate him into submission.
@ Sao Feng
“why do the beta males keep replying to Lying Tree’s dried up ovaries?”
Let them learn they will be unable to convince her with facts, data, evidence, and rational argument. It’s like using facts and reason to convince a guy his politics are wrong or a religious guy that what he believes is wrong. LT is heavily invested in her beliefs and facts and reason will not change her.
February 22nd, 2014 at 4:26 pm
Married life isn’t as grim as all that. I have been married a decade longer than Roillo has been. I get laid any time I want and it’s really not a struggle. The only drama my household has concerns our kids, not between my wife and me.
I am in no way “alpha”. I am not handsome or built. I am average height. All the PUA skills I have have come from the same blogs that everyone here reads, Athol Kay, Roissy, Rollo. I am no smarter than any of the other well written commenters on this blog. If I am able to keep a woman in line for all these years, it can’t be THAT hard to do.
That said, here are some things that I have done right.
* I married a girl that thinks she is lucky to have me. I was dating another girl when we met. She had to win me over. I always acted like I had a lot of experience with other girls.
* I was always busy when we were dating, so I didn’t get a chance to smother her.
* my wife has traditional attitudes and was a virgin when I met her.
* Over the course of married life I have always stated overtly that I have standards as to how my wife needs to look and maintain those looks.
* I subtly demonstrate that I would be able to find alternate pussy if our marriage doesn’t work out.
* I never wanted kids. My wife did. She begged and begged me for years to let her have my babies. I made explicit demands of her before I said yes to this.
* my wife makes as much money as me, so she is not an alimony risk
* I make it clear that sex is not optional with me. This didn’t always go over well with her. But over time she has come to be grateful that I still want her.
* I am not afraid to piss her off.
* I am lucky in that my wife is pretty enough that I still want to fuck her.
Could my wife cheat on me and want a divorce tomorrow? Sure she could. But I don’t care. I really don’t. While I am content with my situation, should divorce come my way, I am quite sure that I would be able to get enough pussy from single women to keep me happy.
February 22nd, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Glenn: “.. based on the idea of the “social construction” of gender and sexual identity. This idea essentially posits that we are lumps of undifferentiated clay wrt to gender and sexual orientation when we are born and then all of this stuff is just imposed upon us ..”
In the same way, they also cleave to the mystical notion that intelligence and health also have no basis in biology. Mere repressive stereotyping by The Man. Wish yourself fitter (in the Darwinian sense as well), and lo! so it shall come to pass.
It’s the only hope they have. No wonder that indications to the contrary drive them hogwild, as we have seen.
February 22nd, 2014 at 6:04 pm
Tam the Bam
Note that evidence to the contrary only upsets such people when it exposes a weakness that is desirable to deny. When it exposes a strength, then it’s worthy of research. When evidence might indicate a less desirable trait, suddenly equality is the way of the world.
No feminist ever denied that women are the more beautiful of the two halves of the human race, but they will swallow tires before they admit that women are weaker.
February 22nd, 2014 at 7:28 pm
Jeremy: “a weakness that is desirable to deny”
I do have a tiny violin throbbing out the merest twinge of sympathy (not empathy) when “people unlike myself” protest the characterization of some innate trait as “weakness”.
Far from it. We didn’t get where we are today by entraining “weakness” in our genetic makeup [ /Reggie Perrin ].
Millions, literally unimaginable millions of years have gone into this project (NB; I didn’t say “immeasurable”. I used to have to try to ‘imagine’ deep time professionally, a very long while ago, before I was promoted to being a proletarian. I found it impossible. Did OK for a three-pound monkey brain though, I suppose).
Whatever the “weakness” is, it’s just a part of what these selfsame mystics and ideologues would hail as “a different way of Being”. Else it would have been crushed like a bug aeons ago, by Mother Nature’s size fourteens.
So why aren’t they investigating why we are as we are, rather than positing vapid assertions as to How We Ought To Be?
That strikes me as most .. illogical, Jim, I mean Jez sorry.
It should .. ought LOL .. to be as fascinating to them, as it is to me, if their interest is not feigned.
Why the rush to denial? It obviously worked, and very well, for a long time. So what’s wrong with (trait/behavior X) now? Why so out of fashion, all of a sudden?
February 22nd, 2014 at 8:06 pm
@ Sao Leng “How do we tell whether a poster is a beta male?” They run around comment sections telling other commenters they are betas, lol. Talk about trolling.
My commentary isn’t for LT, it’s to engage with the men here. I enjoy it a lot and get so much out of it. I find that it’s hard to maintain this POV at times, so coming here is like a recharge for the pull of habituated thinking and the world I walk into that is soaked with gynocentrism. It’s not that I agree with everything that is said here by men – far from it, but I do feel a sense of solidarity with men since taking the Red Pill that is profound. Sharing with men here helps me. LT is just an object lesson in the nonsense that I’ve escaped from. I don’t take people like her seriously anymore. The fact that this drives them crazy is just a bonus…
February 22nd, 2014 at 8:16 pm
I was casually wandering through these comments and the following caught my eye and gave me the giggles:
@LT – Dating men is like a psychological fucking minefield.
Projection much?
Especially amusing considering point #2 from here:
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.nz/2014/02/how-to-be-in-top-1-of-women.html
1. Stay in shape
2. Drop the psychoses you think are defensive mechanisms or “cute” ways to entertain yourself and be a mature adult.
3. Support yourself
4. Cook
You do those four SIMPLE things and you will be in the top 1% of women.
February 23rd, 2014 at 9:03 am
@Bachelorocles
The only positions Lying Tree have vacant for the “boys” (in her own words):
(a) Beta orbiter
(b) emotional tampon
It isn’t so much as the facts or truth in the replies to her sagging butt. It is the time spent by beta males replying to her that gets her off.
February 23rd, 2014 at 9:05 am
@Gleen
It does not drive her crazy.
No decent man, even a beta male, would take a 2nd look at Lying Tree in real life. Time spent: <1 second
Strangely, typing out paragraphs of junk in response to her: Time spent: more than 5 minutes.
I'll pass. Enjoy qualifying yourself to old women.
February 23rd, 2014 at 9:21 am
@ SF – I didn’t write out 5 paragraphs to her – or did you miss that? I’m speaking to the men here. I eliminated her from this conversation very early in the thread – or did you not bother to read back that far? Nothing I’ve said or done here is about “qualifying” with her. But since you’ve chosen to frame it that way, would you say Rollo is doing the same? Fyi, I don’t respond to a thing LT says, I just let her know that she’s an example for us and dismiss her. That you insist on missing that and taking shots at me for some bizarre reason says far more about you than me.
As I’ve said – I’m here to speak to men and that’s what I’m doing. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You come off like LT, actually, by telling me what I’m saying and thinking and what my motivations are – but are way off base. Do yourself a favor and put the focus back on yourself, wiseass, I’m sure there’ s plenty of work to be done there.
February 23rd, 2014 at 11:16 am
@Gleen
Ok.
@Non beta males
There is an article on Heartiste on the ways women tool men. One of them is called “Let’s you and him fight”.
February 23rd, 2014 at 11:25 am
@ SF – I’ve about had it with your inanity. You are starting a fight with me for some reason – LT has nothing to do with this and we aren’t fighting over LT. You are acting like a bitch and now I’ll treat like one. I wonder, do you realize that you are adding nothing substantive to this dialog? Your pathetically fragile ego apparently needs to be aggrandized by running around trolling on game sites to show us how alpha you are – which is so fucking un-alpha to begin with that it would be funny if you weren’t so annoying. Put yet another way, I shit out a turd more consequential than you this morning and from here forward will ignore what you say just as I do LT. She emits hamster vomit, you emit punk vomit. She’s a woman, at least she has an excuse. You are in theory a man – what’s your excuse?
February 23rd, 2014 at 4:53 pm
@Tam the Bam
At the moment I can only guess, the question is too complicated for a quick answer. My guess would go something like this…
Industrialization (and automation) hit the safe, menial jobs first and hardest. The division of labor in ancient times meant that women had just as much work to do as the men on a daily basis, but women’s work usually was either less risky (less lethal), or less mentally intensive, or both. Where men plowed fields (physically more demanding, also mentally draining depending on your animal choice), women washed clothes by hand (somewhat exhausting, not as demanding as plowing, but mentally almost zen-like). Where there was any conflict between the sexes, they were resolved quickly when the threat of loss of such direct daily value.
This process of industrialization continues to this day, and what it does is remove the obvious value of jobs that are safe and boring. When a robot or a computer can do the thing you used to do, you’ll do almost anything to declare yourself valuable again. You’ll create all kinds of claimed value where none exists, and sell yourself at an undeserved markup if you can. You’ll even start joining new ways of valuing yourself, joining crowds and activities you would have never done before just so you can feel valuable. Today’s baby-boomers often “fail” at retirement in such a way, not because they don’t have enough money to live, but because they cannot deal with feeling “less valuable”.
This is where feminism started. It started in homes of the upper-middle-class where women literally had (comparatively) nothing to do on a daily basis. It wasn’t too different from one of the more liked Simpsons episodes where the Simpsons joined a cult and they are assigned a fully automated robot house that cleans and cooks on its own. She (Marge) ends up with nothing to do and ends up sitting at the kitchen table drinking wine well before noon.
Women have indeed, historically, been valued for a lot more than their vagina. They were valued because they could cook a tremendous meal from peanuts, or tailor a fine piece of clothing from burlap, or run a homestead in such a fashion that it produced children worthy of their last name. Industrialization of labor took away the value of many of the traditional roles women played. You don’t need a woman around to mend your socks if you can just buy another set of 24 for $12 at WalMart. You don’t need a woman to cook you a meal if you can just order delivery. You don’t need a woman to raise kids if you can just pay for day care.
So, my guess is that industrialization was felt earliest, and hardest, by women in their less-glorified, but equally-important traditional avenues of value generation. Without guidance for these women in revising their roles such that they still generated significant value, we were left with a base of middle-class to upper-middle-class women that started the movements that led to where we are today. Today most women are convinced that traditional roles are worse than meaningless, and in fact indicative of a backwards thought process. These women believe that they can only be valued in the same arena as men, or not at all. They perversely believe that men should value them greater depending on their income/education/achievements. To the modern woman, there is no going back to a traditional role. Most of them are likely convinced that there is no way of self-valuing with the jobs that women might be asked to do in such a role. Again, how can you feel very good about fixing a t-shirt, when your man could buy such a shirt for $5.00 at the swap meet? There are arguments to be made that women could have instead raised their game, as all of us will eventually have to do when automation takes over, but they had no guidance to do this.
So now with such traditional roles as they are, relegated to a perceived trash heap of history; And with women convinced that they must take on the role of men to achieve self-valuation… We’re left with a bit of an impasse. The illusion of equality must be maintained or else women will only have themselves as sex objects as a way to value the self. When women complain about being objectified, it is this nugget of perception that I believe they are reacting to. They inherently know that there’s no largely valued, physical role left for them to play in the home or society save making babies. They know that cooking, cleaning, clothes-making, furniture making have all been replaced with industrialization. Women *perceive* that realistically the only thing they bring to the table now is their vaginas, so they seek out the approval of men in men’s traditionally more meritocratic world to create a base on which to self-value. Many of them cling to this so tightly that they appear and act as men. This perception also leads them into an extreme over-sensitivity to being objectified sexually, because it reminds them that that’s the only valued role left for them. If men were in some future time relegated to being the sex that simply lifts heavy objects and that’s all they were good for, wouldn’t pictures of bodybuilders seem quietly painful to witness? I would think so.
I don’t like feminism, I think equality of the sexes is a perversion of reality. But realistically, I find it difficult to blame women for feminism. All humans seek to find something which they can point to and say, “I did that, therefore my life was valuable.” When industrialization took that away from homemakers, feminism and general female activisim was the knee-jerk reaction. Does society blame men for being upset at losing their auto-manufacturing jobs to robots? Of course not. So how can we blame women for such a horrific reaction to their value being replaced? This whole notion of the equality of the sexes, and feminism in general, is to my mind merely a reaction to industrialization, to the drastic restructuring of society that began nearly 200 years ago when we started building machines to serve our needs, instead of relying on each other to do so. Mind you, I still see nothing wrong with industrialization, or automation, or the replacing of human beings in hard menial laborious jobs. Machines are here to stay, and they do enhance our lives too much to ignore. Without them we are a lesser species.
What needs to happen, is honest investigation into how best to fit traditional human divisions of labor into an automated world. Right now humanity is still in the “denial” phase of our reaction to that large change. We are still attempting to pretend that men and women are equal so that women can do the “me too” argument and value themselves in a man’s world. The manosphere/dark enlightenment is probably only the first step in moving on from the denial phase of that.
February 23rd, 2014 at 5:39 pm
@ Jeremy – I’m just not so sure about this. Automation/mechanization has been underway long before the last 50 years. Sewing machines, coal – many, many other advances were made that saved women time and they didn’t go nutz. I also think you haven’t cared for young children full time – I have for some stints here and there. Two pre-school kids and a house – that’s 80 hours a week of endless feeding, cleaning, playing with, supervising, carting around. Even with a dishwasher and washing machine – so sorry, I don’t buy it. Also, men in the information age professions are working longer hours than ever, and with the advent of the always on life working from home wherever one finds himself is the new normal. I don’t know many people with real careers and families who have much downtime – quite the opposite in fact.
Nah, Hypergamy and the female imperative running amok via romantic love, courtly love and chivalry combined with political and economic empowerment of women is all that’s necessary for things to go haywire. Put political feminism on steroids by combining it with marxim and intersectional social justice BS – voila, that’s all we need.
February 23rd, 2014 at 6:08 pm
@Glenn,
Well, one, I said 200 years, not 50. Feminism actually began with the revolt against male spaces such as saloons post civil-war. That was about 50 years after the infancy of industrialization.
Hypergamy and the the push to influence society via FI exist with or without a cultural role. The cultural role was what helped keep it in check because it created a method to self-value besides social ladders and marrying-up. When you devalue such accomplishments you enhance the importance of hypergamy in any individual.
When you describe the difficulties in raising kids you’re actually missing the point. Children are a product of sex, so they only relate back to a woman’s reproductive capabilities, not any other capability. When you describe men in IT working longer hours, you’re again missing the point because men’s role has not yet been challenged by the tides of progress to the degree that women’s has.
February 23rd, 2014 at 6:29 pm
@ Jeremy – The term feminism was actually first coined by Fourier, the French philosopher who also co-developed the first ideas of Utopian socialism in the early 19th century, so I’m not sure what historical references you are making. Your point was that somehow “industrialization” had taken the hard work out of parenting and hence the respect for it or something – I still don’t think you have a clue how much work child rearing is. Also, there were many collective actions by women against men who didn’t toe the line of provider/protector before the U.S. post-civil war period. Check out Peter Wright’s gynocentrism.com to see numerous examples of women collectively trying to impose their imperatives on men long before and in many western societies.
As for the your cultural commentary you think that women were more valued back then? I mean, can you actually say that with a straight face? I think one could just as easily posit that women are much more valued today, hence their seeing child rearing as not enough – isn’t that much more likely? And again, I think industrialization has little to do with it. I think it’s about the economic and political power women have been granted along with putting political feminism on steroids as it was blended with cultural marxist memes and the advent of intersectionalist social justice which is what fuels second wave feminism and it’s daft progeny. The domination of this ideology is uniform among cultural elites and it’s been put on steroids as a result. This is the result of a very intentional campaign by the “New Left”.
My other observation is that there was much technological progress that preceded the post-civil war period. Coal, manual sewing machines, many tools and devices that greatly reduced the effort involved home cleaning and laundry etc, wells, pumps – all prior to “industrialization”.
Gynocentrism has run amok since the age of romance, courtly love and chivalry – it took an insane leap to the left in our politics and philosophy to super-charge it, not a dishwasher.
February 24th, 2014 at 12:48 pm
[…] Other perspectives on this form of human stupidity can be found here, here and here. […]
February 24th, 2014 at 4:55 pm
I tried to get through the comments here because it’s been a while since I last read a thread here, but good grief Rollo. Your commenters write dissertations!
Short version of my thoughts:
1) Husband has never bought me lingerie when I wasn’t present and we’ve been married 20 years.
2) The whole primate thing leaves me dead cold, since I believe humans were made in the image of the Almighty.
3) You’re right that if a wife wants to make herself available to her husband, she’ll do it whole-heartedly without extraordinary effort needed from him. What’s in us comes out and rarely needs to be extracted or bought.
February 24th, 2014 at 5:15 pm
You don’t need to be an evolutionary biologist to see similarities in interspecies behaviors.
February 26th, 2014 at 6:39 pm
LyingTree
Oh god, not the evo-psych bullshit again, Rollo. Why do you always revert back to that crap anytime I show up?
There is a very simple solution to your problem…
February 26th, 2014 at 6:56 pm
And here it is,..
http://www.justfourguys.com/findings-from-an-evolutionary-psychology-conference/
February 26th, 2014 at 9:28 pm
Thanks for the link to the study Rollo, although it is not particularly eye-opening.
Nothing has changed here, not in this study, and certainly not on this forum. You are continuing the exact same topic that has been discussed for ages. The tide merely changes – masculinity comes into favor, and out of favor, into favor, out of favor, into favor, out of favor… and so on, as it has throughout history. But overall, there is little doubt that the cultural value of masculinity has shaped everything about who we are as a species. The need for status is what creates a human identity. When humans act independently, they lose social status. It is the addiction that motivates us, and it is most certainly almost all of what we are.
What bothers me about your deference to evo-psych though is that it seems to stem from your resistance against accepting that it is a cultural construct. This is, quite literally, incomprehensible. Even the study you linked back to doesn’t dispute this at all, despite its first paragraph intending to debunk the myth that evo-psych is more than mere “pseudo-science”, yet it does nothing to illustrate that it is based in biological science at all! In fact, it repeatedly refers to status (a social need) as the driver for almost all of the behaviors noted in the study.
It is pretty much accepted in all of the social sciences (not just in gender studies!), that ‘masculinity’ is an ancient and well established social construct. Indeed, whether or not masculinity is, or should be, prized or upheld or preserved, or if it has any social value at all, is a matter of discussion on many feminist forums, in addition to being the central subject matter of almost every social science – including evolutionary psychology!
Perhaps it makes you uncomfortable believing that it IS a social construct, because if its social, then it can be changed, it can be wrong, it can be uncertain, and that would be…terrible?
I just don’t think we’ll ever agree on this point Rollo, because I stand with Tesla on this: “Anti-social behavior is a sign of intelligence in a world of conformists.” Though I know the questions I ask make you uncomfortable, I’ll ask a different way: is the social status we’re receiving worth the price we have to pay to get it?
February 26th, 2014 at 10:43 pm
@ LT – But nobody cares what you think – why don’t you get that?
February 26th, 2014 at 10:48 pm
@ LT – Oh yeah, and one more thing. Anti-social behavior is also often a sign of psychological pathology. Your reflexive need to correct us here is best seen as an artifact of your disturbed psyche. The screed above is evidence of hostility, not insight. Your ideas are absurd, not interesting. Get that, really, for you own good.
February 27th, 2014 at 11:26 am
Glenn. This isn’t correcting. This is questioning. Its what intelligent people do. Intelligent people consider without accepting. Its what you all did, presumably, before getting to this place in your lives – you questioned your reality.
What happened to the questioning mind that brought you to this point? To me, you just look like a religious convert who’s found a replacement ideology to be devoted to. Don’t you get why there’s so much opposition to you from non-believers? Its because the theory has so many holes in it, but you push it like we’re going to hell for not believing.
Its both arrogant and ignorant, and I see it everywhere among the manosphere contributors. The need to “unplug” people, as if people should be grateful for you rescuing them from ignorance. The constant denigrating and defensiveness, anytime anyone dares to question your position. The refusal to even discuss an idea that differs from mainstream thought. The rejection of opposition.
I’m disappointed, mainly because I thought this group of men was actually fledgling philosophers. The more you respond to me, the more I see that I couldn’t have been more wrong. The manosphere is not a lot different than a fundamentalist religion that covers its ears whenever anyone suggests a contrary theory.
February 27th, 2014 at 11:42 am
@ LT – I don’t represent the manosphere and I’m no fledgling philosopher – I’m just some guy who’s eyes have been opened. You, on the other hand, may be one of the least self-aware people I’ve encountered in a very long time. Let me try and reiterate a few things for you so you might “get it”.
1. You are hostile and that alone makes you quite easy to ignore.
2. At least half of what you say is errant nonsense and babble to me. It’s like shit you made up in your head that you think makes some sense – but it’s not revelatory to me, and I expect it is heard the same way by most Red Pill men. The rest of what you say is mostly reframing things that I would readily concede and are incosequential or half truths. Yawn…
3. This is a male space. Why do you not understand this? Whether you acknowledge it or not, in my reality, there are hardly any spaces where male lived experiences can be shared without a filter, and where we can vent and speak our minds and feelings openly. It’s a huge benefit to me to have a male space where the female imperative isn’t being shoved down my throat 24/7. I really don’t come here to get a female perspective – the rest of my world and reality do that all the time, thanks. Hence, I don’t welcome you here. In this space, I have no interest in what you have to say. I think women should just be spectators in this space. Men used to have the golf course too, but now invariably some weak women who can’t hit the ball more than 130 yards is waddling around and I can’t curse and piss and rough house and smoke cigars and get wasted with the guys to my heart’s content anymore there, so, all I’m left with is this fucking website. You see, I can’t tell the female golfers to fuck off – but here I can actually tell you how I feel and not be shut down.
Last. Please conclude that this is a waste of your time – it certainly is a waste of my time. I get nothing out of your commentary – ever. Go straighten out some betas in the real world or blue pill manginas who grant you authority just because you demand it. I could put it another way. If you were on fire, I wouldn’t piss on you to douse the flames.
February 27th, 2014 at 12:01 pm
@LT, I notice that of all the many blogs in the manosphere you only ever comment on mine? Why?
You could easily air out your evo-psych counterarguments at Just 4 Guys:
http://www.justfourguys.com/findings-from-an-evolutionary-psychology-conference/
Morpheus and Ted wont ban you for the same reason I wont, but any rational person would think that if one was as dedicated to her perspective as you she’d want to challenge the source of her detractors, yes?
In fact I’ll do you the courtesy of posting your response to this over there and we can see what these philosopher’s have to say.
February 27th, 2014 at 12:54 pm
Tam ye Bam
. We didn’t get where we are today by entraining “weakness” in our genetic makeup [ /Reggie Perrin ].
CJ? You’re wanted back at the survivalist commune, packing Sunshine Dessert cartons, now. Right now!
February 27th, 2014 at 12:59 pm
Sao Feng
@Non beta males
There is an article on Heartiste on the ways women tool men. One of them is called “Let’s you and him fight”.
Yes, it is a part of the Female Imperative. This was displayed most recently in Maidan square in Kiev, in the form of cups of tea carried by women into the cold to men standing behind barricades.
Another form of it can be seen at sunshinemary’s blog, in the posting where she stamps her foot and demands that the men of her “christian” tribe go out “someday” and kill all the PUA’s and others.
“Did you kill for me, yet? No? Let’s You And Him Fight” is part of the foundation of the Female Imperative.
February 27th, 2014 at 1:02 pm
LyingTree
It is pretty much accepted in all of the social sciences (not just in gender studies!), that ‘masculinity’ is an ancient and well established social construct.
Argumentum ad populum is still a logical fallacy, no matter how many unscientific, “peer reviewed by my friends” bogus studies are produced.
Testosterone is a fact. “Social science” is more of an oxymoron…
February 27th, 2014 at 4:17 pm
Indeed, whether or not masculinity is, or should be, prized or upheld or preserved, or if it has any social value at all, is a matter of discussion on many feminist forums, in addition to being the central subject matter of almost every social science – including evolutionary psychology!
That is, quite literally, comedy gold! A complete lie (the “central subject matter”), but comedy gold, nonetheless…
February 28th, 2014 at 12:42 pm
@ LT2013
And all of these phenomena are driven by evolutionary programming.
It has been well-documented that there are sex-differences at birth, and that culture cannot override these sex differences. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
A bunch of unscientific idiots believe in social-constructionism. So what?
I’m inclined to agree with Tesla. So what? What does this have to do with the validity (or lack thereof) of evo-psych?
March 1st, 2014 at 2:32 pm
Nemesis, she’s just trolling the site. She’s a disruptive attention whore, any time the conversation can be steered away from the reality of women and to her it’s a win.
Unless, of course, the conversation becomes all about what a disruptive, lying, attention whoring flame-troll she is. Those who troll with stinky bait do not like to have their habits discussed.
Anyway, LyingTree2013 has decided to go troll at Dalrock’s now.
March 5th, 2014 at 9:57 am
A woman loses all her sexual value after age 25 whereas alpha dudes GAIN sexual and economic value starting around age 30 and it keeps going up up UP.
So we alphas, we can get hawt young wimmin even when we are 95 or older.
(flex)
March 15th, 2014 at 4:48 am
I don’t know about marriage because I have never been married. I hope sex goes the same way. I do it because I like him, he likes me, it feels good, then we like each other even more and so on. I would not marry a man if I thought the sexual aspect of the relationship was going to turn out to be a bummer! Author, I have to say your analysis is frightening.
March 15th, 2014 at 9:54 am
@Glenn stopped listening to women….smart man.
July 15th, 2014 at 11:17 pm
[…] Dave had read The Gift he would know that buying for, or requesting that a woman wear lingerie is a Beta push. A woman […]
September 10th, 2014 at 12:18 am
[…] The Gift […]
September 23rd, 2014 at 9:28 pm
RM,
You constantly confuse who’s with whose. For example, “I think it’s worth pointing out the obvious contrast this gift dynamic has with regards to the man who’s wife was provably more sexually adventurous in her past than she . . .” that should be “the man WHOSE wife, etc.” Who’s denotes “who is”; whose is possessive. Sorry, it detracts from your thoughts to have this grammatical error.
March 3rd, 2015 at 10:34 am
[…] the scripture of Tomassi, there are two types of sex: transactional and validational. A girl fucks you either as a tool to […]