My good friend DJ Damage had an interesting question regarding last week’s post and the time-tested classic LJBF rejection:
Hey Rollo would you say that women consciously know what they are doing to their male friends?! I mean lets take the AFC out of the equation for a moment and focus on the women. When a woman lays the LJBF’s line on her “male friend” doesn’t she realises that this AFC who is standing before her wanted to fuck her for the longest time?! Doesn’t she see anything wrong with the fact that in her eyes its not ok for a man to reject the LJBF’s line yet its ok to string a man along, pepper him with false hopes and some physical contact and then be surprised (or act surprised) he may want more??!!
Or is it just to accept the fact that women are women and you shouldn’t worry about their predictable behaviour but rather accept it and follow the rules of engagement.
I think it kind of depends on the individual, but to varying degrees I’d think no. As I stated in Playing Friends, the LJBF rejection has been so provably time-tested that it’s entered into a standardized feminine consciousness. In other words, it doesn’t need a formal teaching to understand how it’s useful. It’s simply demonstrated in so many different ways (media, personal interactions, etc.) that it becomes subconsciously learned. 12 y.o. girls don’t sit around at slumber parties discussing the best way to deliver a LJBF rejection to boys that like them. They learn the convention from TV, their big sisters, their mothers, etc. examples.
This is what makes it all the more jarring for a woman to have what’s always been a useful social tool explained to them. And of course the fail-safe for it is the risk of social ostracization on the guy’s part for outright rejecting her LJBF, making it far less likely an occurrence.
Now, that said, you’re really asking two questions. The second is, does the LJBF girl know the “friend” wants to bang her? I’d say most definitely. Not that any woman would admit it, because in doing so it puts the burden of her being straightforward with him on her. It’s plausible deniability. It’s far easier to deny, what by early adolescence girls know (boys want to fuck them) than to accept responsibility for leading him on. Bear in mind, attention is the coin of the realm in girl-world, but the guy also bears a good amount of responsibility for his own illusions.
When you think about it, it’s really a self-perpetuating cycle. Guy wants to qualify for girl’s intimacy, girl knows this, but isn’t attracted to the guy for the exact reason he is qualifying himself. Girl should be forthright with the “non-interest” guy, but still enjoys the attention and the affirmation that comes with it. Girl plays ‘friend’ and only becomes flirtatious when the attention flow breaks to reestablish it. Guy gets to make-or-break point, initiates intimacy and girl falls back on LJBF. Guy believes he still needs to qualify more and the cycle repeats.
Now, is any of that a conscious process? If a girl says ‘yes’, she’s a self-serving, grand manipulator, and this causes a cognitive self-image conflict. Due to a fear of ostracization from attention she can’t exactly cop to a foreknowledge of the process. But that’s OK because there are many other feminine social conventions she can fall back on to avoid this. The feminine prerogative (she can change her mind) being the most useful, or The Feminine Mystique (women are unknowable) being a close second .
If the answer is no, and she’s not aware of the process, our social sense of personal responsibility takes over; she’s naive or at least immature. However, even in this event she’s also excused from culpability.
Regardless of whether a woman is aware of her own motives, it’s up to men to see her behavior as the only reliable indicator for them. As I’ve said before, there are no mixed messages, women will tell you exactly what their intent is. You just need the ability to read the behavior. As I’ve said before, the medium IS the message. The LJBF IS the message. Women with a high interest level don’t get to this point with a guy they want to fuck.
I sometimes get critics telling me that what I reveal at Rational Male is very negative or disproportionately biased against women. I understand that perception, but it’s not my intent to do so. I’ve stated on several occasion that all I do is hold up a mirror, you’ve got to want look – and the main trouble with women (and men in some instances) is that after having been immersed for a lifetime in a fem-centric , feminine primary reality they don’t really like what’s being reflected back at them. It’s a very foreign experience for most women to see the root motivators of their own behavior, so the natural reflexive response is to demonize the one illustrating them, or really even making an attempt to understand and educate others about them. When the feminine Matrix is your most favorable and comfortable environment, it follows that attempts to unplug someone from it are met with considerable resistance.
From Moral to the Manosphere:
“,..when I wrote War Brides, it was in response to men’s common complaint of how deftly and relatively unemotionally women could transition into a new relationship after they’d been dumped by a GF or wife. I wanted to explore the reasons how and why this functioned, but from a moralistic perspective it is pretty fucked up that, due to hypergamy, women have an innate capacity to feel little compunction about divesting themselves emotionally from one man and move on to another much more fluidly than men. If I approach the topic in a fashion that starts with, “isn’t it very unjust and / or fucked up that women can move on more easily than men?” not only is my premise biased, but I’d be analyzing the moral implications of the dynamic and not the dynamic itself.”
When I explore the War Brides dynamic, the amoral aspects of Hypergamy or any of the more moralistically uncomfortable dimensions of Game, people want to apply their own perceptions of justice or moral sensitivity to what are sometimes very inhumane conditions. I realize that’s going to happen, in fact, in the interests of inter-gender civility it should happen – but what gets (sometimes intentionally) confused in coming to those conclusions is the demonizing of the revelations behind what motivates those dehumanizing realities. We want to hold people responsible for the motivators who have no idea what they are in the first place.
Hypergamy has served an evolutionary purpose for the human species; it doesn’t mean we have to like it, but it doesn’t mean we can ignore its influence, nor does it mean the person revealing it or attempting to better understand it is inherently an asshole for doing so. It also doesn’t excuse us from the consequences of being unaware of it.
As DJDamage asked in the beginning of this post, women for the greater part are unaware or casually oblivious to the motivators of their own behavior. Recently some notable ‘red pill women’ have been making what I believe are sincere effort to better understand those motivators as well as the feminine primary social environment that favors and reinforces them. While I’m not sure that they’ll want to throw their lot in with the manosphere wholesale, it’s at least a small step in the direction of better understanding.