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.
@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… Read more »
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.
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.”
@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 …
@ 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?
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… Read more »
@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.
@ 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.… Read more »
@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.
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… Read more »
@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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
@shiv impaler Women are only viscerally responsive to men they find visually appealing first.. 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.… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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.
Does anyone else smell looks über alles? Is shiv actually that professor douche-bag troll?
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… Read more »
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.
jf12 – “In contrast, if a man overtly is trying, women turn their thumbs down.”
Paraphrasing Yoda: “be or be not, there is no try”
@jf12 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. 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… Read more »
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.
@Jeremy, re: perversely.
Precisely.
@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… Read more »
@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.
@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.
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.
@ 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… Read more »
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.
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.
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.
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.
@jf12 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. 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… Read more »
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.
@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.
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!)
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!
Yup Deti, agreed. In the west there usually has to be more then willing to keep people in a LTR.
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.
Jf, how much higher? Percentages can be very misleading and unfortunately the article seems to be paywalled, so no real figures.
Ever notice that the guys who push the “looks are everything” agenda are very dominant socially or intellectually?
Jf, you do know the difference between belief and reality right?
@ 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.
zdr – plus one! best encapsulating comment yet!
@ 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.
Jf, why believe?
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
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.… Read more »
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.
@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… Read more »
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
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
BP – Stockholm Syundrome
Yay, Professor van Dumbwiggs is back, and trying to argue with a real science academic, no less. What fun.
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.
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.
@ 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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
@ 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.
@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.
Ah Deti, reread, “they find the best…”
agreed
@ DeNihilist
Are women more likely to succumb to Stockholm Syndrome than men?
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.
If I remember right BP, it was years ago I read the article, yes. Will try to google it.
@tasdg re: “Or at least making a pass at her”
Ok, I concede that much. Thought-rape, in other words …
“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.
Teh Rulez.
Women: signal sexual availability i.e. receptivity to men’s passes.
Men: signal confidence by making passes.
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
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1111%2Fj.1600-0447.2007.01112.x?r3_referer=wol&tracking_action=preview_click&show_checkout=1
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.
@ 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.
@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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
@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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
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.
@Rollo Tomassi January 5th, 2015 at 6:04 pm Which then begs the question is woman’s love a real feeling for her or just a more romanticized Stockholm Syndrome?… I don’t have ‘em on hand, but I’ve read studies that suggest women are more predisposed to Stockholm Syndrome than men. 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… Read more »
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.
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. 😛
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.”
@Jeremy re: “As such, female forms of “acceptable” love are unexplored, unvalidated, and inappropriately considered immoral.”
Fifty shades of acceptability?
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.
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.
@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… Read more »
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.
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!
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… Read more »
@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.
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.
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… Read more »
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.
@Atticus
All’s fair in love and war, and all warfare is deception. Love doubly so.
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.
Sun, he works in the soft sciences, there is nothing but subjectivity in this realm.
If you have lemons, make lemonaide.
@DeNihilist
No. Even the “soft” sciences can use more reliable data. Everybody lies. Whether through omission, ignorance, guilt, or malice everybody lies. Self-reporting is utterly useless as data. Face it, there’s better data to be had, he just didn’t want to do the work for it or felt the data he received confirmed his beliefs and stopped there.
J.J.
January 5th, 2015 at 6:30 pm
Everything has been turned upside-down
Uh. No. Everything has been revealed. And had you cared to read “Taming of the Shrew” it was revealed 400 years ago. But you weren’t paying attention.
The ending was “story book”. But watch the other women besides Kate. They are ALL like that. And Kate describes those women and their men well.
Jeremy
January 5th, 2015 at 6:42 pm
Stockholm syndrome.
1. The man is definitely dominant
2. The best deal she can currently get
Of course they fall in “love”.
“Of course they fall in ‘love’.”
And with multiple captives the choices are the harem or getting passed around by the lesser minions.
Sun, I think the word “desired” is the key to this problematic survey. Desire is like belief, they both hold forth a promise of something that may not be real. And as BP said, in this type of field, where aside from water boarding (then only masochists would sign up and really skew the results), you aint ever gonna git gold standard data. Never. These women may actually believe what they are saying, but until they have lived it, they will have no KNOWLEDGE of the truth. Cuz a guy reports on what evidence he has, does not in any… Read more »
Re: Surveys
I like taking surveys. I very often lie (marketing surveys). On the Census, and government forms I always list myself as Native American. When they ask for tribal affiliation I say Alemanni. It’s factual info just a violation of the spirit and intent of the question. Let the bureaucrats figure it out themselves.