Many PUAs have at one point encountered and considered what’s commonly known as LMR, Last Minute Resistance after they’ve successfully moved through the various phases of seduction and had a girl reconsider fucking him and ultimately reject him at the zero hour before sex was in the offing.
LMR is the acronym PUAs gave to the tendency, but you don’t need to be a PUA to have had the experience of pleading your case for sex while spooning on the bed with a girl you’ve been trying to ‘make comfortable enough’ to want to fuck you using your best Beta Game for two months. I’d say blue pill men are much more familiar with LMR than most self-styled PUAs.
I’ll admit, I did this in my younger Beta days.
This was long before I realized that sex was about urgency, anxiety and tension, not comfort, familiarity or rapport, or proving how much better a boyfriend I’d make than the Jerks she’d enthusiastically spread her legs for because they naturally created that urgency.
It wasn’t until I’d hit my sexual stride in my semi-pro rock star 20s that I realized that striving to make a girl feel comfort and trust was anti-seductive.
Eventually I got to the point that I could get laid predictability enough with girls who were enthusiastically down to fuck, that I no longer felt the responsibility to endure the blue balls I had in trying to behave according to how girls ‘told’ me I should go about being intimate with other girls.
It was then I realized I had been attempting to Game girls according to the advice other girls had given me (or even some of the girls I wanted to get with themselves). I realized how adolescent this really was; these are games teenage girls played with guys who’s attentions they enjoyed, but couldn’t bear the thought of fucking someone they were so familiar with. I figured out that when a woman says, “I don’t think of you in that way. I think of you as a brother.”, what she’s really saying is “I’d consider sex with you to be incest”.
I didn’t know it then, but this was an important lesson in my red pill education.
I’ve never been an advocate for pushing past last minute resistance with a woman. From that point on in my life if there was any hesitancy on the part of a woman becoming sexual with me, and certainly once clothes were about to come off, I knew something else was affecting the needed sexual tension and urgency. Something else was mitigating genuine desire and I knew it wouldn’t be the kind of sex I wanted to have, or couldn’t already have had a better experience with another plate I was spinning at the time.
I get that for a lot of guys, “pushing” for sex – really trying to wait a girl out for sex – is the only Game they really have to speak of. However, I’d gotten to the point where I realized that any sex a woman makes a guy wait for is negotiated desire and mitigated sex, and the experience was never worth the wait.
I learned how to do very effective takeaways during this point in my life, but not because they were practiced to perfection from a want to bang a particular woman. Rather, and unintentionally, I had what PUAs termed a very good ‘push/pull’ technique due only to the fact that I knew if a new girl I was with was hesitant to get sexual I was wasting time I could’ve spent with another girl who was a proven commodity.
Women pick up on cues like this. Men are often oblivious to them, but there are subtle differences in our behaviors, indifferences to women’s expected behaviors from us, and subtle attitudes we sub-communicate which women are attuned to thanks to an evolved psychological understanding of when they have a sexual competitor for our attentions. Women who have a genuine interest in a guy, rarely confuse that guy with “mixed messages“.
I didn’t consciously process it then, but an overt attempt to overcome last minute resistance broadcasts a perception of ‘pussy begging’ in an obvious way. While I realize there’re sometimes situations that call for a need to be sexually assertive to promote a dominance women are testing for, if you’re in a position of what amounts to pleading or “c’mon baby” convincing a girl to fuck you, you’re negotiating (really compromising yourself) for her unenthusiastic desire.
When you overextend yourself in getting past LMR, you risk sending the message that “you just don’t get it” with regard to how women need to be seduced, and how the men they do want to fuck organically behave. By being too self-effacing in convincing a woman to fuck you, you present the perception of being optionless with other women, and thus a non-sexual Beta and she can deal with you, or not deal with you, accordingly.
It was really simple pragmatism for me to walk away from a sexual dead end girl – I had other options – but in doing so I’d unwittingly, but organically, passed a shit test. And more often than not I got laid a week or two after “bumping into” her again; after she’d had time to process it.
Game 101
Now, why am I going back to Game 101 here?
Likely this is something I should’ve included in the book, or come about to in the early posts of Rational Male (I have actually, but not in depth). Well, it’s because of a pathetically brief throwaway post from Lindy West praising the recent Yes Means Yes law on California campuses.
West usually wrote feminist agitprop before she was surreptitiously let go from Jezebel a few months ago, and rest assured this is the first and last time I’ll ever quote her on this blog, but in her giddy sputtering over the YMY law she did manage one coherent point:
“Why would you want to be tolerated when you could be desired?”
Following along in the wake of the Yes Means Yes social initiative, many a feminized blogger has gone through a good deal of mental contortions in order to rationalize why they support it. The problem they encounter is that in supporting YMY they have to explain away more than a few previously, and publicly, held stands they made in the past about gender relations to align with YMY.
One such inconsistency stems from women’s dubious want for comfort and rapport prior to sex that conflicts with what, essentially, amounts to negotiating for their genuine desire. Thus, I agree with Lindy, why would you want to be tolerated, when you could be desired?
What Lindy is oblivious to (no doubt from a lack of experiencing male attention) is that genuine desire cannot be negotiated for. Many a hapless Beta suffering in a ‘tolerance’ relationship is all too familiar with the lackluster experience of ‘duty sex’. Women will bemoan some fanciful epidemic of misogynists who think they’re entitled to, or owed sex, but the fact of the matter is the same women actively contribute to that belief by (legally now) requiring a checklist of terms necessary for men to have sex with them.
When I published Iron Rule of Tomassi #3 I received (and periodically still receive) a rash of criticism from the femosphere for insisting men excuse themselves from, and not wait for, compromised, mitigated and I daresay now, unenthusiastic sex.
Iron Rule of Tomassi #3
Any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait.
When I wrote this it was an effort in illustrating a pragmatic approach to save men the time and resources of investing in a less than optimal sexual experience. In essence, it’s a rule to help men avoid negotiated, unenthusiastic sex with women who feel obligated to fuck him. Whether it’s ostensibly from pity or duty or some other pretense the outcome is still the same.
I also wrote a follow up to this rule in Three Strikes:
Risk & Reward
In Game, there is a subtle balance that needs to be recognized between risks of over-investing in a particular woman with regards to practicality and not throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water and losing on a potentially rewarding opportunity. Women, as is particular to their own Game, will naturally come down on the side of casting doubt on a man’s valid assessment of a woman’s potential value, both in long term perspectives and potential sexual satisfaction. This presumption of doubt is a built in failsafe social convention for women; if only you’d been more patient, if only you invested a little bit more, you’d be rewarded with a great mother for your children and the best pussy of your life – don’t blow it now!
The short version is that it’s not in women’s best sexual-strategy interests for a man to have sexual options. Women’s sexual strategy is very schizophrenic – ideally women want a Man that other women want to fuck, but in order to assess his sexual market value to other women he’s got to have exercisable options for her to compete against, or at least display indirect social proof to that effect. So, she needs to limit his options while simultaneously determining he has those options. Now add to this the hypergamous necessity of maintaining a reasonable pool of suitors suspended in doubt of her own SMV in order to determine the best one among them for short term sexual provisioning and long term security provisioning.
As ever, the intent here is to determine the potential for genuine enthusiastic sex – if there’s no interest, or hesitant acceptance: NEXT.
At the time of my writing these posts I was castigated for exactly the same rationale that femosphere bloggers are now endorsing Yes Means Yes with today. The (now scrubbed from certain blogs) criticism then was one of how terrible it was for Men to punish women by not playing along with feminine-primary Game.
Only two years ago the criticism was, “What? You just want some whore who gives it up on the first night?”
However, under the Yes Means Yes initiative, this Three Strikes pragmatism is flipped and endorsed by the women who were previously outraged by it. YMY fosters a social environment which actively promotes Pump and Dump sexual encounters, since the furtherance of that sexual relationship into an LTR increases the risk and liabilities that are the result of the YMY threat point.
Commenter jf12 from last week’s thread:
YMY makes a good case for men abandoning what women consider to be their assortative equals, i.e. women who are older, crankier, and more likely to say no, for women who are younger, nicer, and more likely to say yes. YMY is a total green light for men to push for sex immediately if not sooner.
So the question becomes one of how men will most pragmatically develop contingencies for the YMY threat point in their own sexual strategy? In an age when Sheryl Sandberg is openly telling young women to fuck the Bad Boys, and settle down with the Nice Guy before her SMV decays into non-competitiveness, when open hypergamy is not only embraced, but proudly preached in the media, what logical choice do men have but to push for sex immediately and go their own way?
YMY combined with Open Hypergamy promote a sexual marketplace based on enthusiastic consent for Alpha Fucks, and mitigated, ambiguous consent for Beta Bucks. Now add to this environment the effects and behaviors inherent with women’s Ovulatory Shift on a monthly basis and we can begin to see the latent purpose behind Yes Means Yes – insurance against regrettable sexual behavior.
Magic.
We joked about our relations being like a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey ~Jian Ghomeshi
Wikipedia: Fifty Shades of Grey “set the record as the fastest-selling paperback of all time.”
Careful Rollo,
Aunt Giggles will probably go nutbar and accuse you of being a rape apologist with this one lol
Too late, she already is.
And FWIW, Aunt Sue is more than welcome to leave a comment here explaining how her infamous “pity fuck” with the college guy (with a fiancé) who wore her down for sex wasn’t rape.
I think her readers deserve that explanation.
You act like there is some rational standard where the two of you can use facts and come to an agreement. Likely the “pity fuck” isn’t rape because right now she has decided it isn’t. That’s the whole point: to inject further subjectivity. Arguing logically is futile.
Yep, it’s amusing how it’s doctrine if a woman says it but it’s heresy if a man says it.
I didn’t even know who Giggles was until she called me out over Wait For It?
Ironically that post is now scrubbed, but in it she essentially preached against everything she agrees with about YMY.
If anything Iron Rule #3 was prophetic in that it predicted a YMY sexual marketplace.
hehehe. Still, there’s no end to the articles coming out by certain entitled feminist writers (here’s looking at you Elite Daily) lamenting the loss of being wined and dined, courtship and being made to wait. They are so oblivious to the system they helped erect that would end their feminine fantasy constructs. They now have to navigate a system (haplessly) in which they need to assume all the risk of putting out right away (enthusiastically) and still hold the chance of being dropped, or be dropped immediately for not putting out because men have caught on and learned that being… Read more »
2 comments 1. I tested this Iron Rule on one occasion to my own demise after already being made aware of it. Not only did waiting for it equate to no sex for myself and the consequential frustration, but also to a horrible case of one-itis. Not sure if there is a connection between a guy waiting for it and a development of one-itis (and whether girls do the former to create the latter) but the experience definitely sucked. A complete loss of investment for myself. 2. I was watching football yesterday and saw the NFL’s anti-domestic violence and sexual… Read more »
Consider LMR in LTR, however. 99.44% of LTR women *often* (monthly,at the very least) deliberately confuse their LTR guy with mixed messages, intermittently reinforcing *specifically* so he will take “no” for an answer this time but will keep trying for a “yes” some other time e.g. next week. I too have come to the conclusion that essentially all of women’s irrational sexual behaviors, sexual contempt for sexual comfort being prime, can be chalked up to incest avoidance as an explanatory convenience if not the sole causal aspect. 1) Girls only begin reaching out to bad boy strangers at puberty. After… Read more »
“Because Jian Ghomeshi is a disgusting, misogynistic pervert – but I purchased, read, and rubbed my clit to all three ’50 Shades of Gray’ titles.”
Sadly, all this is another giant step toward harems.
1) The man of the harem has built-in, actually live-in, Dread because of the other women.
2) The woman must show more enthusiasm or else she will not get her needs satisfied as often. This thermostatting of her sexual frequency, in which the hotter woman gets more and the colder woman gets less, is inherent in a harem situation.
Slightly off topic. Here’s what I think Yes Means Yes will look like for women. I don’t want any of these things to happen; I just think they COULD happen. 1. YMY will raise the stakes dramatically for men. A lot of men will simply drop out because they cannot run the risk of an encounter going bad. A lot of men who would meet women and make good matches, won’t meet those women; because they cannot afford the possible losses. That means no more Beta Bucks. No more “good men” waiting until she is ready to “settle”. 2. Any… Read more »
It should be plausible, to say the least, that the *nicest* explanation why a man being actually bad, i.e. in the direction of malevolent, towards a woman works so very very very much better in arousing her urgent enthusiasm than a man being actually nice, i.e. in the direction of benevolent, is because brotherly love is incestuous.
Any other explanation is *worse*.
LOL yea LMR is a thing of the past. Not sure if it is because I openly have other women in play, or that I became better and building that sense of urgency or some combination of factors. Hard kissing, hair pulling, pining her to this or that, hand around the throat, commanding her to do this or that seems to blast right through any LMR. Interesting thoughts on harems jf12 though dread is a very active/ overt part of mine (how could it not be) every thing else is much more affectionate, loving, fun etc then your wonderings imply… Read more »
Two rejoinders to Lindy.
1) Since women desire so very very much fewer men than men desire women, which men are going to have to settle for being tolerated instead of desired? Are you against enabling undesirable men to engage in more pickup artistry and other “bad” behaviors that greatly increase the probability that they could be desired? Orwould you prefer that undesirable men cease alltogether?
2) Why would a woman want to be tolerated as “a human”, i.e. a weaker, less willing, less enthusiastic, oddly footwear-focused version of a male, when she could be desired as a female?
Broken record alert: prostitution, prostitution, prostitution. Solves all aforementioned ‘problems’. Make your money. DAFS online. Dial your phone. Enjoy. She leaves. Sleep. Rinse and Repeat.
What a wonderful fuckin’ 21st century world indeed.
@sfcton, re: “every thing else is much more affectionate, loving, fun etc then your wonderings imply”
I agree women work much better in harems. I apologize for misstating my views. My view is that women are to blame for their own problems of working worse in monogamy.
Rollo, flirting games are popular in my social circle, while seduction is out for most, because they are married. The focus is on the Chase, not the Mating Dance. Hence, resistance is encouraged because it makes the Chase last longer and everyone enjoys the game more. Breaking the game rules is also a big part of the fun.
I don’t see how YMY can apply to flirting games, though I can see that some women might try to apply it Monday morning in court.
Class, compare the enthusiasm in Jessie J’s no-foreplay-needed Bang Bang, definitionally instantaneous unpersuaded consent, preferring a whole one minute ofsex inthe backseat, with Robin Thicke’s slower attempts at seduction and convincing in Blurred Lines, including wasting time dancing and lighting up.
Anything other than an enthusiastic “Yes” means NEXT!
Women can do well without men anyway. Therefore Beta Bucks is dead, fit only for wannabe slaves who haven’t realized it yet.
Where’s my Ann Darrow when I need her?
sfcton:
Interesting thoughts on harems jf12 though dread is a very active/ overt part of mine (how could it not be) every thing else is much more affectionate, loving, fun etc then your wonderings imply
+1 The loyalty tests seem to be diminishing with Mrs. Gamer. Maybe I’ve gotten better at handling them and managing her emotions?
jf12:
Class, compare the enthusiasm in Jessie J’s no-foreplay-needed Bang…wasting time dancing and lighting up.
+1, but the one-minute time limit sounds very boring
Given that men despise LMR and prefer easy enthusiasm, which gender is it that promotes ASD along withholding enthusiasm, making it more costly, and very often ridicules the other gender for not being hard enough, urgent enough, man enough to know to push through LMR?
Since Lybrido, at least, will be widely available within a year, and because effective libido pills yield very genuine abeit very manufactured desire, what will be the consequences on consent?
jf12: Given that men despise LMR and prefer easy enthusiasm, which gender is it that promotes ASD along withholding enthusiasm, making it more costly, and very often ridicules the other gender for not being hard enough, urgent enough, man enough to know to push through LMR? Heh, “easy enthusiasm” exactly. Last Friday, a 20-something woman joined our group late. I asked her to dance, but she refused somewhat bitchily. I continued dancing with other women in the group, having fun and so did they. Little Miss Bitchy ended up giving me looks all night asking for another approach. All she… Read more »
jf12 – ‘they’ cannot afford to leave on the table any ‘viable option’ for acceptable sexual conduct. any and all male behavior in any sexual encounter must carry with it the potential to be criminalized. ‘they’ need to make it so that after any sexual encounter whatsoever, the women has a lawful mandate to destroy the male participant in said sexual encounter for any imaginable rationale – for any perceived or actual element of said sexual encounter that leaves her less than 100% satisfied with how it all went, and how it all looks to be going forward. Will he… Read more »
@SteveH, I think there is a very slight possibility that the purveyors of The New Sexual Reality believe they are trying to do the right thing, especially when it kind of rationally makes sense that there will be less unwanted sex if men are prevented from trying to escalate when there are mixed signals. The fundamental flaws in this reasoning are empirical, namely, these are false assumptions:
1) Women want sex “just as much” as men, and therefore women’s desires are normative.
2) Women never want to be “taken”.
3) Mixed signals are rare.
@tasd, re: easy.
One possibility: Approach her swiftly aggressively looking rather angry at her. Scold her for her looking like she would get you in trouble, then stomp off and make sure she sees you complain to males about her, nodding in her direction and scowling. Assuming she inquires, through intermediaries, what she did to offend you, reply “Nothing yet, but she reminds me of a woman who hurt me deeply.”
SfcTon – “…though dread is a very active/ overt part of mine (how could it not be) every thing else is much more affectionate, loving, fun etc then your wonderings imply”
Makes perfect sense. Once you have the dread subtext firmly established there’s no need for you to mention it. Obviously part of being a genuine badass is not having to prove it overtly, but having it understood implicitly, as in your reputation preceeds you.
“It was then I realized I had been attempting to Game girls according to the advice other girls had given me (or even some of the girls I wanted to get with themselves).”
Truer words have never been spoken…
The feminine imperative was pushing this agenda since the 90s I think. Having women as ‘good’ friends or ‘best’ friends….complete folly and a major piss-take. The indoctrination starts when you hit your teens straight through to your mid-late 20s.
Where were you then brother?…sigh!
I have already trained my ten year old son for some of these scenarios:
Girl: “Let’s just be friends”.
Son: “No thanks, I already have lots of friends”
I am so proud of him
Considering only Alphas get an enthusiastic Yes for a consensual no buck involved intercourse, this is a big blow with an iron rod on the head of beta males. The same white knights who blindly praised this in the first place. Aha!
Absolutely monster post here today. This guy I work with told me a story of a girl that ended up fucking him 14 years after he’d tried unsuccessfully to hook up with her. After they were done, she asked him, “How was it?” His response: “You made me wait 14 years for THAT?” Hilarious. Even for me as a single guy trying to get laid, who desperately wants to have sex, I’m not desperate to the point of devaluing myself. And I do have the experience of initiating at least one hookup, thanks to this blog, so I have at… Read more »
I had what you stated below happen to me today via Tinder: “The short version is that it’s not in women’s best sexual-strategy interests for a man to have sexual options. Women’s sexual strategy is very schizophrenic – ideally women want a Man that other women want to fuck, but in order to assess his sexual market value to other women he’s got to have exercisable options for her to compete against, or at least display indirect social proof to that effect. So, she needs to limit his options while simultaneously determining he has those options.” What’s crazy is that… Read more »
Not looking at male/female relationships as the simple husbandry it is seems to lead to all the consternation in a lot of these comments.
She has no soul, everything you see in a woman is her ego reflecting YOU.
Stop trying to make women more than they are just because you need them to be.
I’ll add: You are managing a selection process, NOT a human relationship. Thats only found in (no homo), fraternity.
re: indifference. I would like to hear how to pull off indifference without Dread/plates/”fine, then I’ll ask Susie instead.” Otherwise it seems (it would seem to me, being a man) that indifference would be mistaken for a lack of passion, a lack of urgency, a que sera sera passivity. How to do passionate indifference?
I forgot to mention that a women’s ovulatory cycle matters a lot here, too. When a woman isn’t ovulating, she’ll be more forgiving of guys who don’t incite her alpha fucks. But when she’s ovulating, on the other hand, she’ll be much more harsh to men who don’t incite her tingles and if you’re in a relationship, you’ll have a higher chance of being cuckolded. Sounds fucked up but it’s true. I’m not ashamed to admit that I’ve been on both sides of the equation. Times where I got cheated on and times where a girl cheated on her boyfriend… Read more »
@jf12 Indifference works best when your value is already higher than her’s. I know this is a “duh” moment but it’s crucial for her to either believe you’re of higher quality or construct a perspective that assumes you’re higher quality than her. If you’re a lower quality man, your indifference will actually benefit her by saving the trouble of having her cut you off. She’ll think, “eh, i’m cutting him off. he wasn’t THAT into me anyway.” Women love being passive aggressive and the more room you allow for her to be so, is only more beneficial to her. Obviously,… Read more »
@TM, re: higher value etc.
I’m certain the best way to construct such a perspective is “living well”, which, basically, means her seeing you having *passionate* fun with a different woman. IOW she believes reason for your ability to be *emotionally* detached from her is because of your ability to be *emotionally* attached to another woman. Universal indifference is the definition of passivity; it is only the specific indifference towards *her* that counts to *her*.
FWIW yes I’ve been trying mostly successfully to stuff the Dark Side of the Force back into Pandora’s Box.
The albatross of badness around my neck keeps squawking, though.
In related news, a new gem from the Huf Post canada.
“A Man’s Guide To Handling Conversations About Consent”
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/anne-t-donahue/sexual-consent_b_6055384.html
“have guy friends who have been really shocked when I tell them about my and my friends’ experiences with harassment, cat-calling, assault, etc. and then they ask what they can do because they are a mix of horrified and confused and very, very apologetic, on behalf of Men’s Rights Advocates (MRAs) and shitty dudes everywhere.”
One positive note: she’s getting called on her bullshit in the comment section. Seeing more and more of that lately, I think.
Squawking … For those unfamiliar with my backstory, longterm 2nd marriage, after a decade of first-date wasteland, after a decade of 1st marriage. Mounting frustration, coupled with an unexpected online amygdalal explosion, led me to red pill sites grasping for understanding of what to do about women behaving the opposite of the way I decree they should. I tentatively, then more boldly, began incorporating what I determined empirically to be the minimal Goldilocks degree of naughtiness, i.e. no major superfluity of naughtiness (that rings a bell Biblically). In a couple of years I took 13 out of 14 women to… Read more »
Regarding JF12, quiet amanuensis for this post, who says: “re: indifference. I would like to hear how to pull off indifference without Dread/plates/”fine, then I’ll ask Susie instead.”” Simple. Like any deal of any consequence, don’t act like you need it, and in fact, don’t need it. Be willing to walk away. I’ve never closed a 7-9 figure deal without walking away once or twice. Being free, being sovereign in your person, delivers (or does not) the deal. LMR, by comparison, is a joke. It’s 90 seconds of posturing before the girl begs for the score. If I hear LMR,… Read more »
My point, simply, is that all deals require a walkaway. Sucks, but that is how it is.
@BV, I should probably write a post about the mechanics of takeaways. There are definitely pro-masculine ways to work around LMR when it’s a shit test.
A decisive takeaway as you mentioned, combined with amused mastery and a bit of agree & amplify, give her a week and re-approach with that same amused mastery attitude.
If the vibe is still negative or you get a repeat LMR performance, NEXT, with no contact. If she reinitiates later, you’re busy with work or “friends”. If she doesn’t you’re not wasting your time with an unenthusiastic lay.
I have a question,
When my girlfriend and I first started seeing each other, it took until the fourth date to have sex. Although we were making out and dry humping on the 2nd and 3rd dates, she said, “we’re not having sex tonight” in a way that was very assertive while we were fooling around. Both times, it was said as we were fooling around, not early on in the date.
I’m just curious if this would be considered being made to wait for sex. Before her, I would usually get some action by the 2nd date.
@rollo: couple things. A) some girls are more resistant towards fucking (one night stand) first time they are hooking up with a guy. So girl A might always resist sex the first night no matter who the guy is even if she’s hooking up with the nfl football player and girl B would only have sex first night with nfl type player alphas. And you could say that’s “Madonna/whore” complex but it’s not…just simply observe and recount past hook ups. Maybe I can see this easier because I went to a large university Greek life and observed these types of… Read more »
I think in today’s world, an explicit NO to “sex” should require some further explanation from the declaror as to what exactly she means by this. Unconsented kissing and, of course, dry humping, would be, in the absence of “consent”, sexual battery, something of course, you want no part of. Of course, you’d already at this point be guilty. I’d like to think that I would leave right then, not come back, and hope for the best.
Rollo: My experience is that LMR is just that, the last shit test. I just start to walk, and it’s over. Everyone’s MMV. But few women take their shirts off (in my experience, zero women do this) and then say, “No, I’m not ready …” and mean it.
I think YMY is going to turn women into hysterical zombie seducers if men are willing to go home, instead of argue for intimacy.
Deti descants on the YMY law’s social impacts as I have with the legal. I co-sign on what he says but would add the following: 1) the number of men going to college continues to decrease, so the pool of available date-able guys (well guys in general) will get smaller and smaller, to their chagrin (cue the chorus of Where Da Good Men At?). See: the SMP of present-day Beijing. 2)Sex positivity is no longer part of a healthy breakfast, it’s the law! So hard as it may be for men to WALK in the face of LMR as this… Read more »
Hi Rollo,
one aspect I will not agree with you completely, is if a girl is a virgin. There are cultures where a girl will literally ruin or severely decrease her future marriage prospects if she’s not a virgin (and the future husband or society knows about it). In this case LMR might be very strong regardless of the attraction levels.
Saying that, there are ways the girl can pleas you (and she will do it willingly) and still remain a virgin. Technically.
re: walking away. Yes, walking away certainly works except when you promised you would not. Being sovereign requires freedom of movement and freedom from entanglements, such as binding agreements. Dr. Helen quoted Mark Manson approvingly regarding enthusiastic consent: “If you’re in the grey area [ever], you’ve already lost. Let me ask again: Why would you ever be excited to be with someone who is not excited to be with you? If they’re not happy with you now, what makes you think they’ll be happy to be with you later?” The punch line is that 100% of all women are not… Read more »
Somebody mentioned “Mother May I” but the correct game analogy for YMY is “Red Light Green Light”. The giving of consent, even verbally, does not legally require explicitly asking.
Recall in RLGL the person who’s It capriciously keeps changing from Yes to No and back again.
J4G writes:
nutters had the full run of the house
Hi Rollo – assuming for a moment that y/our daughters are paying attention, and we want our biological descendants raised with both parents present, what would you advise a relatively more self aware young female human about navigating balance between expressing interest in the male while confirming his willingness to invest in the long term?
I went through many of the same experiences as you, as far as learning not to wait and how to seduce. However I’ve seen enough of the other side of men who insisted until they got what they wanted to realize that it is a very valid strategy. If you look at persistence hunting on youtube you can see why persistence would be sexually selected for. The reason we are relatively hairless is because we had to chase down wild deerlike animals for many many hours under the hot African sun. It is a very suboptimal strategy today, when it… Read more »
Rollo: So the question becomes one of how men will most pragmatically develop contingencies for the YMY threat point in their own sexual strategy? Deti: 1. YMY will raise the stakes dramatically for men. A lot of men will simply drop out because they cannot run the risk of an encounter going bad. … … 4. Video recording ot sexual encounters. The risk requires it. Any encounter could potentially go bad; so video recording has to be used as possible evidence to counter an accusation. A suggestion I saw recently in a comment on another manosphere blog (can’t recall exactly… Read more »
These dudes seem to be embracing YMY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUj0otkJEBo “is we fuckin when we leave the club or nah?” “do you like the way I flick my tongue or nah?” “can you lick the tip then throw the dick or nah?” “can you let me stretch that pussy out or nah?” “can you really take dick or nah?” “can I bring another bitch or nah?” “is you with this shit or nah?” “i’ma go as far as you let me” “girl is you suckin me or fuckin me or nah?” “can I bring another bitch let’s have a threesome” “can you… Read more »
The point below is absolutely true. “So, she needs to limit his options while simultaneously determining he has those options” Along with female egoism, this is the fundamental reason why most cute woman will seek out an average looking man, and most hot women seek out an above average looking (hence “decent looking”) man. They will conceivably find a top end good looking man more sexually arousing, but they will fear his abundant – perceived or actual – options with other women. So in essence, the exampled woman responds positively if she knows a few women who find him attractive… Read more »
re: “she feeds off negative emotions”
Yes, that would explain the weight.
Just to validate this idea…the “spinning plates” concept indeed does kill LMR. In my case, I’m spinning several plates. I have not had any real issues with any of these girls fucking me. In fact, I actually LJBF’d a girl…telling her about failed relationships, showing up with other girls in front of her, treating her like a buddy by white-knighting her in a dispute. Little did I realize far from turning her off it was: 1) pre-selection 2) white-knighting was seen as “protector of women and children 3) leadership came in me ordering her around on a project she was… Read more »
JF12: “Yes, walking away certainly works except when you promised you would not. Being sovereign requires freedom of movement and freedom from entanglements, such as binding agreements.” I guess you’re suggesting that YMY is fatal to marital or monogamous LTR, and, as another guy noted above, I agree completely. If the war against women fantasists are able to conflate their VAWA success with a new initiative to ‘protect’ married women from their husbands’ sexual activities, and make it illegal to have married sex without affirmative consent (which is retroactively, and optionally, applied but only by the wife), marriage is both… Read more »
@BV, re: retroactive nonconsent. One solution to the opponents’ protected right to burn the bridges after they cross them is to burn them before they cross i.e. mgtow. And mgtow, if not sour grapes, is definitely an ultimate indifference “I don’t need it from you and I don’t need it from anybody.” But I’m still stuck on my concern about non-plates indifference being too passive. More to follow (as if that were in question).
@walawala, re: “LMR is a result of too little comfort and too much attraction.” This is the standard popular *media* portrayal, like the canonical version by Meatloaf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmPMMitJDYg “Stop right there! I gotta know right now Before we go any further do you love me? Will you love me forever? Do you need me? Will you never leave me? Will you make me so happy for the rest of my life? Will you take me away and will you make me your wife? Do you love me? Will you love me forever? Do you need me? Will you never leave… Read more »
re: indifference. The primary reason that McDonald’s cannot hold your Happy Meal hostage until you fork over an extra $10 “service fee” for handing you the bag is NOT because they think you might say “Oh well, I’m not hungry anyway” but because they know for a fact that you could walk across the street to Burker King even if you already have $2.25 in sunk costs, although one must always consider the screaming-kid factor. And yes, I have written plenty of more complex sentences. I’m reasonably certain that the (inarguable) success of walking away is due at least to… Read more »
Fred: “if, as he states, men NEED to live in a world of fear (“Fear of Fucking”?), then why should YMY be restricted to state-funded campuses? Aren’t women elsewhere entitled to be free of the Amanda Taub ” woman tax”? Why not impose YMY everywhere?” Don’t worry, Fred. Those days are coming. I don’t have any doubt that YMY will soon be the law of the land everywhere. More college campuses will adopt it and YMY will then seep into the criminal law. When YMY takes over, it will make most husbands into rapists. Reason: No Means No put the… Read more »
@Deti & Fred, you’ll notice I refer to the campus YMY law as a “social initiative” in this article. This was intentional, because what will be learned as correct practice on campus will become the social expectations after graduation.
I have no doubt that broader legislation, beyond the campus, is coming, but the social initiative effects will be well ahead of that law as its proponents and fearfully obedient adherents graduate with every year.
The class of 2014 is just the vanguard…
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/yes-means-yes-can-teaching-good-sex-prevent-rape-campus-n226416
In fact, the empirical success of tactics for overcoming LMR is the single greatest encapsulation of the red pill (yes, I know, being a pill means it’s a encapsulated). What does not work is upping the comfort; ask any married man too as well as any PUA; what works is basically the opposite of comfort, either
1) indifference
2) pushing through
Yipes! Somehow the end of my point 4 above was accidentally cut off by the internet mohel. Was just following deti’s conclusion: hey Mr. Klein, explain why YMY should not be imposed everywhere if the “woman tax” of having to say no to a guy who might be the Seattle school shooter is to be avoided? Just posing the question in a public way will kill marriage for a generation, even if any proposed YMY everywhere bill is ridiculed off the stage.
re: the Stranger.
What makes a Stranger is that he has strange i.e. other females in his life.
@deti, re: establishing consent.
As the examples of men getting out of false rape claims keep piling up, of *proving* consent via video, texts, and other recording devices, obviously there will be many major attempts to outlaw such recordings even when the consent to recording is itself recorded.
Do you think such attempts will succeed?
Does YMY entail that a lesbian must view every video of every woman’s sexual encounters to adjudicate whether she was enthusiastic enough?
re: regarding females penetrating male space without the males’ enthusiastic consent.
“Why would you want to be tolerated when you could be desired?”
@Rollo, according to the nbc article, YMY has been taught for years to mean “Just A Plain Yes Means No”. *Enthusiastic* consent is required, not just a plain yes.
“you should be disappointed if all you got from your sex partner is consent.”
Well it is certainly a social initiative in terms of the now-voluntary, soon-to-be “mandatory” YMY freshman initiation classes like the one at Colgate where you “talk through” various consent scenarios (conclusion: boy is stupid, throw rocks at him). Except, of course, the idea going NEXT when LMR appears. That won’t be taught to the men – even though it’s the law! More likely they will be told the Heather MacDonald speech: get to know her over several no-contact dates, talk about her feels, carry her sign at slut-walks, wear pink ribbons, then she will fall madly in lust with you.… Read more »
Jf12: WRT outlawing recording: Unauthorized or undisclosed recording of persons is currently restricted or criminalized. The issues would be whether undisclosed recording would be further restricted, or the penalties stiffened up (heh). I suspect that if (when) recording becomes more prevalent as a countermeasure to YMY, both might happen. So what will happen practically is that a lot of recordings will be “out there” but nothing will ever come of them; and no one will ever see them, because men will likely respond to accusations or threatened accusations with threats of disclosure of the evidence. “You accuse me of violating… Read more »
@deti, re: nonverbal.
California Education Code Section 67386 does not explicitly say the consent must be explicitly verbal, and therefore it can be nonverbal. According to discussions, the edits were committee-made specifically to allow nonverbal without having to say nonverbal. Also, however, the same argument means there does not have to be explictly verbal asking. The potential accused is merely required to “ensure” consent (Section 1.(a)(1)) and to “ascertain” consent (1.(a)(2)(B)).
Roughly speaking, PUAs can now get state funding to show college boys how to read IOIs from college girls.
Section 67386(1)(a)(1) of the California Education Code states in pertinent part: “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact… Read more »
Also, so far according to the text ofthe law as written, poking your wife repeatedly in the rear, in bed after some foreplay, is NOT necessarily unconsented-to behavior if your poking can, through your relationship history, be understood as a “reasonable step” to communicate your willingness and ableness and *readiness* to penetrate her, and thereby *intended* to ascertain her consent by ensuring she *will* respond, one way or the other, to your poking. I rest my case.
“Oh, give it a rest, wouldja?” I can hear them whining from afar.
FWIW deti, I agree essentially every single actual case will come down to her saying “I didn’t actually verbalize” and him saying “well yeah but she responded nonverbally”. As the lawmakers intended: this is exactly where they want women and men to battle adversarially.
What I’m saying is that since this is being taught and sold to students as “nonverbal consent is ok”, so girls can eat their cake and then purge later, then necessarily “nonverbal ascertaining” is ok too.
JF12 with an (unfortunate) fast food metaphor: “The primary reason that McDonald’s cannot hold your Happy Meal hostage until you fork over an extra $10 “service fee” for handing you the bag is NOT because they think you might say “Oh well, I’m not hungry anyway”” Actually, indifference really can mean an actual loss of appetite. After a man figures out how to secure and manage his liaisons, he may well be truly indifferent to any woman prone to faux-dramatic LMR protestations. Reason: most women really aren’t that good in bed, and the hot ones perhaps inversely correlate looks with… Read more »
I wonder how all of this might affect the decisions of big-time college athletes? If I’m a high school senior deciding between going into the baseball minor leagues or playing college football would the former be more attractive because I wouldn’t have to deal with any of these campus codes/laws? Would enough players making similar decisions be enough to fuel legitimate non-college NFL and NBA farm programs?
Something I’ve not done in dog’s years: took a look over at Aunt Sue’s on this topic. I did it so you don’t have to. Here is the takeaway – Actually they admit a grudging respect that a man is not totally off base in NEXTing after a display of LMR or a lack of enthusiasm – but that’s not good enough… so the mantra for all you entitle-men is: Hey boys! No means no, and we mean it, and you must obey us when we say it, but it doesn’t mean NEVER! I just said “not now”, not “never”!… Read more »
That’s funny, Senator Fred Flange.
“You can’t make women be the ones who approach men!! That’s not what YMY means!!”
This is really just another warped outcome of the Brady Rule. The twisted hysterics of women shrieking their affirmative consent at the Tom Bradys, that is forthcoming, is just mind-boggling to imagine. A generation of Tom Bradys are going to have their dicks fall off from overuse before age 30.
Let me point up: “Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent”. This is a pretty clear indicator that saying nothing, or manifesting nonverbal consent, is NOT consent. Even if I accept that a woman can manifest nonverbal consent, the woman can easily say after the fact: “but I never actually said “yes”. She can easily assert after the fact that “I didn’t intend to consent. He misread me.” If one claims that “nonverbal assent” is sufficient, then we’re really just back to “No Means No”, and this law is meaningless. I’m not so… Read more »
Buena Vista – your comments in this thread are absolute GOLD. Every man should read them. Couldn’t agree more with you.
Taken strictly, doesn’t the YMY rule mean that almost every GUY has been raped?
Fred, BV:
Susan and her commenters are just plain wrong on their reading of this law. It does not say what they believe it does. Contrary to what they’re talking about, it isn’t limited just to “penetration”. It isn’t “intended” solely to protect stupid, naive, drunk off their asses freshman girls from evil senior fraternity members. And it DOES NOT SAY that “nonverbal assent” is sufficient to comply with it. The law is much, much broader than that.
Fred: Another thing the HUSsies are saying is “Guys have to escalate! We expect guys to escalate! It’s OK! So escalate! But only Hawt guys! Come on, guys! Can’t you just “get it”?” But under YMY, a man cannot escalate without risking running afoul of it. If he escalates, and she helps him slip off her panties, well, he’s probably OK. If he escalates and she doesn’t resist while he takes them off, he’s got a problem if she comes back later and says “but I never said “yes”.” Because: Lack of protest or resistance is not consent, nor is… Read more »
I do believe that YMY will create a ‘man drought’ here — per the situation in New Zealand now, where in many quarters women outnumber men 55-45, and women now claim 3x the number of sexual partners as American women do, and men complain that they are increasingly forced into premature or coerced sexual liaisons with their promiscuous females (!). Since being sexually active makes the modern girl cool, and YMY will remove cautious or inexperienced men from the market, roving bands of YMY nearly feral ‘consenters’ should be headed our way, competing for the opportunity to provide consent to… Read more »
Yes, to your point about ‘roving feral eager consenters’ BV – the further ‘aggressive-izing’, masculine-izing of women is exactly what these man-haters (man-enviers) want.
Deti, I would say the most pernicious aspect of the modern campus ‘sexual assault’ regime is what you mention: ‘sexual assault’ now means everything from a whiny “why don’t you want to come home with me” to a failed good night kiss to actual sex under any circumstance, to forcible rape. (I await the case where a girl accuses someone of staring creepily at her at a dance, e.g., “Creepy-Guy eye-raped me!”) And of course, at UMich, threatening to leave a relationship, or withholding sex, is also ‘sexual assault.’ So we have a ‘negative liberty’ concept (things we may not… Read more »
I’d invite anyone from HUS to any open forum so we can hash this out. Susan and/or HUS commenters, please come here or to any other open forum, and please show me where Section 67386 of the California Education Code “clearly” says that “nonverbal assent” is sufficient. Please explain to me how this law still allows for men to escalate. Please explain to me how this statement is incorrect or inaccurate: “YMY really just means that attractive men get to violate this law with impunity because they are attractive; but less attractive men have to run the risks of violating… Read more »
Deti – the whole point is to leave it in a state of being nebulous and unclear. What I hear you asking for is for some path, some way of going about any remotely sexual encounter, that would leave a man assured that – if he followed the letter of said ‘law’ – he’d have nothing to worry about…
The whole point is: they specifically *aim* to deny you any such peace of mind. They will not explicate a ‘assuredly legal’ way forward, because they do not want you to be assured of non-wrongdoing. No matter what.
Steve H is correct, and agrees and amplifies what Badpainter has been saying all along: “they do not want you to be assured of non-wrongdoing.”
But, confidence is key. This is how the law still allows men to escalate: nonverbally *ascertaining* consent by confidently *provoking* a definite response as a tool for *ensuring* consent (or not …). Be the tool. Be the dipstick.
Yes?
“This is how the law still allows men to escalate: nonverbally *ascertaining* consent by confidently *provoking* a definite response as a tool for *ensuring* consent (or not …). Be the tool. Be the dipstick.” No. The girl can always come back later and say “But I never actually said ‘yes’. He misread me. He misunderstood me. I did not give affirmative, conscious and VOLUNTARY agreement to what he did to me.” The “definite response” you’re talking about is her helping you undress her, or her raising her hips so you can slip her panties off. But this doesn’t get you… Read more »
“There is an old trick that you ostracize, you ridicule, you isolate, and you keep repeating. These are…rules that are well known to people that have read certain books…yes, that would be Alinsky.” -Dr. Ben Carson
Good news the crime of rape longer exists in an objective legal sense. Rape is now at the whim and imagination of any individual woman. Maybe this is bad news. Either way we men are now free to assume most rapes never happened in our objective reality, but only in the heads of the ladies as a result of feels. In other words this is no longer our problem, at least not collectively. Further the YMY law and certainly it’s soon to be antecedents will make all men “rapists” as opposed to the few rapists. Which has perverse benefit of… Read more »
Uh, no. The crime of rape (nonconsensual penetration, no matter how slight) very much exists. The penalty for rape is multifaceted and dire. Sexual battery is any nonconsensual touching and although not as penalized as the crime of rape, prison and lifetime monitoring would be in your future. YMY changes what constitutes consent. Your attorney may try to parse the new YMY rules to characterize her enthusiastic implied nonverbal cues as step-wise affirmative consent, but you would have a rather uphill burden of proof. Better to get her to sign a presex agreement where you both initial consent to each… Read more »
@ Buena Vista
“You know, I think we’re on different planets sexually, I think I should leave.”
The implication is that she doesn’t arouse you enough to hold your interest despite her resistance. And women most want to be desired by sexually desirable men.
Yes.
All this seemingly futile effort to logically parse this law are in fact futile.
The only logic that makes sense is that it serves to “remove all limitations on women’s sexuality while maximally restricting men’s sexuality”.
But I do appreciate the analyses of how this will play out in practice, and the take homes of how to navigate the SMP with the policy in place.