Glenn and a few others had a question about last week’s Love Commodity post.:
@Rollo – This seems very inconsistent to me. How can this be true – ” Men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. ” While this is true? “In an era of unapologetic feminine primacy and unignorable open Hypergamy, this commodification undeniably rests with the feminine.”
You’ll have to forgive a long explanation, I couldn’t simply drop this into the commentary, a full post was necessary.
The first thing we need to consider is the Male Experience vs. the female experience. I hate to get too existential, but it comes down to our individuated experiences as men and women. I’m going to give two examples here and this will also cover the Hypergamy is everything thread I noticed the commentary too.
There’s an interesting conflict of societal messaging we get from an equalitarian / feminine-primary social order. This is one that simultaneously tells us that “we are not so different” or “we are more alike than we are different” and then, yet implores use to “celebrate our diversity” and “embrace (or tolerate) our differences” as people.
This is easily observable in issues of ethnicity, but it also crosses over into issues of gender. The most popular trope is that ideas of gender are a social construct and that women and men are comparative equals and only their physical plumbing makes them different in form only.
From a Red Pill perspective we see the error in evidence of this egalitarian fantasy. I’ve written countless posts on the evidential and logical fallacies that make up gender equalism, but the important thing to be aware of is the conflict inherent within that belief – equalism expects men and women’s existential experiences to be the same, while also pleading that we embrace the differences it purports we don’t actually have.
It fundamentally denies the separation, from an evolved biological / psychological perspective, that men and women experience life in different ways. The idea is that it’s the nebulous ‘society’ that determines our gender experiences and less, if nothing, of it is truly influenced by a human being’s psychological-biological firmware.
zdr01dz posted this:
I think maybe this is in part because men have no innate desire to marry up. Hypergamy doesn’t compute for us. I know what hunger feels like and I assume women feel it the same way I do. I’m empathetic to poor, hungry children because I know what they’re feeling. However I have no idea what hypergamy feels like. I’ve never felt it’s pull.
My second example comes from Women and Sex in which I explore the fallacy of the social convention that insists “women are just as sexual as men” and that “women want sex, enjoy sex, even more than men.”
This canard is both observably and biologically disprovable, but the presumption is based on the same “we’re all the same, but celebrate the difference” conflicting principle that I mentioned above. If a dynamic is complimentary to the feminine then the biological basis is one we’re expected to ’embrace the diversity’ of, but if the dynamic is unflattering to the feminine it’s the result “of a society that’s fixated on teaching gender roles to ensure the Patriarchy, we’re really more alike than not.”
The idea is patently false because there is no real way any woman can experience the existence and conditions that a man does throughout his life. I mention in that essay about how a female amateur body builder I knew who was dumbstruck by how horny she became after her first cycle of anabolic steroids. “I can’t believe men can live in a state like this” were her exact words. She was just beginning to get a taste of what men experience and control in their own skins 24 hours a day and it was unsettling for her.
Women are used to a cyclic experience of sexuality, whereas men must be ready to perform at the first, best opportunity sexually. These are our individuated experiences and despite all the bleating of the equalists they are qualitatively different. As zdr01dz observes, no man has an idea of what Hypergamy feels like. To my knowledge there is no drug or hormone that can simulate the existential experience of Hypergamy. Even if there were, men and women’s minds are fundamentally wired differently, so the simulated experience could never be replicated for a man.
I understand how Hypergamy works from observing the behavior and understanding the motivating biology for it. I also understand that our species evolved with, and benefitted from it – or at least it makes deductive sense that what we know as Hypergamy today is a derivative of that evolution – but what I don’t have is a firsthand, existential experience of Hypergamy and I never will. Likewise, women will never have a similar existential experience of what it’s like to be a man.
So it should be an easy follow to deduce that how a woman experiences love, as based on her Hypergamic opportunistic impulses, is a fundamentally different experience than that of a man’s. The equalist social order want’s love to be an equal, mutual, agreement on a definition of love that transcends individuated gender experience, but it simply will not accept that an intersexual experience of love is defined by each sex’s individuated experience.
I have no doubt that there are areas of crossover in both men’s idealistic concept of love and women’s opportunistic concept, but this experience of love is still defined by gender-specific individuation. By that I mean that women can and do experience intense feelings of love for a man based on her Hypergamously influenced criteria for love.
I’m actually surprised that more women have yet to call me to the carpet about their personal experiences of love from the commodity post, but if you sift through the comments on Women in Love and other blog/forum comments you’ll come across examples of women describing in great detail how deeply they love their husbands / boyfriends, and are in complete disarray over being told their love stems from Hypergamic opportunism. Again, I have no doubt that their feelings of love are genuine to them based on their individuated concepts of love; indeed they’re ready to fight you tooth and nail to defend their investment in those feelings. What I’m saying is that the criteria a man should need to meet in order to generate those emotions and arrive at a love state are not universally mutual as an equalitarian social order would have the whole of society believe.
So, yes, men and women can and do love each other intensely and genuinely – from their own individuated experiences. They can and do see past each other’s deficiencies and their love endures. The processes they used to come to this love state differs in concept and existential individuation, and what sustains that love state is still dependent upon the criteria of men’s idealistic and women opportunistic concepts of love.
The Cardinal Rule of sexual strategies:
For one gender’s sexual strategy to succeed the other gender must compromise or abandon their own.
The commodification of that love state is presently weighted on the feminine because the Feminine Imperative is socially ascendant. The importance of satisfying the female sexual (and really life-goal) strategy takes primary social precedence today. Thus men’s individuated experience is devalued to an assumption of an “it’s-all-equal” universality while women’s is blown up out of all real valuation with collective expectations of “embracing their unique difference” set apart from that universality. If men’s experience is one-size-fits-all it’s really a small, and socially blameless, step for a woman to withhold the reward criteria men place on their idealistic love in order to satisfy their own sexual strategy.
Women’s social primacy allows them to feel good about themselves for commodifying the idealistic rewards men value to come to their own state of love, as well as maintain it.
It is one further step to embrace the concept that men’s experience of love, the idealism he applies to it and even his own sexual and life imperatives are in fact the same as those of women’s – while still setting women’s apart when it serves them better. Thus the cardinal rule of sexual strategies comes to a feminine-primary consolidation by socially convincing men that women’s experience and imperatives are, or should be considered to be, the same as men’s individuated experiences. Add women’s already innate solipsism to this and you have a formula for a gender-universal presumption of the experience of love based primarily on the individuated female experience of love.
In other words, women expect men to socially and psychologically agree with, reinforce and cooperate with the opportunistic feminine model of love as the equalist, gender-mutual model model of love while still believing that women share their own idealistic model. It’s the correct model that should work for everyone, or so women’s solipsism would have us believe.
January 5th, 2015 at 4:05 pm
Also, I know that insufferable idiot jf12 is going to comment by saying, “NO,NO,NO! Women love men who treat them bad. I’m right and you’re wrong!”
Give it a rest, jf12. Stomping your ideas on others doesn’t make them right, no matter how hard you screech.
January 5th, 2015 at 4:06 pm
@ deti spot on as usual. :) Ok now I *really* have to go get stuff done. Fascinating, this is…. I will look back in later!
January 5th, 2015 at 4:07 pm
@M Simon, re :”As soon as you fall in you want to be nice to her and she doesn’t like that.”
We must all have great minds today. I was just going to comment along these lines. Women do not understand why a man, ANY man, is not more arrogant than he is. Women do not understand why a man, ANY man, is not more violent than he is. And, most important, EVERY woman fails to understand why EVERY man is not always forcing her sexually. And besides not understanding why men are too nice them, women fail to appreciate it.
January 5th, 2015 at 4:10 pm
@Bloom, Atticus:
This is the War Brides principle
http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/
And I do agree with the zero-sum aspect of it – it is ruthless. However I’m not going to say that the love women feel for men isn’t real to them, and as per the dictates of Hypergamy just as I wouldn’t deny men feel love according to their idealism.
I do however find it interesting that almost all of the female criticism of the love series consists of anecdotes about how much they invested themselves in their “love” only to have a man not live up to the reciprocation they expected from him according to their hypergamous requirements.
January 5th, 2015 at 4:11 pm
Atticus is on a roll. ” Women don’t care what men think about them; only what other women think.”
Mares care what the lead mare is doing, not the stallion.
January 5th, 2015 at 4:13 pm
Shiv impaler:
Meh. Most of the studies cited in staffan’s post have methodologies based essentially on asking women “so, women, what kind of guys do you like?” To which one receives the typical answer “I just want a nice guy who will treat me right.”
January 5th, 2015 at 4:15 pm
@Rollo, re: pauli12
She had to go out to work, be the bread-winner, then came home to a sloppy house and an unappreciative demanding spouse. And she wonders how this proves the point …
January 5th, 2015 at 4:16 pm
@ shiv impaler
Did you read that article? It actually sites debunked research. The other studies only obliquely address the hypothesis, none are directly on point. And then there is the obviously limited undrstanding of the manosphere. Why would you bring such trite nonsense here?
January 5th, 2015 at 4:17 pm
Women will not be attracted to sub-optimal when it comes to sex. But the man might still be attractive enough (woman desperate enough) to want to maintain a relationship. I could argue that men are willing to settle for sub-optimal because they are still attracted to sex but are not attracted to maintaining the relationship in the same way that women are not interested in doling out sex to a man she feels is sub-optimal. I still don’t really see the difference.
Women are not attracted at all to sub-optimal. That’s the difference. Women may marry men to whom they are not attracted and engage in transactional sex with them (and often do), because they want the marriage and the rest of the package, but are not attracted to the man because he is not hypergamous (i.e., is not at least self+1). Men do not do this. That’s the difference.
You can say that “men do the same thing by having women for sex, but not marrying/committing to them because they are suboptimal for commitment, so it’s really the same thing as women committing to men they are not attracted to because the men are sub-optimal for sex, because women are selling sex and men are selling commitment”, but at the end of the day women are the ones marrying mates they are not attracted to, not men. And the reason isn’t that men are pickier, and refuse to marry any but a small, select group of women (which is what is suggested by a kind of
“male commitment hypergamy” idea in which men choose only the women who are most suitable for commitment and string along the rest for sex without commitment) but rather the opposite — it’s that men are attracted to more women than women are to men. That’s the essence of hypergamy. And it means men have it easier when it comes to picking a *wife*, because there are more women who are attractive to him than vice-versa, again, due to hypergamy.
January 5th, 2015 at 4:19 pm
@Jeremy, re: “The problem comes in what women mean when they use the word ‘equality’.”
Well, the *real* problem is that women are just plain wrong in reality. Equal means equal in reality.
January 5th, 2015 at 4:20 pm
@ shiv….ak I must say this one last thing… sort of… women don’t love men who treat them bad, you are right. Women love the guys at the top of the looks/status/resource/power food chain — men who have it all. (Within reason, women may want George Clooney but that doesn’t mean they can get him, so within their options they don’t want to settle *permanently* for any less than the best they can get, which is not the same as the best they can get to *temporarily* sleep with them, as many women who put all their chips on “Mr. Big” and lose find out firsthand.) Those men, because they have options, don’t pander to women and are willing to walk. A man with less options than Mr. Big, who still acts his options are not limited, is more attractive to a woman than a man who is begging her for a date. So it’s not because they treat women bad that women want the guys they want. Maybe they think if a guy is begging for a date, versus her having to work for it, she’s “too good for him” and thus keeps her options open — because she can?
January 5th, 2015 at 4:20 pm
@thedeti
So are Heartiste’s studies but you don’t see anyone questioning them. Oh but I forgot, he bans you for even defying him.
I agree that self report surveys don’t offer much but it’s funny how much the manosphere relies on them only when it benefits their view and deny them when it doesn’t. Hypocrisy doesn’t bode well for real truth seekers.
January 5th, 2015 at 4:27 pm
I’ve related this before but in my sexual past the women who’ve told me they loved me have almost universally been women who had no other interest in me than sexual. I didn’t have a career, or a nice apartment, or really even much ambition beyond playing the next gig and doing just enough schoolwork to keep my support coming in. In fact most were quite eager to have sex in almost any environment, and loved gestures I made that I never had any intent to make.
All I had was some marginal social proof, a ‘hawt’ body, a nice smile and the confidence that came from women knowing I had several options to choose from. And they all said they loved me.
In fact, it was the women who I romantically told I loved them before they had come around to it who invariably blew me off before or right after I’d invested myself emotionally.
It’s vital to remember that Hypergamy has two sides to it Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks, and whatever aspect is most highly prioritized for a woman at any stage of her maturity that is what she will love (or resent) you for.
January 5th, 2015 at 4:29 pm
@Badpainter:
Because this “nonsense” is being held as king in the manosphere. It’s utter bullshit to honestly think that all a man needs to do is incorporate dark triad behaviors and watch the pussy flow in. Women are only viscerally responsive to men they find visually appealing first and then they take into consideration his personality. While a bit of edge always helps, that point comes after she’s already “sized you up” from the get-go.
@redpillgirlnotes:
If you really are a woman, then that was surprisingly honest. Women do appraise looks/resource way more than simple behavioral modifications that men do. You also succinctly point out how it’s not the behavior that attracts women, per say, but the fact that attractive men have those behaviors as a by-product of their high success with women (they’re innate attractiveness).
Again, It’s the idea that Heartiste is pushing these “dark triad” behaviors as king (to an unaware audience) that really bugs me. Nothing could be further from the truth if you take the time to read on what actually drives sexual selection.
January 5th, 2015 at 4:36 pm
When discussing female hypergamy and the differences between men and women, I’ve found it useful to use the want/willing distinction when it comes to sex.
For men, there is no “willing” to have sex with her. There is only “want” and “don’t want”. Men will not fuck women they’re not sexually attracted to. A man will not marry a woman he doesn’t want to fuck.
For women, there is “want”, “don’t want”, and “willing”. A woman will be WILLING to get fucked by a suboptimal man she’s not sexually attracted to IF he is offering commitment and other things she wants at that time (chiefly provider stability). She doesn’t WANT to have sex with him, but she will be more or less WILLING to have sex with him in order to get the other things she wants.
This causes problems down the road because eventually, “willing” isn’t good enough, she comes to hate having the sex, she comes to resent him for expecting sex. She gets frustrated, angry, full of resentment, etc. This is the mistake of some bloggers who presume that the nice betas pushing strollers in New England parks and on sidewalks with their nice wives who are getting nice sex are sexually attractive.
The fact that a woman is sleeping with you in a marriage does NOT mean she’s sexually attracted to you. It might, but it does not necessarily mean she is. For a woman, on the other hand, if your man is fucking you on the regular, you can rest assured that you turn him on and trip his trigger.
Again – it’s projection. The average woman sees men who are married, presumes they’re getting sex, and extrapolates from the presumption that these milquetoast betas are sexually attractive. “Well, hell! They’re getting married! They’re having kids! Voila! Sexually attractive!!” It’s all massive projection. The reality is, of course, quite different.
January 5th, 2015 at 4:40 pm
@shiv impaler
The visual reaction studies have been done, in a much more objective way than your average social scientist would do it in a survey paper… by attaching sensors to genitals and playing a series of images. The results for men were exactly what you might expect, specific features created specific reaction. It’s pure biology in men’s case.
The results for women were all-over-the-map. Literally, women do not understand their own attraction triggers, or have so much randomness in what triggers them as to be nearly un-mappable. What this should tell any manosphere denizen is that there is no single behavior road that is absolutely effective with all women. What that means is your game, your artistry can never be single-dimensional, or it will fail. That should make perfect sense when one recalls 70-80’s era TV fiction where cliche’d pick-up lines became the masculine-joke-du-jour.
Picking up women is an art. If it were a science, there would be a theory that fits everything, but there isn’t and never will be. It’s an art, and it remains so. That means the only worthwhile method of improving your knowledge of this art is with direct experimentation, yes, that means interacting with lots of women.
January 5th, 2015 at 4:45 pm
“It’s utter bullshit to honestly think that all a man needs to do is incorporate dark triad behaviors and watch the pussy flow in.”
Shit. Even Roissy/heartiste doesn’t say that. What you’re really doing here is attributing to the manosphere as a whole claims advanced by PUAs who want men to buy their products and attend their boot camps.
No one around here says that a male 2 will go from incel omega to banging supermodels, or even that he’ll get any pussy. The claim that is made, though, is that your chances of success with women will increase with more “alpha” confidence and dominance, with less “beta” supplication and pedestalization.
If all you’ve got are female self-report studies about how much they love nice guys, peddle that somewhere else. I’ll believe my lying eyes over your “studies” that ask women what they would do, or what they claim to like.
January 5th, 2015 at 4:49 pm
Novaseeker makes the same point about hypergamy as lh (“Hypergamy lives where you cannot even imagine the risk of being without love/sex.”) in “men are attracted to more women than women are to men”, from a slightly different perspective.
I’m going to blandly state (no screeching!) that men with abundance do exhibit pickiness. But women, even those many without objective abundance, have their pickiness ingrained because of hypergamy.
January 5th, 2015 at 4:51 pm
Does anyone else smell looks über alles? Is shiv actually that professor douche-bag troll?
January 5th, 2015 at 4:58 pm
Re: dark triad traits.
Women do indeed seek out specifically men who are exhibiting *behavioral* traits that ought to raise alarm, regardless of the level of looks. Yes, good-looking dark triads get the most women, but at any level of looks the darker the triad the more women.
A *little* bit of it is due to what Bloom said: women’s disattraction to men trying. I don’t think we’ve discussed these findings here:
http://www.albright.edu/news/releases/march/VoiceManipulation.html#.VKsIB3bnZaQ
All a woman has to do is *seem* like she might be trying to show interest, and men think she is more attractive. In contrast, if a man overtly is trying, women turn their thumbs down.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:01 pm
By the way, Prof. Hughes’ research does put a shiv in the “men’s attractiveness is what counts” view, even voice-wise: what counts, totally, is his confidence/dominance, not sexiness. Period.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:06 pm
@Rollo (From War Brides). Ever wonder why it is a woman can ‘get over you’ so quickly after a break up from a relationship you’d thought was rock solid for so long? Ever wonder why she returns to the abusive boyfriend she hopes will change for her? Look no further than feminine solipsism.
What if you substituted “Women’s inability to love” for “solipsism” and “opportunistic love” in all your work?
January 5th, 2015 at 5:08 pm
jf12 – “In contrast, if a man overtly is trying, women turn their thumbs down.”
Paraphrasing Yoda: “be or be not, there is no try”
January 5th, 2015 at 5:13 pm
@jf12
There’s a blurry spectrum here that unfortunately lets both Shiv and you be correct depending on who has an agenda. The problem rests in the fact that “appearance” also means or can mean “body language”. Your body language subtly communicates gigabytes of information to women every second they see you about your emotional state. Yes, you might be wearing soiled sweatpants and a torn t-shirt, but if your body language says confidence, then your overall “appearance” is (perhaps perversely) still attractive to a woman.
The imprecision of the language is the SJW’s playground.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:16 pm
On women’s hypergamy being inextricably bound by abundance.
The Biblical book of Esther tells of Ahasuerus, undisputed monarch of the largest empire in the world, who ruled through Dread incarnate “whosoever, whether man or woman, shall come unto the king into the inner court, who is not called, there is one law of his to put him to death”. But although grown men cowered at the thought of displeasing Ahasuerus, queen Vashti didn’t bother obeying because she (erroneously) thought her position secure.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:20 pm
@Jeremy, re: perversely.
Precisely.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:21 pm
@Jeremy and thedeti:
Wait, women don’t seem to know what turns them on? Have a look at this study which uses hormone testing:
Attractive men induce testosterone and cortisol release in women.
Hassan H. López,Aleena C. Hay,Phoebe H. Conklin (2009)
“Naturally-cycling women experienced a significant increase in both testosterone and cortisol in response to the experimental stimulus[attractive male] but to none of the control stimuli [the unattractive male]. Participants taking hormonal contraceptives also showed a significant cortisol response to the attractive man.Women may release adrenal steroid hormones to facilitate courtship interactions with high mate-value men.”
This stuff is a lot more primal and unchangeable than you guys think.
@ Badpainter:
I’m somehow a troll because I disagree with some assertions by the manosphere? You guys really are a cult. I thought Heartise was something but you guys defend these beliefs as if they were your livelihood.
@jf12
“what counts, totally, is his confidence/dominance, not sexiness. Period.”
LOL!!! Just listen to yourself. Good god, some of you all are so deluded beyond belief. And some of you have the nerve to call yourselves “red-pilled.” HAHAHA, oh this is too good! Jf12, next time you decide to joke around, warn me. I might end up spilling my drink again. You cite study after study but you still haven’t grasped the basics in sexual selection.
But enough of this. I’ve said what I wanted to say. Off to you guys discussing hypergamy, yet again…
January 5th, 2015 at 5:23 pm
@Jeremy, re: the attractiveness of captors.
The captors reproduced because the captors were brutal, not because of symmetry. It’s because the captors were brutal, not because of the captors’ “protection” and “provision” for the women.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:24 pm
Deti, one of the problems with your want/willing paradigm is arranged marriages. Now maybe you are only discussing romantic marriages, i.e. the west, and if so I can see your point. But if you are speculating on marriage in general, then I think your proposition falls apart. There is still a vast amount of marriages that are arranged in the world and want/willing has nothing to do with them.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:25 pm
@ Atticus
<em<Rollo, I think you are wrong. Women cannot love. How can you call opportunistic love, love?
Maybe love for women is like sexual attraction for men.
I am genuinely and sincerely physically attracted to my wife. However if she gained 100 pounds that attraction would dissolve. I can’t help it, that’s my biological programming. If I told an obese woman that she was hot I’d be lying.
By comparison maybe a woman can genuinely and sincerely fall in love with a high performing man. However if this man loses his job and sits around the house it won’t take long until she withdraws. The real feelings of love she has in her heart will vanish. She can’t help it, that’s her biological programming If she tells her husband that she loves him she is lying.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:28 pm
Ying/yang. Female energy/male energy. The root of this topic is in the ying/yang.
Female energy is like a spider and its’ web, where they wait for the next opportunity to eat. Female energy is inwards.
Male energy is like a badger, always searching for the next meal. Male energy is outwards.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:29 pm
The male energy idealistically believes that the next meal is just around the corner.
Female energy opportunistically waits for the next meal to come to it.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:31 pm
re: women’s testosterone levels.
Women’s testosterone levels were raised much higher by viewing angry male faces than by attractiveness.
Zillioli et al. 2014. Testosterone reactivity to facial display of emotions in men and women. Hormones and Behavior, 65(5), 461–468.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X14000646
López et al.’s 2009 results were sillily misinterpreted as resulting from attractiveness instead of competition.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:32 pm
Denihilist:
Ah. Mr. Toastmaster.
“Willing” for women is enough when they have other incentives keeping them in the marriage, such as an inability to divorce, severe social sanction, or arranged marriage that the woman cannot escape. Her willingness, along with other external pressures, are sufficient to at least get her to contentedness.
But if we’re talking about the current situation, then “willing” isn’t enough to keep a woman in a “meh” marriage.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:33 pm
@jf12
I think you mean “captives” in one of those. But yes, captured-woman-rape certainly undermines my point some. That doesn’t change the fact that women found themselves essentially “working for the enemy” because it was the most efficient method (at the time) of ensuring her own sexual success… not to mention the fact that being the subject of attention of a “winner” likely became a self-reinforcing justification for her choice to comply.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:34 pm
Perhaps this is a decent general guideline.
If a woman is obese you won’t find her attractive. If you tell her she is hot you are lying.
If a man becomes a low performer women won’t love him. If a woman tells this man she loves him she is lying.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:36 pm
@shiv impaler
It is interesting how you manage to use the words “attractive male” as if there is an objective standard that helps demonstrate your point.
You might as well say “attractive cloud”… it would be just as valuable.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:36 pm
Deti, women really do believe that they want nice guys, but like a moth drawn to a flame, a percentage of them cannot resist the burn.
(LOL! imagine if every moth was consumed by the flame from their uncontrollable urges, there’d many, mighty hungry bats out there!)
January 5th, 2015 at 5:38 pm
Oddly enough if my wife gained 100 pounds I would still love her, I just wouldn’t find her attractive.
If I stopped working and became a video game nerd my wife wouldn’t love me or find me physically attractive. OUCH!
January 5th, 2015 at 5:39 pm
Yup Deti, agreed. In the west there usually has to be more then willing to keep people in a LTR.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:40 pm
re: “women really do believe that they want nice guys”
I refuse to bother trying to believe that anymore, any more than I would bother trying to believe that a woman’s fakebook posts about her life.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:43 pm
Jf, how much higher? Percentages can be very misleading and unfortunately the article seems to be paywalled, so no real figures.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:43 pm
Ever notice that the guys who push the “looks are everything” agenda are very dominant socially or intellectually?
January 5th, 2015 at 5:43 pm
Jf, you do know the difference between belief and reality right?
January 5th, 2015 at 5:44 pm
@ impaled on his own shiv
Give it a rest, jf12. Stomping your ideas on others doesn’t make them right, no matter how hard you screech.
Lol, I created Nuclear Dread for Mrs. Gamer. She is more in love with me than evah. Didn’t much like creating ND, but it was necessary.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:44 pm
zdr – plus one! best encapsulating comment yet!
January 5th, 2015 at 5:45 pm
@ shiv
If not a troll then a….jackass?
You dump shoddy amateurish sophistry passing as critique on an idea you don’t seem to understand. You attack a regular commenter here without provocation. You use this blog’s comment section to attack another blog. You’re churlish. You stink of looks über alles….Etc.,etc.,etc.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:45 pm
Jf, why believe?
January 5th, 2015 at 5:48 pm
zdr01dz “Oddly enough if my wife gained 100 pounds I would still love her, I just wouldn’t find her attractive.
If I stopped working and became a video game nerd my wife wouldn’t love me or find me physically attractive. OUCH!”
So
January 5th, 2015 at 5:49 pm
I know I am slightly off topic here, (Thanks Rollo as always, you are on a tear with this stuff, I cannot even keep up with the comments, awesome stuff).
With respect to the nature of “love”, attachment, Oxytocin etc I just had a memory of something that profoundly affected my Wife’s loyalty to me, I think, and I think I messed with her Alpha Widow mechanism, allow me to explore the idea.
Background, I have been with the wife now for about 14 years, we had a courtship shall we say of three years which eventually lead to marriage. She did not have a big long ride on the carousel but I know she took a few turns as empowered young women do in their twenties. As far as I can tell I am one of, if not her most Alpha relationship in her life. Other guys may have had bigger dicks, but hey, I cannot do much about physiology of that sort.
Anyhow, halfway through our courtship, for her birthday one night, back when I had a fucking cool industrial loft with 13 foot ceilings and all that. I “celebrated” her birthday with her by doing up a big assed romantic bed in the middle of the loft with tons of super romantic sheer curtains, cool lighting etc. Better then a movie, totally mackin love pad set up for the night specifically, I sent our loft-mate off for the weekend so we had it all to ourselves for hours of totally uninhibited debauchery.
So along with all that, we also smoked a bucket load of weed and took a couple of MDMA (Ecstasy), aka the love drug. So she was thrilled and excited when I brought her home from dinner to this big romantic set up. Then we took drugs and fucked like animals for 12 hours. Very Nine and a Half Weeks like.
All in all, she was thrilled with the whole thing. I scored lots of “romance” points for my installation (Hey, I’m a designer, it’s what I do). But then also the heated sexual congress that went on for hours with very high highs due to the MDMA and decent swordsmanship on my part. Well this stuck out in her memory and her life experience, it was obvious that this was her high water mark for sex, ever. This was a great thing for me even though I did not know it. I killed it, unwittingly on the impulsive, brooding, creative genius, marathon lover thing, I crushed it.
What I did not know was that I kind of Alpha widowed myself to a certain extent, as many years later we both realized that the high of the event was so high it effectively re-calibrated both of our sexual high water marks to a certain extent. In turn, this dialled down any enjoyment of sexual experience after that to some extent as it would pale by comparison.
My point? Well I believe that “owning” that Alpha moment in a woman’s mind is really important if you can pull that off. If that highest of highs is attributed to you, well it helps to corral her hypergamous leanings. The flip side to that is my understanding of the effect of Alpha Widow. In that moment I sure as shit was filling my burden of performance in the Alpha, sexy designer guy role but in the course of the inevitable Beta blue Pill backslide of marriage I tumbled a long way from being “That guy” at my own peril. I became a study in contrasts from the hot romantic thing to the beta schlub husband and it nearly cost me the marriage.
So my point. Drugs can artificially mess with the natural set-point of her sexual high water mark and it’s effects are identifiable and potentially long lasting. Perhaps one more way the “bad boy jerks” win as they are more likely to get fucked up on coke or Ex with a chick and bang her silly in college lets say. If that is the “Alpha widow moment” that some poor slob is competing against ten years later, he has no idea what he is up against and will never make her tingle like you can for a girl who is on drugs.
Nota Bene, Since taking the RP, I have resolved to keep working to reset that sexual high water mark with her. So far it seems to be working thanks to dominance, restraints, some spanking and other approaches.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:52 pm
@shiv, you sure you don’t want to throw out the “you’re all a bunch of middle-age, fat balding and delusional men who think they can still get with a hot 22 y.o. coed like me in college” and make the same comparison of my being ‘just like Susan Walsh’ you always do before you go?
And not for nothing, but this guy is pretty good looking and has the funds, but would you want to be him?
http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-43847.html
Game saves lives, even the lives of good looking romantic Betas.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:52 pm
Re: captives, rape, and pillaging
Would it be safe to say a woman submitting to a captor is in a situation where the attraction of life itself, that the captor controls, substitutes perfectly for attraction to the captor himself?
Short or long term captivity would seem to dictate one’s choices as being either adaptation or death.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:53 pm
zdr01dz “Oddly enough if my wife gained 100 pounds I would still love her, I just wouldn’t find her attractive.
If I stopped working and became a video game nerd my wife wouldn’t love me or find me physically attractive. OUCH!”
So
January 5th, 2015 at 5:55 pm
On this I agree 100% with Rollo, women do love in an opportunistic fashion. It is in their nature. They are the negative pole on the energy scale. They are more attuned to a pool of still water. Love comes to them, they purchase love. So yes their knowledge of love is different then the male, but like that pool, if they allow you in, it can be very deep and very settling.
Unfortunately, a lot of the modern women are fighting their nature and trying to be like a roaring river, but they do not have the power, skills or energy to keep the flow up. Yet they refuse to look within and see their true nature, which is quiet and depth. They are out of their element and will never find peace til they return to the pool.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:55 pm
Jf12:
Denihilist is right about this. Women really do believe in their heart of hearts that they like nice guys. If you hooked them up to a polygraph and asked them, they’d say they like nice guys, and the polygraph would say that’s a true answer. They really do believe it. (Much like OJ Simpson really believes that he didn’t kill his ex wife.)
They believe this because they find the best in the attractive guys they like to fuck. These attractive good looking guys are “nice” to them in the beginning, leading to rapid sex. This then leads her to the conclusion that she likes nice guys, because these hot attractive men are polite, affable, endearing and gregarious, at least in the beginning. Thus, the meme is established—women like nice guys, women have sex with nice guys, women fall in love with nice guys.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:56 pm
BP – Stockholm Syundrome
January 5th, 2015 at 5:56 pm
Yay, Professor van Dumbwiggs is back, and trying to argue with a real science academic, no less. What fun.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:57 pm
zdr01dz “Oddly enough if my wife gained 100 pounds I would still love her, I just wouldn’t find her attractive.
If I stopped working and became a video game nerd my wife wouldn’t love me or find me physically attractive. OUCH!”
Damn cell phone
So maybe love and passion situationally are mutually exclusive? You would “love”‘your fat wife like a sister, but not want to bang her.
I can see that. I wouldn’t either.
January 5th, 2015 at 5:58 pm
http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-43847.html
I read his post. He sounds exactly like a female. Almost 100% chance that guy isn’t straight.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:01 pm
@ jf12
And, most important, EVERY woman fails to understand why EVERY man is not always forcing her sexually.
Or at least making a pass at her.
You are red hot today. Recently, I was alone in the basement of a dance studio with a married woman about my age. Not bad looking. Husband not around. We were working on an advanced dance move. I ended up behind her with both arms wrapped around her going under each of her boobs and crossing her tummy for support. Her butt was on my hip but could have been on my groin. I was obsessed about dance and didn’t even make a pass, lol. Such a dud. She was not pleased.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:02 pm
Deti, though my tag is De Nihilst, I am beginning to think that you have more nihilism in you then me!
I agree with you up to the attractive guy spot. I firmly hold that most women do see themselves as appreciating a nice guy in a LTR. Unfortunately for them, they no longer have the presence of mind to allow their true nature, and believe that only outgoing energy is real. i.e. – excitement for excitement sake. So they marry up a nice guy, like you have said before, but because they no longer have an attachment to that deep pool of calming female nature, become bored with the niceness and seek the raging river of male nature, never to know a deep and true happiness because of their fear to be silent.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:02 pm
@ Atticus
Damn cells! Your first post was just the word, “So” I thought, wow that’s really harsh, HAHA!
If that hypothesis is true no woman should ever get fat and no man should ever stop performing. Nature is cruel to anyone who does.
Fat women will never feel true desire. Poor men will never feel true love.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:04 pm
@Badpainter, which then begs the question is woman’s love a real feeling for her or just a more romanticized Stockholm Syndrome?
What I’m proposing to Atticus is that men want to objectively define what love ought to be for women from a male defined, male individuated experience. What’s to say a woman doesn’t actually fall in love with her captor?
There was a great subplot in the HBO series Rome where Titus Pulo basically murders the lover of a woman he wants. She’s distraught to say the least, but within the space of a few months she’s in love with him so much she’ll murder other women to keep his focus on her when she imagines it’s failing.
Yes it’s a story, but it gets to the heart of how women will feel a genuine love for their conquerors. Someone offered up the example of Jaycee Lee Dugard in the last comment thread. She essentially loved her enslaver and bore him children.
I don’t have ’em on hand, but I’ve read studies that suggest women are more predisposed to Stockholm Syndrome than men.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:04 pm
@DeNihilist re: percent.
In Zilioli’s 2014 study, the women’s testosterone increased 8% when viewing angry faces regardless of gender, but also increased 9% when viewing male faces regardless of emotion. This can be compared to the 22% difference between women in ltr (the lesser T) and single women (the greater T). It’s all about the competition.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:04 pm
Ah Deti, reread, “they find the best…”
agreed
January 5th, 2015 at 6:05 pm
@ DeNihilist
Are women more likely to succumb to Stockholm Syndrome than men?
January 5th, 2015 at 6:06 pm
So Jf, what are the base numbers?
If I take a ton of horseshit and increase it by 8%, that is a lot of horseshit. But if I take a gram of horseshit and increase by even 1005, it aint much.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:07 pm
If I remember right BP, it was years ago I read the article, yes. Will try to google it.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:07 pm
@tasdg re: “Or at least making a pass at her”
Ok, I concede that much. Thought-rape, in other words …
January 5th, 2015 at 6:12 pm
“but at the end of the day women are the ones marrying mates they are not attracted to, not men”
Your most solid argument and I agree. Women are the ones that do the choosing, not men.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:15 pm
Teh Rulez.
Women: signal sexual availability i.e. receptivity to men’s passes.
Men: signal confidence by making passes.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:15 pm
BP, one from 88, comparing abused women to SS.
http://www.popline.org/node/381611
another from 2007, looking to see if the SS is even real. conclusion that it may be more a media term, as it does not appear in any psychiatric journals world wide.
Both paywalled of course
January 5th, 2015 at 6:15 pm
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1111%2Fj.1600-0447.2007.01112.x?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1
January 5th, 2015 at 6:18 pm
re: the Lopez 2009 study.
Women viewed videos of an attractive man attracting women, an unattractive elderly man repulsing women, and neutral videos. It’s not merely plausible but *likely* that the women’s T increase was due to viewing the *women’s* reactions and corresponding competition.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:20 pm
@ Rollo
If genuine captivity/enslavement is Stockholm Syndrome. Why woudn’t an arranged marriage involve a similar sort of psychological opportunism? Or a shot gun wedding? Or….
….a BetaBux marriage?
Perhaps the opportunism at work isn’t just trading up, but dialing back emotional commitment when there is no threat to security?
Like I postulated previously what if the actual emotions are irrelevant, and it’s only the intensity of the emotions that matter? Hypergamy would be inversely proportionate to love wouldn’t it? But that love would be a jealous love ever protective of her hypergamous prerogatives.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:24 pm
@DeNihilist re: belief.
I guess I didn’t say it right. Almost all women on fakebook claim to have a beautiful (clean!) house with beautiful (clean!) kids and a beautiful (happy!) husband, whom she wuvs soo sooo much!!! I would AS MUCH think that those fakebook women believe their own posts as I would think women believe they want nice guys.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:27 pm
Re: “Game Saves Lives”
Game would save lives even if it were completely worthless. Even supposing that game is a marketing construct that only exists to make Roosh and others rich from internet ads or video sales, or book sales… it still saves lives. Even if it is the most banal of placebos in the world, it still saves lives.
You know why? Because life as a human is intolerable under the presumption that you have no power to affect your sexual success. I would wager that most mental illness, regardless of where it takes its root, is amplified and twisted with the notion that sexual success as an individual is hampered from the social damage of the illness. I’d wager that most mental illness would express itself much more mildly if everyone in the world knew without a doubt that they had equal access to sex and sexual reproduction.
If the men of this world truly believed that they had absolutely no power over their own sexual future, The Smith-&-Wesson retirement plan would quickly hit 100%. I’d bet on something similar if the ladies all felt that way, in fact it’s easier to believe the other way around, when you consider how devastating any belief in sexual invalidity (male rejection) is to women. Women’s identity is much more closely tied to their power to enact their sexual success.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:29 pm
Women think they love men but they don’t get what actual love as men conceive it is. You want to see love? Check out a dude going out under fire to drag back a wounded buddy. Or a dad working double shifts for most of his kid’s life to keep a roof over the kid’s head, food in his belly, and his life prospects alive. That’s fucking love. It costs you.
Women feel a sort of bond and attraction to men and can throw themselves at men pretty hard but their version of love seems really malleable. It’s more like hunger for ongoing validation – that you’re hot, that she made the right choice, that other women qualify you and would jump your bones given a chance, that she’s still basically daddy’s little princess. That you give her the feeling that she’s dating / married up. You want to feel a simulacrum of what you consider to be love as a man? Get a girlfriend or wife, take care of yourself, carry yourself properly, then let the other women in your mutual circle of acquaintences hit on you. That combination of dread and validation will make your girl glue herself to your arm in public and show you her approximation of love in private. It ain’t what your heart of hearts is looking for in terms of undying loyalty and unconditional acceptance, your male dog-like concept of love. It’s not perfect and it’s transitory – get a limpdick, lose your job, get fat, or have the local milfs move away and be replaced by retirees or young couples and it can change. But the affection here and now is a pretty strong show of appreciation and I guess it ain’t bad, considering what else is on offer.
Sigh. The red pill has a bitter aftertaste. It makes you realize that Kipling wasn’t joking when he said a woman is just a woman but a good cigar is a smoke.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:30 pm
Well, I have to sincerely thank @redpillgirlnotes for her sincerity, honesty and insight – she confirms absolutely everything (most) MGTOW’s already know. Everything has been turned upside-down in terms of… well, everything… (as well as the rationality invloved in all of this on the part of women) not much else to say. Well, there ya go – from the horse’s mouth….
I’m outta here (as far as commenting is concerned) – it’s been a pleasure.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:33 pm
@shiv impaler
In a huge international and cross-cultural study (possibly the largest of its kind), psychologist David Buss and colleagues asked 10 000 participants what characteristics they desire in a potential marriage partner
Uhhh… correct me if I’m mistaken here, but they asked a woman what she wanted and got the answer the rest of us got when we asked women what they want. Then they took the answers at face value.
Do not listen to what a woman says, pay attention to what she does.
That study would be complete if it asked women to say what they want then tracked them and had an honest accounting of what they actually did. If nice, smart, funny guys were all chicks wanted, then there would be no women on dating sites saying it’s what they want. Dudes like that are all over the fucking place.
Sorry, Heartiste has not been “blow the fuck out”. Psychologist David Buss has just proven how strongly blue pill he is.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:41 pm
@Rolli. What I’m proposing to Atticus is that men want to objectively define what love ought to be for women from a male defined, male individuated experience. What’s to say a woman doesn’t actually fall in love with her captor?
I’m not trying to define love from a male perspective. Words mean things and for better or worse, today, love is an undying lifelong commitment. I love my folks and I live my kids. Unless we’re going to redefine love along the Greek lines as one of the commenters on your last essay said, women cannot love. They can’t love a man like they love their kids; they can’t love under the Disney definition.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Sun, he may be blue pill, or not, but David Buss as a scientist can only report and interpret what data he has. Note, if the data is not very high calibre, such as self reporting, then that must be stated also, which it is.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:42 pm
@Rollo Tomassi
I’ve seen similar claims before, I tended to believe them then, even when I was blue pill.
I wouldn’t just venture the notion… I would suggest that from a female perspective, loving a captor is a perfectly legitimate form of love, as legitimate as a man “falling” in love with a woman who fits his physical ideal in appearance. Our definitions of what constitutes a socially acceptable form of love are entirely flavored by the dominant media that has existed since humans began to write… namely the media of men. As such, female forms of “acceptable” love are unexplored, unvalidated, and inappropriately considered immoral. Women literally only understand their capacity and propensity to love from a male perspective, which explains significant amounts of frustration on their part.
Women are incapable of loving as a man expects them to, but they cannot accept this because they’ve been convinced for centuries that they experience love as men do, and men have entirely romanticised their method of loving women into being the dominant and “moral” form.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:44 pm
The problem with the social sciences, including psychology is that when using survey generated data there is no objective way to determine the honesty of the responses. Even a hypothetically perfect survey would still be overly reliant on the good and rational nature of decidedly ungood rationalizing humans.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:44 pm
Rollo, I have the highest respect for you and your insights, but seriously, you need to do a better job of proof reading your posts before blogging them. The last several posts have had, honestly, atrocious spelling and grammatical errors. Sometimes it even renders the sentence unparseable. Please take a few minutes to review before posting. You’re getting slack. :P
January 5th, 2015 at 6:45 pm
Joe Blow gives the prescription for the Love Experience: “You want to feel a simulacrum of what you consider to be love as a man? Get a girlfriend or wife, take care of yourself, carry yourself properly, then let the other women in your mutual circle of acquaintances hit on you.”
January 5th, 2015 at 6:46 pm
@Jeremy re: “As such, female forms of “acceptable” love are unexplored, unvalidated, and inappropriately considered immoral.”
Fifty shades of acceptability?
January 5th, 2015 at 6:46 pm
Atticus, a woman’s love is a quiet love. Easily disturbed, yet if she allows you deep enough, will quickly become tranquil again. She waits, is opportunistic. More then one rock can be thrown into her pool.
A man’s love is a seeking love, looking, searching and when convinced that it has found the one, will dive headlong into that pool with no regard for its own safety. He searches, is idealistic.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:49 pm
Rollo,
Have you heard of the new PR campaign in New York City to stop “manspreading” on public trains? Get a load of this. I wrote a piece on my blog and mentioned you and the great work you do by name and how you’ve been an inspiration to me. I think you’ll have a field day with this topic. http://newdarktriad.com/off-the-deep-end/ and tell me what you think.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:50 pm
@shiv
Wait, women don’t seem to know what turns them on?
You’re on a such a fast roll with your blatantly over the top ignorance that I can’t keep up. Have you ever actually talked to a girl without giving your credit card number first? Have you never been around a woman as she describes a panty-wetting asshole alpha and says she can’t figure out for the life of her why she likes him? How he’s “totally not my type, but I just want him to fuck me so badly”?
I’ve seen them do it. A lot of times. Innocent virgins, hardcore sluts, and every woman in between. Seriously, you’re just an inexperienced moron or a troll.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:50 pm
jf12 on January 5, 2015 at 6:45 pm
Joe Blow gives the prescription for the Love Experience: “You want to feel a simulacrum of what you consider to be love as a man? Get a girlfriend or wife, take care of yourself, carry yourself properly, then let the other women in your mutual circle of acquaintances hit on you.”
Really? That’s what you guys think love is? Been there, done that and I don’t agree. I think love doesn’t exist.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:50 pm
BP, was it here or at Heartits, where the examiner told the participants that they would be analyzing their answers with a voice lie detection monitor?
Turns out in that study, womens N-count went up and the mens went down from the standard norm from previous studies.
LMFAROTFP!
January 5th, 2015 at 6:53 pm
If you cannot, or will not, parade a bunch of other women in front of your girlfriend or wife, there are two easy steps to creating a passive ambience of Dread.
1. Get a new scent. It doesn’t matter what it is, as long as it is completely different from what she is used to smelling on you. The biggest effect might come from you spritzing yourself with teenage girl scents.
2. Buy new underwear. Yourself. From the store. NOT the cheapest kind; anything except the cheapest kind.
You may be laughing at this but the women readers are not laughing, I assure you.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:53 pm
@DeNihilist
In my opinion, scientists should be the ideal image of red pill. Objective reality is the entire point of science. Subjectivity is not science, it is faith. His failure to search out objective data and instead measuring subjective opinions makes his “science” in to nothing more than a worthless opinion poll. So yes, his failure to insist on objective data impresses me as blue pill as all hell.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:57 pm
For those who missed it re: Love for sale or the commodification of love.
The short story I referred to was “Pilgrimage to Earth” (original title, “Love, Inc.”) by Robert Sheckley and was published in 1956 in Playboy. It was also part of several anthologies which is probably where I first read it.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:57 pm
Jeremy – “As such, female forms of ‘acceptable’ love are unexplored, unvalidated, and inappropriately considered immoral.”
Might that be because of what men see as default tendency to favor ambiguity of the defined, sincerity over honesty, and the individually ratified judgements of our collective observation? I can understand a general unwillingness amongst women to actually describe their experiences of love in clear honest language because of a fear they wouldn’t be believed. But do they even understand why we would view such experiences with skepticism? Might their forms of love be viewed as ” immoral” because of the amount of deceit and dishonesty we see in their behavior vs. their words?
January 5th, 2015 at 7:00 pm
Jff12. If you cannot, or will not, parade a bunch of other women in front of your girlfriend or wife, there are two easy steps to creating a passive ambience of Dread.
Sigh. That’s not love. You’re right, it’s just wrong.
January 5th, 2015 at 7:04 pm
@Atticus
All’s fair in love and war, and all warfare is deception. Love doubly so.
January 5th, 2015 at 7:04 pm
Atticus
January 5th, 2015 at 6:50 pm
I think love doesn’t exist.
After long and bitter experience I have come to a similar conclusion. The only thing you can ever get from a woman is attraction. Which is not bad. But it ain’t love. The only love men ever get from a woman is from their mother.
January 5th, 2015 at 7:06 pm
Sun, he works in the soft sciences, there is nothing but subjectivity in this realm.
If you have lemons, make lemonaide.