I’ve often been quoted of the following – “Marriage is no insulation from the sexual marketplace” – and at the risk of piling on to what I initially knew would be the click-bait du jour of the blogosphere this week, I was reminded of this quote as I read through the now infamous spreadsheet of sexual excuses as compiled by a 26 year old husband for a 26 year old wife.
You’ll have to excuse my tardiness in posting this week, but I wanted to allow this story some time to develop before I threw my hat in the ring. My expectation was that most takes on this sex denial log would be from a unilaterally feminine-primary perspective and predictably ridicule the husband for his efforts while absolving his wife of any culpability for her ‘reasons’ for not wanting to get after it with him.
Needless to say I wasn’t disappointed, but as an added bonus we got an indignant insight into what a feminine-primary culture expects men not to expect in marriage (spoiler alert, PUAs called this long before Feministing did).
There’s a lot to unpack here, so I’ll begin with the most obvious issues first.
The most glaring omission I’ve read in most of the posts regarding this couple so far is that, in a blatant effort to lessen the negative impact on the wife, very few bloggers have included the entire Reddit post to draw conclusions from:
The first thing we have to do is a bit of Red Pill math to understand the context in which this situation takes place. We have a couple that married young by modern standards. Both are 26 and have been married for 2 years (i.e. married at 24).
Furthermore they’d been monogamous for 3 years prior, thus they met and paired up at the age of 21.
This is as much as we know about their history, but in context we’re looking at a guy who in all likelihood married a 24 year old girl for the same feminine conditioned, idealistic reasons he had for pairing up with her at 21.
I don’t have any evidence to support the idea that this guy married his wife due to religious convictions, but I don’t think it’s too far a stretch to presume they had somewhat regular sex in the 3 years prior to marrying.
I also can’t confirm that either party had sex with anyone else prior to their meeting at 21, but if we consider that both likely had average sexual experiences between 18-21 we’re only talking about a window of around 4 years in which either had any opportunity to experience anyone else before they met.
I’m establishing this because if I had to speculate, both are the husband and wife are operating from Adolescent Social Skill Sets, and thus have no real frame of adult reference learned through dating (LTR or STR) with which they can base their expectations in marriage.
However, as we’ll see in a moment, a fem-centric culture is only too willing to fill in the blanks of that lack of social reference for them.
Spreadsheet Guy
A woman’s imagination is the single most useful tool in your Game arsenal.
Every technique, every casual response, every gesture, intimation and subcommunication hinges on stimulating her imagination. Competition anxiety relies on it. DHV (demonstrating higher value) relies on it. Sexual tension (‘gina tingles) relies on it. Call it “Caffeinating the Hamster” if you will, but stimulating a woman’s imaginings is the single most potent talent you can learn in any context of a relationship (LTR, STR, ONS, Plate Spinning.)
Spreadsheet Guy is learning this now no doubt. He’s done what most men do: attempt to litigate with evidence and deductively solve his problem by appealing to his wife’s reason with a token effort to enforce his ‘being in the right’ by exposing her to a marginal amount of dread.
What he fails to account for is that even if she responds with more frequent sex, any sex they do have will be the compromised result of her negotiated obligation, not her genuine, motivated desire.
The frame you enter into monogamy/marriage with sets the tone for your future relationship. Spreadsheet Guy is simply following the male deductive approach to problem solving and making appeals to his wife’s reason by graphically showing her (and now all of the internet) the evidence of his correctness.
Appealing to women’s logic and relying on deductive reasoning to sort it out is the calling card of a Beta mind. There is nothing more anti-seductive for women than appealing to her reason. Arousal, attraction, sexual tension, subcommunication of desire, all happen indirectly and below the social surface for women.
It’s not that women are incapable of reasoning (hypergamy is one logical bitch) or are crippled by their emotion-based hindbrains, it’s that if you’re asking her how to be more attractive you don’t Get It. It’s in the doing, not the asking.
I can’t fault the guy for his effort; he simply hasn’t learned that women never want full disclosure of anything – and particularly anything that shines an unflattering light on them.
Nothing is more gratifying for a woman than to believe she’s figured out a man using her mythical ‘feminine intuition’. Spreadsheet Guy doesn’t give her the option to use her imagination and solve the puzzle – just like most guys who believe the trope that ‘open communication is the key to a good relationship®’ he spells it out for her in no uncertain terms – and with a marginal amount of above-board Dread he expects (I presume) the problem with her sexual frequency will be solved for him.
From a male perspective, and particularly that of an uninitiated beta male, negotiation of desire seems a rational solution to the problem. Men tend to innately rely on deductive reasoning; otherwise known as an “if then” logic stream.
The code is often something like this: I need sex + women have the sex I want + query women about their conditions for sex + meet prerequisites for sex = the sex I want.
One very important element of Spreadsheet Guy’s actions that needs to be understood is the convenient comparisons being made in regard to the transactional nature of sex, and the expectations men (and to a lesser degree women) place on their conditions for sex.
Of course the first feminist retort is that men should never have any expectation under any circumstance of receiving the gift of a woman’s sexuality for any reason other than that she wants to fuck him.
Naturally this becomes problematic under the auspices of marriage wherein a man’s default presumption is that he is, if not entitled to, then certainly can expect to some extent that his wife will have sex with him.
This situation represents an illustration of the great schism between the old order social contract of marriage, wherein a man had a reasonable expectation of sex with his wife, and the new feminine-primary order wherein a man has absolutely no right, expectation or privilege to his wife’s sexuality.
Unfortunately for men the great deception of this schism serves the Feminine Imperative in that it still conveniently convinces men that they can expect sex while simultaneously shaming them for the expectation that feminine-primacy tells them they should expect.
This double-speak is necessary to insuring the certainty of long-term security needs that women’s dualistic sexual strategy demands.
Consider Choreplay: 5 years ago the same female author encourages men to do more dishes and help a woman out with her domestic chores because “nothing’s sexier” than a man who ‘shares’ the housework.
Translation: Perform these tasks and you will be rewarded with the “unadulterated lust” your wife has been reluctant to deliver – i.e. negotiated desire.
5 years later…“Households with a more traditional gender division of labor report higher sexual frequency than households with less traditional gender divisions of labor,”
So the only conclusion we can really draw from this is that women encourage exactly the transactional mentality about sex that they now complain all men feel they are “owed”.
Spreadsheet Guy was caught in this presumptive trap – prior to marriage he’s sold the idea that he can expect his wife to be sexual with him on a regular basis, but only after he’s taken measures to prove that his wife isn’t upholding her end of the marriage bargain is he told that he in fact has absolutely no privilege to his wife’s sexuality under any circumstance – and furthermore that she holds unilateral control over his own sexual fulfillment under penalty of breach of (marriage) contract.
Spreadsheet Wife
As I began earlier, an entire social support network is more than ready to fill in the blanks left by Spreadsheet Wife’s lack of social reference.
The most obvious form of this comes from the comments and encouragement of women and feminized men affirming her prefabricated understanding of ‘what sex should be after marriage’.
Our sex life HAS tapered in the last few months, but isn’t that allowed?
If you need confirmation of the double-speak about sexual entitlement I outlined above you’ll find it in the words of the same woman before and after she’s married.
This is yet one more ready-made social convention for women to default to after she’s secured the provider-male her hypergamy demands in marriage. A woman’s sexual appetites are expected to “taper” off and she should be “allowed” this tapering and have a man understand and accept this fact.
Once again, The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies:
For one sex’s sexual strategy to become realized, the other sex’s strategy must be compromised or abandoned entirely.
And again, the Roissy / Heartist Prime Directive of Feminism:
The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality
After all the back and forth I’ve been reading about this spreadsheet I think it’s time for men to come to terms with how the social contract that used to be marriage has fundamentally changed.
Marriage is no insulation from the sexual marketplace.
The advantages of being single and indefinitely dating non-exclusively (Spinning Plates) or stringing along a series of short term monogamous affairs far outweigh the risks of a lifetime of marriage in which no man should ever expect sex in terms of either genuine desire or even uninspired obligation sex.
In other words, men are entirely powerless to effect any degree of control over their sex lives under the auspices of a now feminine-primary definition of marriage. The only condition under which men have any degree of exercisable control over the their sex life is remaining single and retaining the threat-point of exiting any relationship when that satisfaction declines.
In Appreciation I went into detail about how women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices men make to facilitate a feminine reality; this situation is a prime example of this.
Women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the risks a man must assume in unilaterally relinquishing any degree of control he might’ve been able to realize over his own sex life – and never to expect he could ever even have that control.
July 30th, 2014 at 3:03 am
jacklabear
July 29th, 2014 at 8:59 pm
I said to my ex-wife a couple years ago: “If I had dominated you when we were married, we would probably still be married.”
She agreed.
Just asked the first mate today if she liked me dominating her. She said yes.
The sample size is increasing. Heh.
July 30th, 2014 at 6:56 am
Jacklabear;
“What about hyper-rational hard core INTP mechanistic naturalist iconoclast engineers like me?”
The universe as a whole, perhaps? You might classify learning about its various aspects as a form of worship. It works for me, another INTP, anyway.
July 30th, 2014 at 7:32 am
Jf12
An overly simplistic explanation of a complex phenomenon. Certain deficiencies specific to social interactions don’t necessarily mean lessened general problem solving capacity. Take for example subpar real time recognition of subtle nuances in facial expression and posture. Does it make one’s life more difficult, overall? Does it make one less intelligent, overall?
July 30th, 2014 at 8:16 am
@Exfernal, if you prefer I could inundate you in many more actual facts that will cleanse you from your stubborn preference for your erroneous feewings that some people have secret smarts that make them smarter than the smartie pants that think they’re so smart. Or, you could reread the Gottfredson article until you get it: a single measure, and IQ is plenty good enough, suffices to charactize almost all of cognitive competence in all areas for almost all people.
Appeals to exceptional unicorns hiding in corners and shadows is, bluntly, cognitively incompetent.
July 30th, 2014 at 8:54 am
@Morpheus:
“Given that, I was just curious what you are getting out of commenting here.”
Examples of your, a typical manospherian’s, black-and-white thinking, for one, as demonstrated in your tendentious gotcha ‘question':
“would a relationship where the guy has blue balls, asks his wife’s permission for everything, and works half the month to pay his mortgage, but the wife is haappppy….is that a “successful” relationship in your view?”
A perfect instance of the either/or fear-based reasoning, typical for emotionally stunted manospherians. No wonder you’re unhaapppy in the complex world of messy human interactions.
“The origins come from actually testing in the real world with real women and seeing how they react.”
Testing? What sociopaths preying on female bottom-feeders do in order to show that their dicks still work (e.g., Roosh, Roissy), or a basement-dwelling deadbeat father, self-identifying as a narcissistic psychopath, prone to writing explosive rants on the web says he has done with his (mostly imaginary) wimminz (a la Minter) hardly counts as reliable data (unless you are a manospherian True Believer).
Those are the people you’ve anointed as your “leaders,” along with The Irrational Male here, and they define your reality for you, whether you want to admit it or not. What they do, of course, is nothing more than rehash the oldest misogynist tropes, dressed in a mostly new lingo, that provide you with a convenient justification of your own failures with women and life in general. This is why you spend untold hours here, so readily lapping it up. It does not improve your life or help you become a better man (often to the contrary), but it makes you feel better about your crappy existence because it’s all wimminz’ fault. That truthiness is the real magic of your Red Pill.
@jf12:
You missed the forest for a few numbered trees, but illustrated why spergs are unsuccessful with women. Are you an accountant? Or an engineer? A number-cruncher, for sure.
You’ve disregarded implications of the B-C’s thesis, which tell us that male brains like yours — particularly prone to compartmentalizing, systematizing, and calculating — tend not to grasp the subtleties of human interactions. Men who operate from that mindset are therefore generally off-putting to women and unsuccessful with them (= continually rejected).
You may be highly intelligent and accomplished in whatever scientific / number-crunching area you specialize, but it is not your intelligence as such that’s repulsive to women: it is your literal-mindedness; black-and white, nuance-free reasoning, especially as it comes to relationships; cognitive and emotional egocentrism; and other traits that go together with sperginess, or extreme male-brain-ness, if you prefer to avoid diagnostic jargon.
You can’t undo your innate wiring, that’s true. Being aware of it, however, instead of inventing excuses (“women don’t like intelligent men, waaa!”) could possibly help, if you were interested in positive change and all that.
@M Simon:
All human beings, male and female, follow the herd one way or another. We are herd (social) animals. There are few exceptions, but they just prove the rule.
@Glenn:
“Consider carefully taking advice from these people. Would you do so in the real world? Or would you steer clear of them or just laugh at them? Me? Such people never even make into the social and business circles I operate in – they are the human detritus good, productive, serious people shun.”
Excellent points, all; cannot be overstated.
July 30th, 2014 at 9:26 am
Another way to put it: one of the best ways to attract women is to already have one.
Indeed, known around these parts as “pre-selection” — that is, if another woman who is decently attractive is bedding him, he must have value, therefore I am attracted to him on that basis. It’s a kind of intra-sex vetting system.
July 30th, 2014 at 9:45 am
re: “You’ve disregarded implications”
I’ve disregarded YOUR mistaken attempts at inferring something from imaginary data. What does the fact that MUCH less than 1 in 200 children are high-functioning and ANYWHERE on the autistic spectrum imply to you? I can wait until you decide to get real.
July 30th, 2014 at 10:12 am
@Exfernal, re: simplifying things in order to avoid misunderstandings.
You know how the athletes tend to be good at body stuff? The good baseball player is pretty good at basketball too, and ok at many track events. Yes, sure, some guys are better at some things than other. The lower body guy may be a great sprinter, and the upper body guy may be a fine shotputter. One of the reasons there are some percentage of divisions in athletic abilities like that is because the leg bone ain’t connected to the arm bone. But even with those divisions, the athletes tend to well outperform nonathletes in body stuff.
Brain stuff is like that, but much more so. The smart people tend to be good at brain stuff, and it’s all connected. Remember upper-body guy vs lower-body guy? There really aren’t divisions like that for brain stuff. Empirically it’s not merely all connected, it’s all the same “muscle”. Upper-body guy is good at anything, anything at all, involving arms. Brain guy is good at anything, anything at all, involving brainz.
July 30th, 2014 at 10:32 am
Using your metaphor, would you expect a guy who had his forearm broken and imperfectly realigned to excel at tennis, jf12? It’s easier for him to be a decent runner, though.
July 30th, 2014 at 10:43 am
@Exfernal, re: runner. Correct. That’s why almost all mentally damaged people do not do well on any mental abilities, but could dig ditches, etc.
July 30th, 2014 at 10:54 am
Funny. Both my examples were physical activities. Somehow it changed into mental vs. menial distinction. Try again pushing your own conclusions on someone else. Notice that professions with over-representation of people on autism spectrum are hardly ditch-digging related.
A nice reframing attempt, though.
July 30th, 2014 at 11:17 am
re: some kind of something. An anecdote, with a first sentence of background. My first wife was some kind of genius English major apparently without any mathematical interest, and has become quite the lit crit doyenne.
We were living in New Orleans at the time, early 1970s, and she was trying to stir some American activity in Oulipo, i.e. the mathematical gaming of writing. She couldn’t understand that a mathematical person wouldn’t be *interested* in doing such writing; she thought it had to do with *ability*. I wrote her a quick Fortran (of all things) program one evening to do statistical outputs of non quite random words (no grammar). She was fascinated by the outputs, but not the program. Anyway, she wasn’t grasping the all-importance of interest, even though she herself had no interest in math, or games, or anything of the sort.
(Game people know what makes a good game, and what’s fun etc. A basketball player plays other sports, but probably wouldn’t spend a lot of days doing much hopscotch, unless forced to by pity on a nonathletic child. I digress.)
So I punted. Since she wouldn’t, or couldn’t, accept that smart(er) people would have dissimilar interests to her, I blamed the culture. “Nothing about French lit makes much of an impact elsewhere anyway, unless somebody bothers to translate it.” This set her off down another warpath.
July 30th, 2014 at 12:03 pm
I’m not sure if it’s due to the Barneyfication of society “everyone is smart in his or her (or trans or neither) own way”, or the Oprahfication, or just femi-Maxism in general, but every single one of the young people I know, and I mean under 40, consider themselves geniuses despite all evidence to the contrary.
July 30th, 2014 at 12:26 pm
I’m over-educated in the university sense.
Since then I have focused on constant improvement.
It’s about choosing to the best in the world at certain things by doing one habit at a time for a month, then adding another next month and so on. I’m always adding role models to my life that live and think differently than I do.
What usually happens in the educational process is that the faculties are dulled, overloaded, stuffed and paralyzed so that by the time most people are mature they have lost their innate capabilities.
R. Buckminster Fuller
July 30th, 2014 at 12:56 pm
If I have to go to all the effort to game the wife… I might as well be gaming a tight bodied 19 year old… this is the point that women seem to forget.
In the long run men want and enjoy a whore…. by whore i mean a woman that dolls herself up and puts herself out there, with little to no effort on his part…. men want and need that kind of instant sexual connection…. at least a couple of times a week.
She may not feel like it, but she will enjoy it as she progresses.
It’s all fine and good to say men have to learn game, organize date nights, prepare birthday weekends away and all that… .but this is expensive, time consuming, distracting from work and other life goals… as well as being plain tedious and tiresome….
Sometimes a man is tired and just wants a hot chick in lingerie to suck his dick and get his rocks off… women expect so much in relationships, but rarely do they take the initiative to treat the man like a man. Washing dishes and doing laundary is easily replaced with a minimum wage maid… whereas BJs and anal are more 10 times more costly on a per hour rate and carry the risk of diseases.
What’s more is that it costs the married woman NOTHING more than a few minutes of giving / investing in her relationship, instead of always expecting to make withdrawls.
If men need to learn game, even to maintain a marriage, then married women need to learn how to be good whores.
July 30th, 2014 at 1:12 pm
@Mart, with apologies to my readers…
From The Unbearable Triteness of Hating:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/the-unbearable-triteness-of-hating/
and
It’s always interesting to me when someone criticizes the manosphere as some misogynistic cult (you’re not the first) yet they offer no real alternative to Game or anything more constructive than “you basement-dwelling creeps just need to get out more”.
So, if you have something better, some winning formula that no one in the manosphere has ever considered before (other than just stick your head back in the sand), then we’re all ears, but until you do you’re just another ego-invested hack typing away the same longwinded diatribes you criticize the men here of spending too much time doing.
July 30th, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Jl12,
Stop with link sperging and answer my questions put to you. How do you account for all of the famous examples I supplied? Are you stating that Rollo doesn’t,didn’t attract women by the boatload? Further by tirelessly going on about proper use of statistics and relying on supposed science, are you stating that chicks do not dig you? Serious question, you seem to have some kind of personal stake in this that I’m sensing.
I guarantee you that my IQ is quite high, and I have women throwing themselves at me. Whether you believe that or not is inconsequential, but I know it for a fact, which is why I honestly can’t take your claims seriously. Real life just doesn’t seem to align with your views. So what gives? It sounds more to me like nerdy science guys went out to prove they were too smart for girls, so that they could hold them in contempt. Odd that they didn’t consider the Byron’s and John Donnes of the world, n’est-ce pas?
July 30th, 2014 at 2:09 pm
Some nuance is missing from the discussion of ASD.
Simon Barron-Cohen notes that the socialization deficit is due to difficulty in reading and internalizing others’ emotions and thoughts. IOW, an empathy deficit. In autism, there can be a high level of reasoning activity like Rain Man – hyper-rational.
SBC noted that operating in the world of feelings is a typically feminine trait while rationality is a masculine trait.
So he sees autism as a kind of hyper-masculine state.
I took his online test.
I scored a hair below average on empathizing, and well into the autistic range for rationality.
So does that make me a sperg? I don’t have the characteristic empathy deficit. I just have a strong tendency to use reason in understanding the universe. The T of INTP is in line with that. It means I tend to interact with people more on the basis of reason than identification with their feelings.
Of course that hyper-rational orientation might tend to lead by default to trying to negotiate desire or otherwise appeal to a woman’s reason. Hence the value of being exposed to a more useful POV around here.
July 30th, 2014 at 2:54 pm
@Rollo Tomassi
“It’s always interesting to me when someone criticizes the manosphere as some misogynistic cult (you’re not the first) yet they offer no real alternative to Game or anything more constructive than “you basement-dwelling creeps just need to get out more”.”
Of course I’m not the first. Others have been telling you where you’re wrong, but like the narcissist that you are, and one selling snake oil to the gullible, you won’t hear any of it.
Not to belabor the already obvious, to the extent Red Pill helps men become better people, it is useful. But when it turns them against women, by injecting them with or already augmenting their existing misogyny, it poisons. Do you really believe that normal women are attracted to men who despise them? If so, then I have a bridge to sell you too.
An alternative to your convoluted and often hilariously irrational theories would be a much simpler advice for men to:
1. Relax.
2. Figure out what you want to do with your life.
3. Do it.
4. The rest, women/woman included, will follow.
There is no mystery to it. In spite of multiple social changes we have undergone, this simple formula has always held true. But being so simple, it won’t generate clicks and sell useless books, spreading illusion of false hope for the needy, and padding your accounts as a result.* So instead Welcome to Red Pilldom, where ye shall abandon all reason (but quickly become convinced that you’ve finally found it.)
*That’s not directed only to you, but to the rest of the ‘sphere’s gurus, most of whom are clear as day malignant narcissists.
July 30th, 2014 at 2:55 pm
re: Burninator and hopscotch.
Tiger Woods slept with dozens of prostitutes who were paid specifically to party with him. Despite being known totally for athleticism and not intellect, he has zero game and is extremely unsuccessful with women when left to his own devices.
Einstein did not date Monroe. His lifetime N is extremely well known to be exactly 3, including his two wives. He couldn’t get anything going with other women before his first wife, and she wasn’t slobbering all over him either.
Byron was extremely handsome, foppish, effeminate, bisexual, and all of his successes were due entirely to women liking his face, and nothing else. He wound up cuckolded by his own mistress Teresa, with oneitis for her, lying in bed alone listening to her squeals of sexual delight given to her by her gross husband.
Ben Franklin’s lifetime N is widely acknowledged to be low single digits. The best guess is 2, his wife, and his very temporary mistress when very young. The ladies did like to trade bawdy jokes with the chubby old jolly man, in public, fully dressed.
Mozart had bad oneitis for one girl who spurned him, so he married the closest thing: her sister. N = 1. Yay, lady-killer.
Genghis, though really was a lady-killer. Brute force instead of intelligence.
July 30th, 2014 at 3:17 pm
Mart
July 30th, 2014 at 8:54 am
What they do, of course, is nothing more than rehash the oldest misogynist tropes…
I dunno. I LIKE women. I like being naked with them. The first GF taught me Game. Because she liked men with Game. Been with the first mate 40+ years now. All sweetness and light? Hell no. But I doubt if we would still be together if I didn’t have Game.
Of course I have no way of knowing but my guess is that you are a Martha not a Martin. Red pill is not against women. It is in fact designed to make them happy in M/F relationships. See:
M Simon
July 30th, 2014 at 3:03 am
As to following the herd? Probably. But I never cared to be in the center. I prefer the edge. It is more dangerous but the air is cleaner. And guess what? Females of the species LOVE men at home with danger. Bad boys etc. If it doesn’t kill you (I have come close a few times) it makes you stronger.
===
jf12,
You need to be more patient. Change takes time. Especially if you are asking for a person to CHANGE their view on a subject. It is one thing to start with a clean slate. It is quite another to have to overwrite. Yeah I fire away some times. But you seem to be in a firing mode ALL the time. That is not as effective as it could be. If your object is change.
Endocannabinoid production in the body peaks from ages 15 to 25 (roughly) that is when learning is easiest. By 30 most are “old men”. In general old men only change if they are experiencing enough pain for long enough. Stockholm syndrome.
July 30th, 2014 at 3:28 pm
@jf12
“What does the fact that MUCH less than 1 in 200 children are high-functioning and ANYWHERE on the autistic spectrum imply to you? I can wait until you decide to get real.”
First off, those are old stats, from early 2000. Current numbers put autism rates at 1 in 68 U.S. children (per CDC):
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/27/health/cdc-autism/
But second, what is your point exactly? That ASD is rare enough? So?
Male brains of the semi-autistic bend — i.e., uber-rational and unable to grasp nuances of emotional life — are far more prevalent than officially diagnosed ASD cases: this is the major takeaway from the SBC’s piece, as well as an observable reality around us. Because if you look at the typically male professions (e.g., STEM and vicinity), you’ll see that those Aspie-like males predominate. The nerd designation exists for a reason.
Furthermore, it is decidedly not true that being good at “brain stuff” generalizes across all areas of ability (that is also another takeaway from SBC’s, but not only, research).
It does not take an expert to figure out that a large portion of mansopherians belong somewhere on the ASD spectrum (and another in the personality disordered category, specifically psychopathy and narcissism — both disorders, like ASD, characterized by severe empathy deficits). It is obvious in what they write and do.
BTW, that self-aggrandizing anecdote about your genius wife (whose genius, however, was still inferior to yours) also points to narcissism — another red flag for normal women, and another reason why women avoid guys like you (shades of Elliot Rodger).
–
Guys who are confused about life in general and women in particular need help, but they should not seek it from men who are obviously emotionally impaired. Technocrats, sociopaths, and narcissists are not good sources of wisdom about human relationships; but they do serve a useful purpose as cautionary tales — e.g., do not, for a moment, believe that a “happily married” man spends long hours on the Internet every day writing about how evil women are and how best to game them.
July 30th, 2014 at 3:39 pm
@Mart, re: autism incidence.
From your link “The study found nearly half of children with an autism spectrum disorder have average or above-average intellectual ability — an IQ above 85.” Nearly half were above 85. Encroaching on genius territory, nearly.
re: “Furthermore, it is decidedly not true”
Luckily, you don’t get to decide.
July 30th, 2014 at 3:39 pm
re: Elliot Rodgers the genius who almost didn’t flunk a couple of classes before dropping?
July 30th, 2014 at 3:47 pm
A Modest Proposal. Howzabout we stop pedestalizing women’s pickers, and instead of insisting that what works in attracting women to clearly-stupid mean bad boys and brutes is some “different kind” of intelligence, and instead of insisting that what turns off women to clearly-intelligent nice guys and caring bookish nerds is some “different kind” of stupid, we call it like it really is?
July 30th, 2014 at 3:47 pm
Translation: http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/13/just-be-yourself/
July 30th, 2014 at 3:52 pm
“…uber-rational and unable to grasp nuances of emotional life…”
As I pointed out, it is not black and white, one or the other. It doesn’t follow that being highly rational requires inability to understand emotion.
But thank you for providing us an example of one who is the opposite of that.
July 30th, 2014 at 3:53 pm
Mart
July 30th, 2014 at 2:54 pm
If a man is interested in women your advice is not total rubbish. But it is far too limited. And to that extent and per the topic around here you are at minimum useless and at worst counterproductive. You will note a few engineers in this thread. We are not discussing engineering (except in so far as what we are endeavoring is to engineer better M/F relationships).
You don’t want to be dominated? Excellent. The universe has developed a herd of betas just for you. And I’m not against that. It is what it is.
About 20 years ago I was in a position to watch a group of women working a group of men (pre or post cotillion not sure). It was on the edge of the South. It was quite obvious that these “well bred” men were being selected for slavery. I was amused. What the ladies wanted was high earners (or family money) that were willing to be their slaves just for the chance of getting in their oh so special panties.On occasion. And of course the social status from marrying the “right” woman. The women were SOOOOOO Haughty. You could smell it. Didn’t care for it.
When I have a choice I prefer biker bars. What I like most is that poseurs are immediately sniffed out. They tend to go elsewhere. Not everybody is comfortable with men capable of murder. There are women who like that sort of thing. Quite a lot in fact. And if the rumors are true – most of them.
July 30th, 2014 at 3:54 pm
@Rollo:
That black-and-white oversimplification again.
Not just be yourself, if being yourself is an aimless and confused schlock. 2 and 3 are the most important, and most difficult, tasks for most.
July 30th, 2014 at 4:06 pm
Oh please, Franklin was a renknowned lady’s man. Byron as well, it was his artsy fartsy spiel that gave him the edge. Or are you also one of those “looks are the primary thing that attracts women” individuals? Khan you did not in fact refute, and being a military genius is still being, well, a genius. Mozart did have Oneitis, true, yet managed to attract a high quality woman and pump out a brood of kids. He was, I hear, rather smart. How was that possible, I mean, he was really smart, that doesn’t compute. But, well, there it is. Jefferson had a wife, he was smart.
And what about Rollo? Why can he attract women? Why do women come onto me without shame?
Clearly intellect is a neutral value, it neither adds nor detracts from a man’s bed worthiness. What detracts is being speargy/nerdy. Being smart does not mean being speargy, no matter how much Hollywood tries to tell us it is so. A highly intelligent man can pick and learn Game and utilize it to stunning effect, protests to the country notwithstanding.
Sorry guy, I’m living in that world right now. Intellect does not equate automatically with being socially inept.
Besides, how do we have high IQ people if women eschew high IQ types? Seems the trend would be for high IQ to die due to natural selection if your view was correct. Odd, lots of smart people out here…
July 30th, 2014 at 4:08 pm
M Simon:
“Not everybody is comfortable with men capable of murder. There are women who like that sort of thing. Quite a lot in fact. And if the rumors are true – most of them.”
Rumors are not true, and this is where Red Pillers (or at least some of them) are off as well. Male strength and status need not be associated with violence to be attractive. Women who are attracted to violent men exhibit a multitude of psychological problems; one of them is diagnosed as hybristophilia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia
They are not a majority, thankfully (for the non-murderous men).
Again, the common in the ‘sphere belief that women are attracted to thugs is a typical for Red Pilldom error of overgeneralizing from a relatively small sample of human population.
July 30th, 2014 at 4:12 pm
jf12
July 30th, 2014 at 3:47 pm
Well that is in fact my point. Brains are no impediment to being a “bad boy”. But it is not a common combination. I ask the first mate from time to time about it. She says it is rare and I’m the only one she ever met. Given her attraction to brains (after all the other basic criteria are met) – lucky me. She was in fact just what I wanted. Some one who wanted me. Desperately. My game was designed to find her. And I had to sort through quite a few. And I didn’t stop sorting when I met her. And I was blatant about it. She knew of every single other one. I made sure. She had to want me that bad. And from time to time when other women come on to me I ask her if that doesn’t validate her choice. She says yes. She doesn’t like it when they do but I remind her that her preference in men is those that attract other women. She admits it.
Women are generally not logical creatures.
July 30th, 2014 at 4:13 pm
re: “Clearly intellect is a neutral value, it neither adds nor detracts from a man’s bed worthiness.”
I agree. But since few of us are Übermenner, it doesn’t matter that there is no unitarity principle (zero-sum rule) apportioning talents. Hence an intellectual man is most likely not to be physically talented, and vice versa.
July 30th, 2014 at 4:15 pm
re: NAWALT is the feminine error of overgeneralizing from “a relatively small sample” of “well, me, for example.”
July 30th, 2014 at 4:20 pm
Mart
July 30th, 2014 at 4:08 pm
Again, the common in the ‘sphere belief that women are attracted to thugs is a typical for Red Pilldom error of overgeneralizing from a relatively small sample of human population.
But they are. At least in my experience. The first mate has told me more than once that she was looking for a protector and despite all my other failings (according to her) she still rates me as an outstanding protector.
Now why would women be looking for thugs (or more generally a protector)? Children. Despite your belief or wish that desire on the part of women is innate. At least among those desiring children.
July 30th, 2014 at 4:21 pm
jf12
July 30th, 2014 at 4:15 pm
AWALT – heh.
July 30th, 2014 at 4:22 pm
re: I’m listening (my voice is very much like Kelsey Grammer’s, fwiw). I’m especially waiting to hear how less than 1 in 136 of kids with IQs over 85 is making so many intelligent boys so repulsive.
July 30th, 2014 at 4:29 pm
The Burninator
July 30th, 2014 at 4:06 pm
When I’m looking for a good programmer I ask about their musical interests. The two go together. You can look it up.
July 30th, 2014 at 4:31 pm
jf12
July 30th, 2014 at 4:22 pm
Could you explain that? I don’t get the references. Or maybe I missed it up thread.
July 30th, 2014 at 4:35 pm
jf12
July 30th, 2014 at 4:13 pm
Probably. But where women have choices that can be a deciding factor.
July 30th, 2014 at 4:39 pm
Let me add that brains on the part of a woman was a deciding LTR factor for me. The first mate knew trig. And she wanted me badly. Lucky me.
She doesn’t always get what I’m up to off the bat. But I can explain it to her.
July 30th, 2014 at 4:52 pm
Mart
July 30th, 2014 at 4:08 pm
Did you actually read your link? It refutes your thesis that such men are unattractive. As to your hypothetical “normal women”? Never met any. Most want an alpha/beta i.e. dominant and nurturing. And if they can’t get that they will separate the functions.
I never bring out my nurturing side unless the first mate has surrendered – totally. When she stops surrendering It is dominance only.
All I can say is that it works for me and fits most of what I read at “Red Pill” sites.
July 30th, 2014 at 5:12 pm
“how evil women are and how best to game them.”
You might as well call electrons evil. Or polar bears. They have characteristics and like transistors (high beta, low beta, high/ow leakage, high/low current, high/low ft etc.) they can be characterized
And you tailor your circuit to the desired output. Women are more of an engineering problem than a mystery. But you have to understand how they work. It is not useful (mostly) to put a BJT where a MOSFET works better. Or vice versa.
The point of this site is to give the general rules. You then tailor that to the actual individuals you meet.
All I can say is that what Rollo writes matches my experience. If it doesn’t match yours? Perhaps a more conducive venue is in order.
July 30th, 2014 at 5:14 pm
@MSimon,
Let’s compare a couple of guys.
Richard Ramirez, who had multiple known mental problems including multiple physical brain damages, with low measured IQ, a truly brutal scumbag who terrorized women and children, who sounds literally retarded in interviews. With dozens of female groupies who think he’s a “different kind” of smart.
Bill Gates, with zero female groupies, who married Miss “Bob The Paper Clip” who treats him like a personal foot-rubber. And gives billions to women and children. And women, all women 100% guaranteed, think he’s a “different kind” of stupid.
July 30th, 2014 at 5:42 pm
An alternative to your convoluted and often hilariously irrational theories would be a much simpler advice for men to:
1. Relax.
2. Figure out what you want to do with your life.
3. Do it.
4. The rest, women/woman included, will follow.
Nice if it were true, but alas, it is not.
Been there, done that, have the t-shirt and the divorce settlement.
Note that I don’t hate women — I have had the same GF now for 4 years and love her very much. But what you wrote there — that doesn’t work. Not in my experience at least.
July 30th, 2014 at 5:52 pm
jf12
July 30th, 2014 at 5:14 pm
Please explain where I fit in your model. Assuming of course that I’m telling the truth.
BTW I was very very loosely associated with Bill Gates long before he became a household word. I used to know what he was up to long before the general public found out. I was among the very early computer hackers. I designed the I/O board that went into the world’s first BBS. The first mate was printing “Support the Revolution. Buy a Computer” T shirts back then. Bill got his start in S-100 bus computers. You can look it up.
Ted Nelson used to go around the country tying the different hacker groups together.
July 30th, 2014 at 6:07 pm
re: model. You mean what I think your SMV is/was? Alphaness vs betaness? Ok. Based on your laudation of snuggles game as your most/only effective move, and your long marriage where you concern yourself with your wife’s feelings, I have to rate you as purely beta w/o any alpha at all, even though it sounds like you found a unicorn submissive woman.
But I thought we discussed that earlier.
July 30th, 2014 at 6:48 pm
jf12,
No. What I’m asking is how I fit into your classification given my way above average n? Stellar? No. But beta land n? No way.
As to giving in to my first mate. Too bad you don’t have a bird’s eye view. She might beg to differ. In fact she often begs. Heh.
And how do you explain 20 somethings coming on to a 69 yo. man with no alpha game? Isn’t that rather odd? Do women generally come on to betas? Hasn’t been my experience. And this has been going on since my mid 20s.
The snuggles game sorts them. Only the ones that want me bad (about 3/4s) come back raring for it. I was never (after a few goes with girls who gave in because of game) interested in notching. I was interested in bonding. And I don’t give in on the first snuggle time. Even if they beg for it. That is not needy beta behavior.
I guess by your definition the only thing an alpha should do with women is FFFF. I knew a guy Iike that. He seemed rather shallow to me. Emotionally stunted. But who knows? I wasn’t him. But what he was doing wasn’t making him happy. As far as i could tell. It was always on to the next one because the last one didn’t make him happy.
I guess my failing in your eyes is that i like women.
What I think you lack is nuance. But not in the way Martha up thread defines it. There is no ONE TRUE GAME™ . There are different kinds of game depending on what you want. Notchmen play one kind. Those looking for a LTR might play it differently.
And BTW Do betas get two girls at once? At the same time? More than a few times? For six months with the same two girls in one case?
I think your difficulty is that I don’t fit your classification system. IMO. But of course IYO you know exactly where I fit. Good to see you have ALL the answers. I don’t envy you.
July 30th, 2014 at 6:49 pm
Well lets try the last few paragraphs again:
What I think you lack is nuance. But not in the way Martha up thread defines it. There is no ONE TRUE GAME™ . There are different kinds of game depending on what you want. Notchmen play one kind. Those looking for a LTR might play it differently.
And BTW Do betas get two girls at once? At the same time? More than a few times? For six months with the same two girls in one case?
I think your difficulty is that I don’t fit your classification system. IMO. But of course IYO you know exactly where I fit. Good to see you have ALL the answers. I don’t envy you.
July 30th, 2014 at 7:05 pm
re: two girls. You left that part out before. Alpha is defined by how women treat you; if women make themselves easy sexually, then you are alpha, full stop. If women make themselves difficult, you are beta, period. My mistake in your case was that your women-pleasing behavior was symptomatic of *having* to be women-pleasing, i.e. almost always because women are difficult. If you are voluntarily women-pleasing despite women making themselves easy, that’s … fine by me but.
I’m much more beta, and much more uncompetitively so, than you are.
July 30th, 2014 at 8:23 pm
jf12,
If you are interested in getting women being competitive is a good thing. You know know how it is with monkeys. Some one is always waiting and sometimes working to take the place of the top monkey. Females love that.
As to pleasing women – if you can maintain your dominance and do it that is a good thing. I like being able to introduce my new GF to the previous ones. It has advantages. For one thing it gives the new one incentive to try harder. “Don’t let this one go like she did.”
Besides. I don’t think of women as just slots. I like them as people even if they have peculiarities.
In addition – the Simon family has always prized ambition and competitiveness. My Mom loves it that I’m competitive. I’m from the Omaha Simons. Look it up. Some of us have gone very far. Me? About middling. But not for lack of trying.
July 30th, 2014 at 11:17 pm
re: uncompetitive. It’s a joke, of sorts. “I’m much more uncompetitive than you!”
July 31st, 2014 at 1:38 am
jf12
Well that one went past me.
July 31st, 2014 at 4:39 pm
@M Simon:
“Did you actually read your link? It refutes your thesis that such men are unattractive.”
No, it shows that attraction to violent men is a kink, a form of pathology of sexual behavior, and not the norm. Being attracted to thugs is about as normal as eating dirt (look up pica). There are people who do it, but they are not normal.
“As to your hypothetical “normal women”? Never met any. Most want an alpha/beta i.e. dominant and nurturing.”
There is a difference between dominant and nurturing, and violent thugishness. Nurturing and violence are mutually exclusive.
“And you tailor your circuit to the desired output. Women are more of an engineering problem than a mystery. But you have to understand how they work.”
A perfect illustration of the type of sperginess that permeates the sphere. The fact that you conceptualize other human beings as engineering or other “problems” is a reflection of your emotional and cognitive limitations, and not of objective reality, which is far more complex and messy.
The spergs (or semi-spergs) of the sphere — the engineers, number crunchers, lopsided intellectuals (or wannabes), etc. — look at women as objects / machines (or algorithms), showing their inability to empathize and understand other people’s emotional reality, especially when those people are different from themselves. They believe in a comforting illusion that there is a SOP (e.g., Red Pill) for those machines or “problems,” as you call them, which should produce desired outcomes: press this button or that, and sex and sammiches will fall out.
If that does not happen, it generally means one of two things:
1. women are broken,
(and/) or
2. the SOP needs tweaking.
The SOP of Red Pill and game are essentially no more than conceptual crutches, based on solipsistic spergy projections, fortified by half-truths and a smattering of mostly misunderstood science. They are used by emotionally stunted men to rationalize their failures and personal limitations, specifically as they apply to their romantic lives.
The fact that those crutches seem to work sometimes is a result of other factors at play* and/or chance (even a broken clock is right twice a day).
*E.g., there is a vid on this site of a PUA named Steve, who allegedly demonstrates his superior mastery of game in approaching (accosting, more like it) a random woman on the street and kissing her after a brief conversation. Much is made by the blog’s author and the commenters of Steve’s excellent PU skills. What no one seems to notice is the most obvious explanation of his “success:” he is relatively good looking, and that’s all there is to it. If a guy who looks like, say, Matt Forney tried to accost this girl the same way, she would have recoiled and/or slapped him silly (and possibly called the cops).
July 31st, 2014 at 5:03 pm
@Novaseeker:
“‘An alternative to your convoluted and often hilariously irrational theories would be a much simpler advice for men to:
1. Relax.
2. Figure out what you want to do with your life.
3. Do it.
4. The rest, women/woman included, will follow.’
Nice if it were true, but alas, it is not.
Been there, done that, have the t-shirt and the divorce settlement.
Note that I don’t hate women — I have had the same GF now for 4 years and love her very much. But what you wrote there — that doesn’t work. Not in my experience at least.”
What didn’t work — figuring out what you want to do with your life and doing it? Or the “woman will follow” part?
The fact that you are divorced shows you were able to attract a woman. That she left you is another story. There are no guarantees in life for anything, that should be a caveat writ large on every endeavor.
And so what are you doing differently now?
July 31st, 2014 at 5:31 pm
re: getting women to work properly.
1. The women are broken. On this we all agree.
2. Tweaking the SOP doesn’t produce much if any improvement. On this we all agree.
2 a. Bigger hammer.
July 31st, 2014 at 5:40 pm
jf12:
It must be the royal “we,” invoking the law of the hammer (of course).
July 31st, 2014 at 5:58 pm
Just so we’re all on the same page in this thread, Mart is Barb / Shel the same troll Dalrock had to ban last week.
Feed the troll at your own discretion.
July 31st, 2014 at 5:58 pm
Just so we’re all on the same page in this thread, Mart is Barb / Shel the same troll Dalrock had to ban last week.
Feed the troll at your own discretion.
July 31st, 2014 at 6:01 pm
So now that you’ve established my trolldom, Rollo, you can summarily reject my arguments as having no merit. Cool.
July 31st, 2014 at 6:03 pm
This is an open forum. Always has been.
July 31st, 2014 at 6:29 pm
Just so we’re all on the same page in this thread, Mart is Barb / Shel the same troll Dalrock had to ban last week.
Ha. I really thought she was a HUS commenter, maybe even Giggles herself as she is mimicking several of her memes “narcissists”, “sociopaths” or “aspies”.
I’ll note she dodged or deflected ALL of my points/questions. She never gave a clear answer what her purpose in commenting here was. She completely declined offering up a definition of a “successful” relationship.
One thing I’ve found.with basically ALL women who comment on intergender dynamics issues especially speaking to men is that they can hop on the freight train of criticism about why something is wrong or doesn’t work, but when it comes time to offer specific solutions all you hear are crickets. The best they can do is offer up vague generalities and meaningless platitudes like Mart offered up in this thread.
Re “Aspies” this has become so overused and misapplied and truthfully Roissy does this as well. This has actually become a standard shaming tactic when applied to debate and discussion. If you are God forbid, intellectual, rational, and logica then you must be “Aspie”. It is way to turn a discussion into emotional rhetoric and away from dialectic. I am personally very well acquainted with someone with Asberger’s (who incidentally is very high IQ) and there are very specific things about people with Asberger’s that go well beyond simply being intellectual or even nerdy.
There is a thread over at Dalrock’s where Novaseeker talks about how among guys his son’s age (15) the red pill outlook is quite common. I think some women are very threatened. There will always be lots of blue-pill manginas, but at the margins they are decreasing and it will have an impact.
July 31st, 2014 at 6:48 pm
Good.
It means (or should) that arguments and opinions are evaluated on their merits and not on their source, PC-ness, or adherence to group-think. That’s to be appreciated.
July 31st, 2014 at 7:00 pm
@Morpheus:
“I’ll note she dodged or deflected ALL of my points/questions.”
I didn’t. You made no point other than present as an alternative to Red Pilldom a caricature of relationship (marriage) where a man is completely disempowered. I pointed out that this was an example of either/or, black-and-white thinking.
“She never gave a clear answer what her purpose in commenting here was.”
My purpose is the same as yours (presumably): to exchange opinions with others on the subject of male-female relationships, specifically as they apply to Red Pilldom (as is the subject of this site).
“She completely declined offering up a definition of a “successful” relationship.”
If you read my comment(s) further, you’d see that I did so, although not directly in response to you (being successful is not being rejected by women, which is a first step).
But if you want a more specific answer, successful relationships are how you define them. For some, it is a monogamous marriage (I am in that camp), for others, like M Simon, it is a version of an open marriage, with First Mate and others on the side.
July 31st, 2014 at 10:29 pm
jf12
July 31st, 2014 at 5:31 pm
1. The women are broken. On this we all agree.
I think more correctly is that they work differently that the “official” manual suggests. Broken would imply that the form does not fit the function. When in fact the form exactly fits the function.
===
#2 son and I discuss game. Last time was when I jokingly (it was no joke) suggested that he find a couple of girls and settle down. The first mate was there. I have been teaching her game. She giggled.
July 31st, 2014 at 10:44 pm
Martha,
The first mate and I do not have an open marriage. We had an open courtship. My theory was that I didn’t want her wondering – “could I have done better?” I still ask her that. She says with certainty, “No.” Now why did I keep adding to my string when I was going with her? Well I enjoyed it for one. And the other was that she couldn’t be complacent if she knew I had other options.
Now if she did still want to “wander” it wouldn’t bother me. As long as I was kept informed. But once children came she lost all interest in checking out the possibilities. And funny enough – although I had opportunities I didn’t use them. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that starting a family with her was a conscious decision on my part. But I still have options. And should she give me a shit test too far I would certainly take advantage. She knows it. I make sure of that.
July 31st, 2014 at 11:18 pm
So what do I think the cure for the current malaise is? Based on my experience women should be taught Game i.e. they must face their nature. Of course this will be resisted. Who wants to lose cultural advantage? In the long run – because most of them want happiness – they will accept it. Because it makes them happier.
August 7th, 2014 at 10:23 pm
[…] it, engenders genuine shock when a man deviates from that script. As we found with the story of the Spreadsheet Guy a couple weeks ago, the anger female commenters expressed over his logging his wife’s excuses […]
August 12th, 2014 at 3:32 pm
[…] wrote a post examining the phenomenon of “spreadsheet guy.” I’ve been meaning to respond in […]