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.
@Rollo Funny, how you forgot to mention this thread: http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-36769.html A man does 3,000 approaches and doesn’t get a single lay. Go ahead and read it. He covers his whole pua journey and still no success. He mastered the “art” of approach (the most important aspect to pulling) and he still didn’t get any. Even Roosh himself said on the thread: “For a small percentage of men, no amount of “game” or approaches can work…” Which begs the question, if game (as a form of *art*, and i’m really trying not to laugh here) doesn’t work for all men, then… Read more »
@ shiv I am indeed a woman! @ jf 12, when a woman is a captive, her captor becomes the most viable “provider and protector” at the moment. And it’s not just history, it’s reality in many parts of the world today. Women can survive horrid things. It’s not the brutality that’s attractive, it’s the choice between surviving vs not (in that extreme example). I hope I never find myself making that choice, I may choose to self impale on the shiv (however if it was me or one of my daughters who had to make the choice, I would… Read more »
jf12
January 5th, 2015 at 4:49 pm
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.
Yes.
shit inhaler – “waa waa waaaaahwaaa waah. Wah waaa….”
*Yawn*
Boring.
agent p
January 5th, 2015 at 5:49 pm
Ah. Brings back memories of a well misspent youth. My high water mark was a six month three way when all of us were in “love”. For as long as it lasted.
The built in dread was marvelous.
BTW I had one of those industrial lofts. It was my electronic shop. I was doing computers when only uber geeks could do that. Fortunately a few years in a MC gang had cemented my “bad boy” side.
But Shiv, he DID 3000 approaches! even if he didn’t get fucked, he built himself some thick skin that will come in handy for the rest of the toils in his life.
BP, up here in the GWN, the census doesn’t even have a tick mark for Canadian! So I always tick other, then write in Canandian. Fuckin cunts!
DeNihilist January 5th, 2015 at 5:55 pm Unfortunately, a lot of the modern women are fighting their nature and trying to be like a roaring river, but they do not have the power, skills or energy to keep the flow up. Yet they refuse to look within and see their true nature, which is quiet and depth. They are out of their element and will never find peace til they return to the pool. My experience is that even if you can take her to that deep place at will (when she will let you) she doesn’t want it for… Read more »
Remember Shiv, swallowing the ochre pill is just the first step. Unlike the film that this term comes from, it is not a sudden awakening. but a continuous journey, where one held belief at some point on the path is realized to be another untruth, so gets dropped. If in ten years you are still believing the shite you thought when you swallowed said rouge pill, then you must have hidden it under your tongue, and not really swallowed it. Truth from one point on the path is rarely truth further down that path.
@jf12 Fifty shades of acceptability? Yeah, I’m not sure what to think of where these thoughts are leading either. I don’t think like a woman, I don’t experience the world as they do, so I couldn’t venture to guess what fully unchained hypergamy would create as acceptable arrangements of female “love”. As Rollo says though, you can’t completely unchain hypergamy and still have any ‘idealistic’ male “love” left. @Badpainter But do they even understand why we would view such experiences with skepticism? Might their forms of love be viewed as ” immoral” because of the amount of deceit and dishonesty… Read more »
@ redpillgirlnotes
Rule 30
shiv impaler
January 5th, 2015 at 8:10 pm
Uh. The lack of innate (you can fake that) confidence will brand you a failure in 30,000 approaches. Approach is just the first step.
I had all the prerequisites at age 17. Nothing. At age 18 the first GF took me in hand and taught me he rudiments of game. Funny enough she liked teaching nerds and virgins. Thank you Joan! BTW she was spinning plates and I was one of them. She liked me the best until she found some one she liked better.
But she did get me started.
The nature of the pool M. Having to wait for love, joy, fulfillment, etc. Most women live on the surface, afraid of losing themselves to the depth. I think that it is not that they don’t like being women, I think that they fear being women, they fear the quiet and the depth. Sad really, for in that silence and depth is their true destiny.
Jeremy
January 5th, 2015 at 9:07 pm
This rule 30? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30
@shiv impaler A man does 3,000 approaches and doesn’t get a single lay. Go ahead and read it. He covers his whole pua journey and still no success. He mastered the “art” of approach (the most important aspect to pulling) and he still didn’t get any. Even Roosh himself said on the thread: “For a small percentage of men, no amount of “game” or approaches can work…” Which begs the question, if game (as a form of *art*, and i’m really trying not to laugh here) doesn’t work for all men, then what exactly do those other men have in… Read more »
DeNihilist
January 5th, 2015 at 9:10 pm
The nature of the pool M. Having to wait for love, joy, fulfillment, etc. Most women live on the surface, afraid of losing themselves to the depth. I think that it is not that they don’t like being women, I think that they fear being women, they fear the quiet and the depth. Sad really, for in that silence and depth is their true destiny.
d’accord
DeNihilist
January 5th, 2015 at 9:10 pm
Sad really, for in that silence and depth is their true destiny.
Note how much they fear silence.
@ Jeremy Narratives aside one would think at some point a women would have written about this issue. If Burroughs could write about The Interzone surely some women could write about feminine experience of love even if were as abstruse as Naked Lunch. It’s not failure language but a lack of will, or necessity on the part women, or an intentional choice to remain opaque. The cynic in me thinks women prefer to not discuss reality in black and white. The optimist in me thinks Bloom’s first comment ( at 2:10pm) is the best we can get. Otherwise we’re all… Read more »
Rule 30.
@ shiv impaler “For a small percentage of men, no amount of “game” or approaches can work…” Which begs the question, if game (as a form of *art*, and i’m really trying not to laugh here) doesn’t work for all men, then what exactly do those other men have in where it does work? The answer is obvious because the answer is what drives sexual selection (i.e. looks). You are correct, the answer is probably looks but it’s more complicated than that. I’m slightly less handsome then the average burn victim but I still got attractive women. Although PUA techniques… Read more »
@shiv, freshmen, et. al.; Yes, I covered this 3 years ago, try to keep up next time: http://therationalmale.com/2012/02/23/looks-count/ http://therationalmale.com/2012/04/13/have-a-look/ Looks cover a multitude of Game & Frame sins for women, but they aren’t the only factor in arousal or attraction. There’s bearing, posture, attitude, vocal intonation (shit some women get wet from hearing a baritone voice), subcommunications, body odor, kino, social proof, confidence and arrogance. Is any of that going to have much of a difference for a guy whos 200 lbs. overweight? Probably not, but those traits are better to have than to be a gorgeous Beta symp at… Read more »
@shiv
I believe you’ll be needing this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States
I’ve always acknowledged the importance of looks on RM, but it never ceases to amaze me that the Looks-are-all critics of Game are persistently on blogs trying to convince anyone who’ll listen it’s all a fraud.
Looks can’t be the singular trait that attracts women because if they were it’s the only trait that nature would have selected for over the last 250,000 years. Every healthy man would be extremely good looking but wouldn’t posses a single, additional appealing trait. They wouldn’t have to.
Badpainter
January 5th, 2015 at 10:03 pm
Ah. A Burroughs fan. Me too! “Dealing is more addictive than using.”
@Jeremy: Saw your blog and I wasn’t the least bit surprised. You’re one of those guys who actually thinks women are “intoxicated” by a man’s status. Pffft, grow up. Physicality will always rule the day because women receive either genetic benefits from a man or resources, and we don’t need to guess which one of those strategies women follow when they are young. At the very core of all intersexual relations, those are the ONLY two things women base men on. Also, your past comment at 6:27pm is so pitiful. You actually condone a lie to conform your false beliefs.… Read more »
Better yet, answer this question: Do you think game can initiate feral attraction? If so, why?
Yep. Because before I had game I got no attention from females. At all. Well one did take pity on me and taught me the rudiments of Game. So I guess there might be an exception in there.
In all honesty, I don’t care if she loves me or not….whatever her definition of love is. But it’s important her to want me sexually. I myself love lots of things including women…but it has nothing to do with who I want to fuck. Most men seem to have these two confused…probably cause of feminine conditioning.
Shiv’s repetitive diatribe about looks provides evidence of the alpha beta divide and the innate attraction levels of alphas. Females are simply incapable of looking past alphas. Where she gets it wrong though is that although many male animals exhibit intra sexual dimorphism (alpha/beta divide) they also exhibit the capacity to develop into alphas. For example dominant Orangutan males are flanged (fat cheeks) but subadult males can develop flanges from anywhere up to 20 years of age. Of course human male dominance isn’t characterised by physical markers but by social interaction. An omega making 3000 approaches is still an omega… Read more »
what the conversations are about and they just don’t reflect anything that he really sees among. He works in the engineering dept. at a major university. The office is mainly men of various ages and stages of life, including students on internships. There are two female secretaries and 1 female engineer. He also travels to all the satellite campuses and has a network of men that he works with. He just doesn’t hear the level of discontent that is expressed here. Pretty sure it is not a “he”. The posts are the equivalent of “you have a small penis, loser,… Read more »
Why females hate the fact sub alpha males can become alpha is beyond me. That’s easy — they feel like they are being tricked. They want the natural alpha’s genes, not the “synthetic” or “self-made” alpha’s genes. To a woman, this is like “duping” her, genetically, even if the self-made alpha is actually an alpha after the fact — because he wasn’t initially an alpha by genes (but only through effort), they feel duped. And that’s assuming that he actually does become an alpha, and doesn’t merely look the part, where there is *actual* duping. I can understand why women… Read more »
Not sure what the heck was in my quote in my post at 7:50, Rollo, but it was intended to respond to your comments for “shiv”. Sorry about the misquote!
re: “even though he has his blue pill shortcomings, he can easily change his mind state”
rephrase “I concede the point that Game is important. But Game is easy! Therefore, it should be assumed, by default! In contrast, doing pushups and etting a better haircut is hard hard hard, because I said so.”
And this purports to be an argument.
re: “Do you think game can initiate feral attraction? If so, why? ”
Yes. Experience.
For those men who are struggling to cut this Gordian knot:
1. I know women are attracted to sexual confidence.
2. But I don’t have sexual confidence because I’m not successful with women.
shiv et al tries to deflect and distract and discourage.
But the bootstrap Alexandrian solution is: be sexually confident anyway.
And despite all our suggestions shiv still hasn’t paid the $15k to fix his face.
@ Shiv, You raise some interesting points, and I find myself somewhere between your and Rollo’s points of view. However, you wrote: ““Most girls know if they’re into you or not within the first 30-60 seconds. This has been proven thousands of times in scientific studies but you don’t even need to read those. Instead just think of all the times a girl has not been instantly into you on a cold approach and you got her anyway.” When I was a university student, I was not considered a “catch.” I was a fairly nerdy guy, glasses, awkward, non-confident, etc.… Read more »
@ shiv impaler “Most girls know if they’re into you or not within the first 30-60 seconds. This has been proven thousands of times in scientific studies but you don’t even need to read those. Instead just think of all the times a girl has not been instantly into you on a cold approach and you got her anyway. Need some time to think about that? It’s cool I’ll wait. It’s NEVER happened has it? That’s not true for me. When I was young I don’t think any girl was ever into me in the first 30 to 60 seconds.… Read more »
Jeremy, among others, has argued well that women have been merely entrained in men’s narrative of Love. Women pay lip service to the ideals presented by men as being in Love: loyalty, wanting to provide, wife goggles, etc., without ever actually experiencing them to any great degree themselves. In this sense, women have felt ripped off by the media’s portrayal of romance since the women don’t feel it! So, to women ever’where, a shout out to y’all for trying for so long (and failing!) to love like a man. So, enough beating around the bush. Time to be beating inside… Read more »
@johnycomelately
Why females hate the fact sub alpha males can become alpha is beyond me.
I think it’s been suggested here before that non-natural alphas are seen as a threat to a woman’s agency over her hypergamy. As in she could fuck him, later find out he’s not actually a natural alpha when he slips up for a moment, then feel regret for having slept with him. On a college campus she’d then report it as rape for bonus points.
re: “all the times a girl has not been instantly into you on a cold approach and you got her anyway”
Yes. All those times. Every time.
Seriously, to me, a boy who thinks his sexual partner should exhibit the greater interest and intensity MUST be gay.
I see now that vinay had a better point than I though he did, and maybe better than he thought he did! Rather than making chick flicks in which the Romantic lead experiences love from a man’s pov, like The Notebook, thereby making the women essentially wish they were that guy, the media is starting to make nonRomantic chick flicks.
What are some My Life As A Girl shows (besides Girls)? I don’t watch, just curious.
JF – “Seriously, to me, a boy who thinks his sexual partner should exhibit the greater interest and intensity MUST be gay.”
You owe me a new keyboard!
What are some My life as a Girl shows? Basically everyone now Jf. Watching Marco Polo, (spoiler alert, or is that ,Trigger Alert?), in one episode the Chinese consort is ordered to kill the Mongol Queen. As she advances through the crowd with her stolen bow and stolen arrows, the Palace Guard rushes to defend the Queen. She easily kills about a dozen of them before being apprehended.
The Palace Fucking Guard! Supposedly made up of the crème de la crème of the troops!
It’s all Girl Power all the time now Jf. Makes watching movies/TV fucking hard!
@ DeNihilist
It’s all Girl Power all the time now Jf. Makes watching movies/TV fucking hard!
A long time ago my buddy and I used to watch 1 movie per week. We only picked movies that we thought would be good. After a few years we determined that out of that preselected group only about 1 in 10 movies was actually good.
We gave up on movies. I had already given up on TV. My entertainment comes from blogs, science articles and video games.
Women cannot love men. Women are incapable of loving men, at least in the same way as men love women. Men love women holistically in a way much deeper compared to what a women could ever imagine. Learning about the red pill has been very depressing to me. I actually feel kind of sorry for women. Imagine going through life regarding your spouse with feelings akin to nothing more than how a farmer regards a workhorse, dairy cow or plow oxen, nothing but a utility that is tolerated. Sure, they may be somewhat attached and have regards for it’s care,… Read more »
@shiv impaler Physicality will always rule the day because women receive either genetic benefits from a man or resources, and we don’t need to guess which one of those strategies women follow when they are young. At the very core of all intersexual relations, those are the ONLY two things women base men on. Presumed conclusion again. You also presume that the manifestation of genetics is only physical, which would seem to be exactly what every feminist wants you to think, i.e., men and women are the same thing mentally, they just come with different plumbing. You seem to be… Read more »
Shiv is just Siirtyrion or one of his “arousal happens in a vacuum” trolls. He knows damn well that I don’t endorse a ‘Game is All’ doctrine, but nor do I endorse a ‘Looks are All’ doctrine. Funny how he never likes to talk about his troll obsession for creating a new persona, email and IP every time he posts here when all my regulars pick him out on his first ‘anonymous’ post. That’s why you’re a troll dipshit. FWIW, I also disagree with the trope, “a girl knows if she’ll fuck you in the first 30-60 seconds of meeting… Read more »
re: “you can do exactly the same thing a million times, and get a million different outcomes”
Yes. Especially, empirically, a man can look the same and do the same thing and act the same way with the same woman at different times and she may respond differently.
re: “I actually feel kind of sorry for women.”
What about the plowhorses?
Shiv the Broken Clock is wrong about her “Game is worthless” diatribe, but she is correct that Game will not “create” attraction where it doesn’t exist. Game also will not “create” feral attraction. I think looks are important, but they are not everything. I think if a woman isn’t sexually attracted to you from the get go, she never will be. I think if a woman doesn’t have feral attraction for a particular man on first meeting, it will never be there. But Game isn’t worthless, not by a long shot. Game won’t get a male 2 in a female… Read more »
@Jeremy
“…than try to fully define what we ourselves do not experience.”
Good call.
If I don’t directly experience it I suppose I shouldn’t try to define it. I just don’t know enough about it.
“a set of baseline behavioral tendencies suited towards the maximized potential of female sexual success.”
That’s a good definition.
@ rule 30 I’d post a picture to prove it, but I am not that kind of girl! Lol. Believe what you wish! 🙂
@ Jeremy
When you attach thermal and other sensors to vaginas and show women random images, you find women can be more responsive to pictures of chimpanzees and airplanes than a picture of an “attractive man”. Hence, your appearance-is-everything claims are outright bullshit.
Every time a cute girl found out that I thought she was hot I instantly became 500% more attractive and interesting.
This clip isn’t so far from the truth.
@Novaseeker I think I’m starting to get it. “even though we know everyone is trying to optimize, the issue is where is the floor below which they won’t go if they cannot optimize.” “men will sometimes choose “less than optimal but still attractive” women” – when I read that a light went off in my head “while women never will unless they are doing it in the context of a marriage/LTR” “which leaves him with less than optimal yet still attractive” “which leaves her with not only sub-optimal but unattractive” There’s the difference. Thanks for pointing that out. I believe… Read more »
^^^^^
Squints was a confident risk taker. Girls find that attractive. Mumbling to a girl that you like her would have the opposite effect.
@theasdgamer > I created Nuclear Dread for Mrs. Gamer. > She is more in love with me than evah. The guy I know who has the most successful marriage I know is total hardass. Shuts down crap instantly- as in . . . NOW Wife adores him, has even suggested 3somes to him. Which he has delivered. This has the beneficial side effect that she knows that he could next her and be with another woman the same day I’m still following the no marriage road . . . but for any guys who are married (or are actually stupid… Read more »
@Bloom (I would say “congratulations”, btw, although one is supposed to say “best wishes”), having been there etc, would you mind telling us
1. What Your Life As A Girl informs you about romantic love from a man’s pov? Do women want their guy to be head-over-heels in love, or do women wish they could be head-over-heels instead?
2. Whether fairy tales make you personally want to be the rescued princes, the white knight, or the dragon?
zdroidz gets it. The only reliable attraction trigger for women is when they first know that they’re having an effect on the man. I recall reading a blog post a few years ago where a female blogger tried to describe sex for her in terms that anyone could understand, her primary audience was describing what female sex was like so that men could understand it. I didn’t save the link, but I think I may have saved the text somewhere on some old hard drive, I’ll look for it later. Her point, when you read through it, is that the… Read more »
@xxxxxxxxxxx “Sorry, but a woman uses her conditional love and acceptance in a selfish sense ( in her own interest), or in a more altrusitic way (in in the interest of her children, community and even in the interest of the man himself). As a mother, I certainly catch myself withholding love from my sons if they did not try to push or better themselves. I would much much rather that my sons hate my guts but survive and thrive, rather than to wallow in my motherly love while dying in a ditch.” Thank God your not my mom. By… Read more »
@Jeremy, re: “women will find you more interesting if they believe they can arouse you”
Yes but no on the overt “boner test” from the woman’s pov. Women will run shrieking from the creepy flasher guy. On the other hand, it’s entirely likely that thermal thermal and wetness sensors will register lotsa activities.
http://www.xkcd.com/1453/
“They also showed activation in the parts of the brain associated with exposure to dubious study methodology, concern about unremoved piercings, and exasperation with fMRI techs who won’t stop talking about Warped Tour.”
@ Jeremy Her point, when you read through it, is that the “peak” of sexual activity for a woman is when she detects that she has aroused a man and that there’s “no going back”. Beyond that point, it’s mostly icing on a cake she’s already eaten unless it turns into a multi-orgasm event for her. This is very different from a male experience, where orgasm (most of the time a singular event) is the only reason we’re doing it. Super interesting. Thinking back that matches up with my experience. If my wife is having a bad day all I… Read more »
@anonymous, When I wrote Empathy, I took a lot of shit from various plugged-in, purple pill men and predictably women in more than a few forums. The natural absolutist response was that I was suggesting that “women don’t feel empathy”, however my intent was dispelling the social convention myth that women have some supernatural empathic capacity that men will never understand (attached to the Feminine Mystique). Women and Blue Pills were outraged that I might suggest that women don’t have a capacity for empathy, but their extrapolating my words only proved the depth of the investment they have in maintaining… Read more »
On the other hand … I was raised to hide it, whether soft or hard. Hard, naturally, is problematic to hide, so typically a variety of behaviors were employed to disattract whatever attention from my crotch area. What’s been interesting is when I (and, I think, any man) instead behave not disattracting, i.e. not necessarily flaunting in order to draw attention but definitely not deflaunting. It’s quite the night vs day distinction. I think in the same way, except a lot more so, that any random guy’s attention and visual interest will be attracted by any random girl’s overt hard… Read more »
Agreeing and amplifying Jeremy and zdr01dz here. It isn’t a man’s “Golly, girl, you make me feel romantical enough to marry you!” that attracts her attention, it’s your behaving physically attracted to her.
@jf12 Yes but no on the overt “boner test” from the woman’s pov. Women will run shrieking from the creepy flasher guy. On the other hand, it’s entirely likely that thermal thermal and wetness sensors will register lotsa activities. The flasher guy is not a complement to a woman’s value, leaves her no plausible deniability, and is often caused by factors totally outside the realm of her own known actions. The flasher guy is literally a fly in the ointment to women. That’s not to say that the sight of an erection does not have a biological affect on a… Read more »
@Rollo A request. I keep noticing guys all over the internet getting their knickers in a knot over the fact that women don’t love them according to their internalized definition of how love “ought to be” You see it all over the comments to your posts. The guys blithely call themselves “Red Pill” but refuse to embrace the essence of the Red Pill, which is understanding reality: “What is,” as opposed to unreal things people with an agenda- or wishful thinkers- want us to believe. I’m getting tempted to call this male solipsism. Why do guys continue to act just… Read more »
@jf12 What’s been interesting is when I (and, I think, any man) instead behave not disattracting, i.e. not necessarily flaunting in order to draw attention but definitely not deflaunting. It’s quite the night vs day distinction. When and how to reveal tumescence is about the grayest of the gray areas in human existence. I’ve read graduate-student studies (studies btw ignored by the dominant narrative of this modern age) that say women actually check out guys crotches nearly as often as men glance at boobs. Never presume that women are not trying to detect your arousal, it’s just not true. If… Read more »
re: women’s capacity, depth, etc.
I certainly wouldn’t dismiss the intensity of their feelings. When I had my big accident, my wife beat the Life Flight to the trauma center.
@Jeremy, I concur with “they like knowing that they had an effect on those of a high value man”. But how necessary is “no other women did”?
I think I did state that wrong. I think I mean to say that “no other women had as great an effect”.
“behaviors associated with attempting to hide yourself as a man are [highly] detrimental”
tifify
re: “women actually check out guys crotches nearly as often as men glance at boobs”
Yes, and women actually check out boobs more than men do.
The mind, it plays tricks. I happened to just scroll past this post’s picture, and it seemed like the girl getting her toenails shine (or whatever) kicked the white-suited guy in the face, and he was like “Whoa!”
@Tom, re: “understanding reality”
Which includes ourselves.
Girl uses Tinder opportunistically, loves it, loves not falling for any of the guys.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/rachel-day/2014/12/i-was-wrong-about-tinder-so-so-wrong/
Girl feels bad that Tinder made her so opportunistic, except it was “fun and games” until she fell for one guy.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/katrina-dipucchio/2015/01/why-my-year-on-tinder-is-a-learning-experience/
@Tom “I keep noticing guys all over the internet getting their knickers in a knot over the fact that women don’t love them according to their internalized definition of how love “ought to be” You see it all over the comments to your posts. The guys blithely call themselves “Red Pill” but refuse to embrace the essence of the Red Pill, which is understanding reality: “What is,” as opposed to unreal things people with an agenda- or wishful thinkers- want us to believe. I agree with you Tom. However, words mean things. The word love has a meaning that the… Read more »
@ Rollo It would be an evolutionary boon for parental investment if both a man and a woman feel love for each other and their offspring. The problem is that this pairing advantage conflicts with women’s innate Hypergamy and the advantages it represents when that ‘optimal’ man is in absence. What that hypothesis suggests is that on average women did better when they opportunistically dumped weaker players for stronger players. Hypergamy became fixed in the female population because it was superior for birthing and raising children. If hypergamy is superior that has broad implications beyond male/female relationships. It suggests that… Read more »
@Atticus I happen to disagree and have come to believe that women simply do not love, they use. They feel strong emotions and attachments over short or long periods, but they do not love. I have two daughters; what I’m saying affects me deeply. I still accept it and will act accordingly. But women do love their children, so women do “love”. Perhaps you mean to say they just don’t love purely for the sake of love, as men do? Your daughters will love their children, hopefully they have some. But you can expect that they won’t love a man… Read more »
^^^^^
I’m not saying that’s right but it appears to be what nature favors and it could be applied broadly.
Tom – “Why won’t they embrace women for what they are, work with that, and enjoy success?”
Maybe because we all a bit unclear as to what the payoff is?
Given what women are please define “success.”
“…whining about how women won’t meet their expectations…”
Men aren’t permited to have expectations of women. Men are expected to perform. The whining is about not knowing what we are performing for.
@Badpainter, re: “Given what women are please define “success.””
Hee hee! I’ll raise you. Given what women are please define “enjoy.”
Every so often I like to summarize.
It is Abundance that provides the foundation for the female strategy of Hypergamy, which leads to serial Monogamy, for both AF and BB, when she can get it. If she has multiple guys vying for her, then she gets to pick and choose and always drops one to get another.
It is Scarcity that provides the foundation for the male strategy, for both AF and BB, of Polygamy when he can get it. Even if he can vie for multiple girls, then there is no sense in him dropping one.
@Jeremy. But women do love their children, so women do “love”. Perhaps you mean to say they just don’t love purely for the sake of love, as men do? Either, they do love their children so they are capable of idealistic rather than opportunistic love. Which proves they can experience love from a male context. Except where their men are involved when they love opportunistically? Or,they love their children opportunistically; see @xxxxxxxxxx comment that I re-posted above from Rollo’s Commodifying love. My mother-in-law hasn’t talked to my soon to be ex-wife in over a year. When they were younger they… Read more »
Love definitely shortcircuits a man’s polygamous impulses. Does, or does not, Love shortcircuit a woman’s hypergamous impulses?
In the long term this may be a possibility, since offspring can represent future provisioning and security.
Women do tend to love cats idealistically.
What do men tend to love opportunistically?
Part right jf12. “Idealistic” love shortcircuits a man’s polygamous impulses. I suspect “opportunistic” love would not.
@ jf12
or the dragon
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@bp The whining is about not knowing what we are performing for. This. So so so much this. I try to avoid allowing my comments in the manosphere become whining, but the moments when it slips are about this right here. It’s not that I’m not willing to do the work. I would perform for women every goddamn day of my life until I die if I knew I had a reasonable chance of meeting and keeping a hb7-8 with a good attitude. However, like most men I’ve found that’s just not the case. My reasonable estimate is that less… Read more »
@ jf12
What do men tend to love opportunistically?
jobs, brokerage accounts, and anything producing income for them
“I want my second love to be” beta.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/hanne-leigh/2015/01/i-want-just-one-great-love-thats-all/
@ theasdgamer
That’s the crucial insight.
@ jf12
Re: link
It’s not the emotion it’s theintensity.
re: “I actually feel kind of sorry for women.”
“She really, actually wishes she could be the one whose heart is getting broken”
http://thoughtcatalog.com/kim-quindlen/2015/01/this-is-how-she-feels-when-she-breaks-your-heart/
She would prefer to be treated badly, even brutally, because of the feelz.
@ Atticus Or maybe women don’t love at all? They have strong chemical attachments to their babies (love), but once the babies grow up, they’re just other people to use. In my mother’s case that is certainly true. She doesn’t care about her adult children or even grandchildren but she might be a special case. I remember her chatting it up about dating while my dad, her dutiful husband of almost 50 years lay dying from cancer. Thankfully she was out of the room and he couldn’t hear her. I never figured out if she was a sociopath, had a… Read more »
@Badpainter re: “It’s not the emotion it’s the intensity.”
ROFL! Define “enjoy”!
^^^^^
I should add that when she was young my mother married a guy who had other wives in different cities. When she found out she divorced him but was already pregnant with my sister. My father who was the most honest, dutiful beta provider you would ever meet married her a few years later, had a great career and cared for her the rest of his life. She barely worked and was a lazy mother. During my entire childhood I can’t remember her showing any appreciation towards my dad. All she did was complain.
Love makes a woman think her man is the best one.
Love makes a man think his woman is the only one.
zdr01dz – “During my entire childhood I can’t remember her showing any appreciation towards my dad. All she did was complain.”
My mother showed either tremendous appreciation to my father or resigned self pitying martyrdom. I being the oldest got to here all of her complaints in excruciating detail. Darth Dread was only rarely forced to hear complaints because ..well…dread.
@ jf12
I might save that one for my son’s facts of life talk in a few years.
@ Jeremy When a woman expresses overt interest in a man, that man will be more attracted to HER as a result (assuming she surpasses a certain threshold of physical attractiveness). When a man expresses overt interest in a woman, that woman will be more attracted to HERSELF as a result, but not more attracted to him. This is why so many women enjoy validation from male orbiters – the attraction of those orbiters make her feel sexy and powerful, but not more attracted to any of them. And, feeling sexy and powerful, she is more likely to go out… Read more »
One more thoughtcatalog
http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2015/01/the-14-men-i-fcked-in-2014-a-modern-love-story/
From comments “Women bragging about getting laid is like men bragging about masturbating.”
The best comment of the year.