Arm Candy

BwYNPZOCEAEgFzo

In Monday’s post comments there was a lot of back and forth, but in the latter pages there was an interesting exchange I thought might make for an interesting weekend discussion. Commenter Kryptokate resurrected an old feminine social convention I recently covered in Validation Hunting & The Jenny Bahn Epiphany. The premise of this convention is that men seek out, and motivate themselves towards highly attractive women because they enjoy the validation or affirmation they receive from their male peers when they’re seen paired with an HB9 high SMV woman on his arm.

The “arm candy” trope is a useful convention for women in that it assuages her bruised ego and competition anxiety by converting a man’s natural desire for a high SMV woman into a perceived insecurity of his (really all men by association).

Kryprokate:

I’m sticking with my assertion that lots of guys love to show off a hot woman to other guys to gain their respect and increase their status. I’m not saying ALL guys want to do this and maybe you don’t, but lots of them do. I don’t want to “show off” a guy either — I’m an introverted homebody and don’t want a guy for anything but to stay home with, talk, have sex, watch movies, etc. But lots of men love to show off to their peers just like lots (probably most) women do.

Johnnycomelately:

Men don’t seek validation through females, men desire females objectively, tits are tits, don’t matter what the guys thinks. You think men watch porn to get validation?

Women desire to be desired, the process is completely about validation.

Problem with female desire to be desired is that it is not a very high bar to pass, I find it humorous that women brag-splain about getting sex from men.

“Heck, give me ten minutes to download an app and I could get a man to have sex with me in 30 minutes. Nothing to write home about.”

And from the Validation Hunting post:

The idea that men “seek validation” for their earned status or to ‘right’ past wrongs to their egos while they were working their way to that status is a social convention. The Feminine Imperative relies on memes and conventions which shift the ownership of women’s personal liabilities for their sexual strategy to men.

When men are blamed for the negative consequences of women’s sexual strategy it helps to blunt the painful truths that Jenny Bahn is (to her credit) honestly confronting in her article at 30 years old and the SMV balance shifts towards enabling men’s capacity to effect their own sexual strategy.

One of the unique aspects of the Feminine Imperative is its fluid ability to craft social conventions that obscure the worst misgivings of women’s dualistic sexual strategy (Hypergamy) and redirect the liability for them squarely on men’s shoulders. I covered many of these conventions in Operative Social Conventions, but chief among them is the utility of shame.

Shaming features in a majority of feminine social conventions used against men because women are conditioned to fear social ostracization as part of their same-sex peer socialization. Little girls punish each other by ‘not-being-friends-with’ another girl in their peer clutch. Using shame is a skill women learn early in life to effect the ends of their developing solipsism.

If men can be shamed into believing that their natural predisposition toward sexually desiring high SMV, physically ideal specimens of women is due to an insecurity with their personal status the effect would be one of leveling the SMP playing field. “Men only want hot women to feed their egos and impress other men” translates into shaming men (the more desirable men who can merit the attention of a high SMV woman) for being insecure with the perceptions of other men.

This carefully removes any negative association with women’s competitiveness for higher tier men, convinces women themselves that “men are just like that” to Buffer against rejection, and puts the burden of that competition on the man in the hopes that he’ll pair with a woman who is of lower SMV for fear of being shamed about his “insecurity” of wanting other men to see his status as higher than it should be.

Thus, the optimized ends of Hypergamy – a woman pairing with an SMV superior man – are better effected by a social convention.

I should also add that this social convention dovetails with another useful convention that relies on a similar dynamic – that of women complaining men sexually objectify women. The simple truth is that it’s part of men’s neurological firmware to see women’s bodies as objects. It’s a well studied fact that when men see an arousing woman’s semi-nude body it triggers the same area of our brains associated with tool use. Sexual objectification is a feature for men, not a bug.

I’ve gotten into this debate on other forums and comment threads, but it bears repeating. My N-count is a bit more than 40 women, and of those women never did I make an approach (or go along with a woman opening me) with a forethought of wanting to impress my male friends. In fact there were some women I got with I’d rather my friends at the time knew nothing about.

The debate usually spins from there about how men just “do it unconsciously”. That’s an easy fallback, but I’d argue that the limbic and visceral incentive of wanting to sexually experience a smoking hot HB9.5 supersedes any subconscious thought of how good a guy will look when he shows her off to his buddies. I’ve been with strippers, a girl who was in Playboy in the 90’s, and several other women most guys just fantasize about – half the reason I stayed with the BPD girlfriend for so long was because she was just so fucking hot – but not once did I have any thought of brandishing any of them to improve my status with my peers. In fact I preferred we just get after it at her or my place than make any conscious effort on my part to show her off.

From 20 Questions:

This’ll sound facetious, but I’ve never thought of sex as being “validating” or ego-affirming. I honestly think a lot of that expectation comes from a feminized conditioning about “how sex should be” for men. I was, and still kind of am, more into sex as experience. It’s always been something fun to enjoy with a woman for me, not some meaningful act of cosmic significance. I’ve had sex with women I loved and women I didn’t, some were memorable, some were…meh. Even in my bluest of blue pill days my ‘validation’ came from other sources, not sex.

So the question for the weekend is this, as a man, do you give any headspace at all to considering how your status might improve with other men if you’re seen with a hot woman?

When you see a guy who’s physically an obvious 1-2 SMV degrees lower than the woman he’s with, do you think any better of him or do you presume the imbalance is due to some other external factor (such as wealth or fame)?

Do you see the method behind the madness of shaming-down apex Men in order to better optimize Hypergamy for “lesser” SMV women?

 

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

423 comments on “Arm Candy

  1. @zdr01dz, re: “And that’s when I realize I’m getting old, hehe.”

    Hehe. Subjectively the hottest women to me are vivacious and ultrafeminine 40s. For example the moms of teenage girls, who decided to get a new lease on life when their daughters started dating.

  2. re: age

    Although any women near my age (e.g. 65) would deem them extremely inappropriate for me, indubitably girls aged about 18 to 28 are most appealing, strictly sexually. And the fact that I’m old is what makes me lump 28 in with 18. But I’d have to be sneaking around with that age, for sure.

    But 42 I can and have been seen with and nobody thinks anything of it, even if they did do the mental subtraction. Nobody seriously though Jackie was Too Young for Ari at age 39.

  3. Walking with a fattie is a DEEPLY embarassing feeling. Walking with a blondie feels great. Men DO care about status; not just sex.

  4. I think what the world needs now is a personalized list of famousish women from each man that they would consider arm candy. But then we need a definition. I offer this one: A woman is arm candy for me when
    1) She is obviously my woman, not anyone else’s. I insist.
    2) There is the obvious potential for and/or history of risque PDA between us. I’m clearly going to be getting some later if not sooner.
    3) She is obviously proud of being seen with me. Yes, I said this right.
    4) She does not lower my SMV.

  5. The grand consensus by virtually all the men is that women’s primary potential for affecting the men’s status is *negative*.

  6. @sun,
    Thanks.
    Watch the Norwegian film Fatso.

    And for you all watch one of my all time favorite film :The last picture show.

  7. re: negative status

    Keeping in mind my definition of SMV (Skittle neutrality), it’s easy to see why women think a non-hot guy is trying to elevate his status with a hot date: since status is hot to her then she thinks hot is status. She thinks he’s buying her status with his bux, whereas he knows he’s buying her hotness with the status that bux give him.

    Hence a hot guy could have used excess status to get a non-hot gal, if he had any. So if he’s with a non-hot gal then it must mean he has a status deficit. It’s pretty simple.

  8. Poor Salman, he spent his entire time with her trying to believe her when she told him she REALLY orgazimed with him and she found him sexy!.

    After all isn’t that the price a beautiful woman pay for a status?.

  9. @ Cupkate

    women want to have sex with built, physically dominant goodlooking guys

    Sure, women wanted to sex up Henry Kissinger and Mick Jagger and Ringo Starr because they are such hunks. Do you even begin to realize how absurd your thoughts are?

  10. 1- …as a man, do you give any headspace at all to considering how your status might improve with other men if you’re seen with a hot woman?

    Nope, but I will consider behavior regardless of appearance.  

    2- When you see a guy who’s physically an obvious 1-2 SMV degrees lower than the woman he’s with, do you think any better of him or do you presume the imbalance is due to some other external factor (such as wealth or fame)?

    Depends on context. If the context is a high society or professional event then I presume he’s using s rental, because rentals at the high end know how to act and carry themselves at such events. 

    3- Do you see the method behind the madness of shaming-down apex Men in order to better optimize Hypergamy for “lesser” SMV women?

    Yes, but it won’t work if the argument is that men want a boost in status.  I wonder if the FI is prepared for men to decide status matters in the same degree as it does to women. I doubt that will make older, chubby, combative, educated, careerists more attractive. Likely it would increase the demand for younger thinner, more obedient women who can pull of obsequious displays of submission and lust for her man.

    After all open hypergamy does not in any way make post wall women more attractive. It should should make them less attractive. As the competition tightens men would seek post wall  women until they are in position to seek young and hot. An equalist approach would eliminate “idealistic” love, and replace it with status and external validation. Do women realize what happens when men make decision without any influence of sentiment? 

  11. When you see a guy who’s physically an obvious 1-2 SMV degrees lower than the woman he’s with, do you think any better of him or do you presume the imbalance is due to some other external factor (such as wealth or fame)?

    Upon deeper reflection I’m not sure if I agree with the assumptions behind that question.

    If a man is physically a 5 and he marries a woman who is physically a 5 that’s not balance, that’s evidence of imbalance. Men and women bring different assets to the bargaining table. Something in that 5/5 relationship is jacked.

    The laws of physics might force a 10/10 relationship to work only because there is no such thing as a female 13-14.

  12. If “arm candy” implies that the man is necessarily showing her in public with him for *some* purpose, then there are four cases.
    1) High status guy with hot girl. If it’s not his main squeeze then he’s probably just using her for drumming up more girls, i.e. for preselection.
    2) High status guy with unhot girl. Remember, he’s *necessarily* showng her off for some reason. These reasons are
    2A) He likes her and she’s fun. Charles and Camilla.
    2B) Using her some other way e.g. politcs, money.
    3) Low status guy with hot girl. This is the case that women imagine. It never really happens except paid escorts. In that case it is always for preselection and works well.
    4) Low status guy with unhot girl. He doesn’t know any better.

  13. And another thing on beauty.
    http://www2.islandpacket.com/ip_files/images/dr_life_3.img_assist_custom.jpg

    No doubt this old geezer had his skin Photoshopped. But Dr. Life is a real guy, google him. Healthy men can keep their game together right into old age. Girls can’t do this. There is no such thing as an attractive 70 year old woman. A 5/5 relationship is out of balance simply because her beauty has an expiration date. His doesn’t have to.

  14. @zdr01dz

    Your career is a neutral trait. It isn’t a positive or a negative.

    It can’t be a positive. It can be a negative.

    If a woman is a nurse at a hospital (not a private practice), I disqualify her. Why? The hours. The hours are set up in such a way that she’ll never have time for me. Ditto for lawyers with stupidly long hours. Again for doctors that work on call or long hours. Or once again for IT production support roles.

    Basically any career where your time and attention for me will be less is a negative to a man. If he doesn’t know it up front, he will pretty soon.

  15. I’d say career is negative overall. Having a job is a necessity in this day and age but having a career demands an equalist mindset. More importantly a woman’s career is in competition with a man’s such that he is destined to lose because:

    1. Her career is more lucrative earning life choices favor her career

    2. She gives up, orompromises her career for family creating a martyr and setting him up for accusation of limiting her deems and aspirations

    3. He gives up his career for family and is reduced to role of domestic servitude becoming the butler who occaisionaly fucks the lady of the house.

    A womn’s job may benefit the family, but her career is a selfish luxury.

  16. Been a lot a post, but zdroidz, I did say if Tiger Woods got with any really good looking gold diggers. Your fat girl example doesn’t really disprove anything. Not sure if you’re using that as an example of an alpha getting with somebody dreadful. If a wealthy got with somebody like that, it doesn’t mean an alpha getting with her. Could be a wealthy beta or omega as they say. Because if they’re wealthy, they could still get easy sex. They’d just have to pay more. So maybe it’s because they’re cheap and not because there’s nothing better available.
    But it can be relative. You’re Remy 10 example is about the same as the picture of the three Tiger supposedly got with. Some of, if not all of Tiger’s waitress hookups no doubt were out of convenience.

  17. http://veronicapartridge.com/why-i-chose-to-no-longer-wear-leggings/
    Mrs. Partridge chose to no longer wear yoga pants in public so that other men would not see as much of her genitals as they were getting accustomed to seeing. Her husband agreed that when women sexually display themselves for men to see, it’s hard for you not to look, and it’s hard when you do look.

    This is good albeit incomplete. I’m not getting a strong odor of repentance for her having wanted men to see her genitals earlier. Nor I am seeing anything that corresponds to her covering herself specifically to please her husband.

  18. 1,
    A good looking high status guy would never stay with any women.(and women know that)

    2,
    Any women from 1to10 will only go after a Beta high status man.(and most men are clueless)

    Here is the reality:
    Men or women can not be together for ever.
    We men want to fuck any woman.
    Women want to fuck for so many reasons.

    The men who have a severe state of inferiority would want a beautiful women on their arm and that beautiful woman know that.

    In most cases a HB 8 or 10 with a man like Salman never last, she was only after the name recognition and the status that’s all.

    A man driving an expensive car is a man who is a magnet for a woman who seeks…..well, you know.(and he knows it)
    It’s the silent deal that both parties have to keep their mouth shut and enjoy it until it ends.

    Every beautiful woman know what is the transaction and so is her man but does it last? ,,,,,,NEINE.

    As men and women we have to realize that we can not stay together for ever. And no mater what laws or conversations or rules forces us to, it’s just not going to work.

    Let’s face it, it’s not gonna work.
    You disagree?
    Well,,good luck.

  19. Interesting comments. Earlier, someone mentioned that to women, men are tools to obtain status, while to men women are the trophies of status already obtained. I agree with that 100%. But then that commenter went on to say that it is the achievement that men want more so than the trophy. That’s where I disagree.

    As Scarface said, for men the perspective is that first you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women. But it is the women that men want, not the money or power. That’s why once most men get the woman they want, they lose motivation to obtain more power (unless they want more women).

    Whereas for women, the order of priorities is different. A woman would say first you get the man, then you get the money, then you get the power (where power is the ability to make choices according to her own imperatives). Womens end goal is not men, it’s power. Which is why women lose motivation to keep men once they have power – hence women driving the divorce market, hence SIWs not needing men.

    Men want women. Women want power. This is what drives the SMP.

  20. @Jeremy, re: “Men want women. Women want power.”

    True. An interesting although aberrant aspect is the SMV imbalance in the most typical teacher sex scandals. Usually the females are better looking than they “need” to be.

    When it’s the man teacher with a girl student, most typically she’s at least relatively cute and high achieving. Most typically he is *not*, and he simply abused his little bit of power over her to mess with her head and get into her panties. He couldn’t have gotten a “better” girl.

    In contrast, when it’s the woman teacher with a male student, most typically she’s at least relatively cute, true to stereotype, and most typically he is *not*, and he is most typically academically, atheletically, every way a loser. Nope, I know what you’re thinking, but almost always he’s not big, not a gang leader, not a smooth talker. He couldn’t have gotten a “better” girl.

  21. @ All – I tangled with the hamster and got carried away last thread. Apologies to all for taking it a bit too far. As an explanation – not an excuse – it was due to so clearly seeing the SMP play out around me over the past few weeks. Like I said, I’ve been dropping through yet another trap door in my Red Pill journey and a new level of clarity has accompanied it, along with a new level of horror. I so clearly see women prancing around in their non-stop beauty contest designed to excite men, and it was like a light bulb going off for me. Having to argue about this basic reality just pissed me off as this is just another way the FI informs our social relations by enforcing ‘no-talk’ rules about certain subjects. We can’t talk about what women are actually up to, not even with Red Pill chicks…

    Rollo’s observation rings true for me. “half the reason I stayed with the BPD girlfriend for so long was because she was just so fucking hot”. My case exactly with my ex-wife. She was just so good looking and I had a sense that I would never do better than her in the looks dept. It’s funny, I kind of shamed myself for this inside, that I had sold out for a great ass, lol. Turns out I was correct. It’s also not a coincidence that I began to put my foot down with my wife at 28 (married at 24), when very hot women were starting to throw themselves at me. The first one to do so overtly was a 21 yr old 9, she dared me to kiss her, “What, are you scared?”. Suddenly my threshold for the ration of shit my erstwhile wife was dishing out to me lowered dramatically.

    Questions:
    1. Social status never entered into my mind as an overt calculation. But I would be lying if I didn’t note that guy friends would give me the thumbs up for being with a hot woman. However I don’t feel that I ever sought that. I do feel that it was part of my “winner” mentality though. I liked to say, “Winners fuck the prom queen”. For me, for far too long in my life, winning was the only way I measured myself. And taking down a very hot woman for a wife was just another win. However, I think this was more about me and my insecurities and damaged ego, and getting the hot wife was part of me seeing myself as successful. I had a Dad who literally told me for most of my childhood that he couldn’t wait to see me go out on my own and fail so he could laugh at me. Literally, those exact words and many variations on it while he smacked me around. So much of my life was given by trying to prove him wrong – and locking down the hot woman was another check mark. I remember thinking after my peak earnings year that I had made as much in that single year as my Dad had made in his whole career (not adjusted for inflation), and still, I wasn’t good enough…

    At some level, it’s also true that the death of my mom in early adolescence contributed to my need for validation from women, and the hotter the women, the more the validation it seemed. But I really never felt society gave me any status for having a hot wife in the sense of getting anything tangible other than thumbs up from other guys. It made me feel better about myself for a little while… As an aside, if on your wedding day, every fiber of your being is screaming “Don’t do it” – listen to that voice. I didn’t, and that was perhaps the single biggest mistake of my life.

    2. When I see a lower SMV guy with a hot woman now I just say, “poor bastard”.

    3. The deception and shaming. Indeed, women’s need to camouflage their sexual strategies really knows no bounds. I guess in some ways this is what galled me on the last thread. The overt brutishness of all this and how some topics have just been put out of bounds for discussion because they deal with strategies which females wish to keep concealed is quite ugly.

    Pedestalization is key to the dominance of men by women. Courtly, romantic love and chivalry – or better said, male vassalage, is designed to refine and control the rules of competition for women by which men compete. It’s a fitness test, writ large. But of course, such a prize must be worth winning. If women are motivated by grubby status climbing, if their “love” is not actually some kind of miraculously spiritually amazing experience, then why would we work so hard to earn it in terms of service to women (provisioning and protection)?

    Then it follows that denigrating male strategies which are based solely on looks is necessary because the con is that women aren’t operating on material levels at all – it’s about “true love” for these ethereal creatures. Again, as I break through this new level of RP awareness, I see that the entire idea of romantic love is about shaming male sexual strategies and behavior into compliance. Me wanting to fuck as many of the hot females as I can has to be stopped and shamed so I will instead try to be a “good boy/man”. As well, women cannot be seen as operating that way either or, even worse, just for what goodies they can get out of a man

    So the con is on two levels. It’s about shaming men into believing that the idea of sexiness/beauty we have is socially constructed by men and imposed on women somehow unfairly, that it’s a character weakness we must overcome in order to be “good men”. This is an important observation as it also explains why fat-norming is shoved at us. It’s not that they really expect fat women are going to be any more attractive to men, it’s that it’s another piece of moralistic, pseudo-intellectual preening radfems (the high priestesses of the FI promoting brigade) can use to shame men’s innate sexuality. Why aren’t we attracted to fatties? It’s because we are pigs and bigots.

    The concealment aspect of this game is just as important. We’ve been conned into believing that women are operating on a different and more morally superior level than men when it comes to mate selection. They’ve explain all their resistance (sexual conflict theory again) as us not being “good” enough – when in fact they were pursuing very obvious strategies the entire time. If their cover is blown, the whole house of cards falls down and men stop putting the bit in their mouths, like is happening in the Red Pill world. This is why they’ll go to ridiculous lengths to accomplish the fundamental shaming of male sexuality – it’s the basis of much of the female con.

    Last. I think women are more aware of this than I used to believe. In a way, I do think it’s a bit of an inside joke for all of them. I think they believe they don’t have to engage in rational discourse with us because even if we are “right” it has no implications for them. It changes nothing, the social conventions are in the control of women now. They stiff arm us in argument because they can, not because they live in a somehow more superficial world than men. Women can reason quite readily when they want to, I see it at work all the time and in many other things. They choose to be unreasonable about all this because the payoff is so ridiculously high.

    That’s why supposedly Red Pill chicks can claim that they don’t dress up when they are out and about in every day life to excite male attraction. And arguing with them is just silly. Women have been granted a privilege in society to lie overtly about this stuff, and believe it’s their right to do so. In this, it’s better to see this through the lens of power rather than reason. And if you do get a glimpse of what’s at stake in terms of political power alone, well then you might get why I always bring the politics up as key to instrumentalizing our currently insane intersexual dynamics.

  22. @ Sun Wukong
    Basically any career where your time and attention for me will be less is a negative to a man. If he doesn’t know it up front, he will pretty soon.

    Now that I think about it you’re right. A woman’s career isn’t neutral, it’s possibly a negative. My wife was a preschool teacher and made about $30k per year. Last year I had her quit to stay home, take care of the house/kids/meals and do my paperwork. I don’t want her working. It’s a huge nuisance.

  23. BoJangles >> After having slept with more than my share of women, I tend to look more for the women who I think will blow my mind in bed

    After sleeping with more than my share of women, I tend to look for ones who are low-maintenance

  24. @ Water Cannon Boy
    Some of, if not all of Tiger’s waitress hookups no doubt were out of convenience.

    Essentially you’re correct. It’s about convenience. Bill Clinton is an SMV10*. The * denotes special powers that place him in the top 100 men on Earth. And yet he shot his load into an HB3. He probably shot his load into a string of HB3s spanning decades.

    Finding hot HB10s DTF is not easy or convenient. There aren’t many.

    That’s why Tiger slept with fairly average looking women. That’s why chubby HB4 housewives have instant access to the most powerful men in the world. Scarcity and convenience.

    I wouldn’t fuck one of these hags for money. I doubt you would and I doubt Rollo would. But somebody would and it’s surprising how far up the food chain these guys orbit.

    AF/BB is a brilliant description of female sexual strategy. However I believe the AF part isn’t as exaggerated as it is sometimes described in the manosphere. Any dumpy chick can score a ridiculously high AF if she is willing to spread her legs. Women know this. The average female is convinced that every man wants to sleep with her. Women innately posses the kind of sexual self-esteem that we can only dream of.

    Their self esteem is so off that charts that if we don’t show interest they assume we’re gay. Check out this snippet from Jimmy Fallon. I queued it up to the good part at 2:40.
    http://youtu.be/qtsNbxgPngA?t=2m40s

    This should make most men feel good. At night when you look over and see your wife in bed it shows that she possesses at least a modicum of self control. She could be with an AF every night of the week. All she has to do is set up a profile on Ashley Madison and let the magic happen.

  25. @Glenn “Women can reason quite readily when they want to, I see it at work all the time and in many other things. They choose to be unreasonable about all this because the payoff is so ridiculously high”.
    I agree.

  26. “I want the best looking furniture guy for my living room”

    The commodification of men by women is a routine part of the FI. The bitching about being seen as “sex objects” by men is a distraction meant to cover up that routine commodification of males by society and to maintain their special snowflake status afforded them under the Patriarchy.

  27. @Observer

    I can’t help but notice that over the last couple of months, I’ve been seeing a lot more bitterness from Rollo. I like some of your posts where you argue commentators but often times you don’t take the whole message from the opposition.

    I’m not ignoring your points, and I don’t think others should ignore them either.

    However, I’m going to try to make a point that may explain and perhaps justify the rather rough treatment women who comment here receive.

    I have yet to see a woman comment on Rollo’s blog with the full intent of listening to what is said by the men, thinking through it logically, and making educated comments. I have yet to see it. Most times, there is at least some transparent attention whoring going on. When the female commenter isn’t seeking attention, she’s generally only got feminist talking points and is trying to trot them out as if we’re all just completely ignorant of them.

    Both methods of discussion are highly insulting to the intelligence. Men, real men, do not stand for having their intelligence deliberately insulted. It’s certainly something that shouldn’t be tolerated in a male space.

    I have no problem discussing these topics with women without bitterness. However, I have zero patience for women trying to convince me of blue pill nonsense at this stage. Most of the time, when I read what the ladies who comment here have to say, that’s what I see. I see women coming here, attempting to convince men of how their feelings are incorrect on a topic, and finding some way to brag about how attractive and accomplished they are in the process. It comes across like William Shatner trying to find some way to get his shirt off in an old Star Trek episode.

    It’s grotesque.

    Personally, I think they can’t help it. I think the presence of high value men with very capable intellects is just too attractive for them to stay away. I would prefer if most of them would take the time to lurk for long periods of time, to listen to men rather than take on some holy crusade to correct us. The arrogance at coming here to correct men on their thinking is hysterical, considering just how much feminist-values are preached elsewhere. It’s as if female biology literally cannot tolerate any males thinking outside the feminine imperative.

  28. @Jeremy

    Earlier, someone mentioned that to women, men are tools to obtain status, while to men women are the trophies of status already obtained. I agree with that 100%. But then that commenter went on to say that it is the achievement that men want more so than the trophy. That’s where I disagree.

    That was me. By achievement, I did not mean to imply that female attention was not an achievement, nor undesired. What I meant was that accomplishing an “alpha” status wherein women simply flock to you is the achievement, and marrying an HB9 who’s totally into you is the trophy that is awarded for that achievement… rather than the implied reverse by the women commenters who strangely want to believe that men “marry” an HB9 to “become alpha”.

  29. “The commodification of men by women is a routine part of the FI”

    This weekend my wife has told me “I love you” several times. Yesterday, as we were preparing for guests, she told me “I love our dinning table”, and “I love our new couches”. I have a woman’s true love ™.

  30. As a follow up to my post about women commenters…

    *IF* women truly wanted to contribute to the discussion here and learn in the process without attention whoring or attempting to be some “supergirl” of “equalism”… they’d post here pretending to be men.

    The fact that they out themselves as women in a male space where there is no requirement to demonstrate what sex you are, to me, says everything about their intentions.. which is to be a woman in a space full of men.

  31. Rollo,

    You are excellent at unraveling all this.

    Responding to your questions…

    “So the question for the weekend is this, as a man, do you give any headspace at all to considering how your status might improve with other men if you’re seen with a hot woman?

    When you see a guy who’s physically an obvious 1-2 SMV degrees lower than the woman he’s with, do you think any better of him or do you presume the imbalance is due to some other external factor (such as wealth or fame)?

    Do you see the method behind the madness of shaming-down apex Men in order to better optimize Hypergamy for “lesser” SMV women?”

    1, No. I’ve always sought hot women for my enjoyment, not to impress myself or show up other men.

    2. I think less of her. Everyone seems to suspect a trade off has been made when we see this imbalance. I always suspect the hotter partner of an imbalanced couple has sacrificed hotter sex for, security, financial, gain, etc. This is true regardless of which gender partner is hotter. A man who settles for a woman of 1 to 2 SMV points below his SMV is making this sacrifice. He is actually exercising a form of mate guarding.

    3. Yes, and the shaming lie trope works on most men to some degree……which brings me to another consideration….

    While reading “She turned on me” it occurred to me that the past few decades of feminine imperative dominance and the success of hypergamy may have had and continues to have an impact on male beta prevalence not only by conditioning, but also may be affecting human evolution. The birth control pill, feminism, hypergamy have provided women the freedom to enjoy hot sex with alpha males without getting pregnant. They can and do enjoy a lot of hot fucking without pregnancy For awhile before they hit the wall. Then before they hit the wall, after they’ve “sown their wild oats”, they “settle down” with beta white knight “good providers” to have babies…..this certainly seems to be what is happening in at least middel class and upper class western culture.

    If beta and alpha traits are partially genetic (I think they are mostly genetic) then beta genetic traits are being regenerated more than alpha traits. Remember women select betas to have babies with because betas are “good dads”. Consequently, fewer male alpha babies are being born…..fewer and fewer and fewer and fewer as this dynamic remains dominate. This is litterally a “survival of the fittest” scenario. Hypergamy utilizes the alpha male for female sexual pleasure avoiding pregnancy while the waiting beta is reserved as the “fittest” for fatherhood. Perhaps we have more beta males today as a result of this, rather than conditioning alone. If so, this dynamic has also become biologically self perpetuating.

    I’m looking forward to reading your next book.

  32. “The commodification of men by women is a routine part of the FI”

    Women commodify men much more than men commodify women. Do men give condescending nicknames for men when talking among their girlfriends? Nope. Women do this shit all of the time. Women, not men, are much more superficial than men when it comes to appearances in dating in reality. Young women base their appeal for men based on the mans’ appearance, and when they get older, their wallet, utility or status. Women make compromises in relationships that men would never make – women will marry men that they are not physically attracted to if he has status or wealth, a normal man would not do this. Lots of women settle for men in marriage that they are actually not sexually aroused by, these men are just tolerable to them, but they like his status and job. Why are there so many sexless marriages? (- It’s not because of the men). Most marriages are essentially prostitution, yet they won’t admit it. Men love women on a much deeper level that women could never do. Women commodity men and themselves, so when women complain that “men are always too focused on a woman’s looks” – this is just projection. Have you ever eavesdropped on a group of women talking about men when they thought they were alone? Men would be horrified. As Esther Vilar said (in The Polygamous Sex), it is men that are the prudes when it comes to sex, not women. If women were truly the more caring and empathetic sex, hypergamy would not exist. Women are cold-blooded as hell when it comes to choosing a man for a relationship. Women wear a mask of angelic sweetness, caring and sympathy, when their true nature can be anything but. Most men are completely clueless as to the true nature of women unfortunately. Women can be extremely unforgiving and mean to men.

    I remember reading that the reason that women do not like and hate “nice guys” is that they think that these men are being nice to them just so that they can fuck them. I was shocked when I read this. Women are manipulative and deceptive by nature and this is just projection again – Women act nice to people that they hate or want something just to get along. When I’m “nice” to women it doesn’t actually mean I necessarily want to date them, I was just actually being nice. Women are really screwed up mentally sometimes and think shit that doesn’t make any damn sense.

    When I see an average-looking or ugly man with an HB10 on his arm, I think he has to really have his shit together with his game, status, job or whatever. Some people react negatively, saying “We know who’s making the money!” But a man like that should be commended, not reviled with envy and smart-aleck comments. We should be naming national parks, main streets and aircraft carriers after men like that. A woman has value just by existing, but men are born worthless and must acquire their value/appeal to women mainly by effort and achievement, which is a lot harder. An average woman has a much easier life than the average man in America at least. There never has been such an exalted and pampered class of humans as the American woman ever in history.

  33. Hmmm. Why is everyone getting so pissed at Kate? She seems to be sharing honestly and thogufully. And of course, she has to equalize male and female mating strategies – the whole world tells her it’s so. I for one appreciate her honesty.

    On celebrities mate choices – The very high value alpha males I know live in a different reality than most men in the sense that pussy isn’t scarce for them. One of my best friends is very successful, lives single in NYC, is ver good looking and has an N of at least 250. Last time I hung out with him he had 10 different plates. He fucked the ugliest one while I was there merely because she was willing to come over and fuck him before the football game and then leave. She’s not a woman I would bother fucking but for him she’s just another plate that fell in his lap and due to the smv differential, she simply does what she’s told or she’s gone and he’ll never think about her again.

    At my peak, I had small tastes of what that is like. Tiger Woods is fucking the waitress because it’s child’s play for him to do so. It’s zero effort. And sometimes he wants to get laid without any drama or inconvenience. And he married Jasper Parnevik’s nanny – looks like she made out okay with her 100 million.

    One last note on Clinton. I suggest anyone here looking to get an understanding of Bill’s sexuality read a book entitled No One Left To Lie To by the late, great Christopher Hitchens. In it he catalogues Clinton’s predatory sexual nature. He has 3 very creditable allegations of rape against him and literally dozens of other complaints of sexual assault. He’s pathological. His behavior doesn’t tell us much. And its common knowledge that his marriage has always been one of convenience that benefits both but is nothing like a conventional marriage. They slept in separate beds in the White House, for example.

    The status question is interesting. It’s true that I’m embarrassed to be seen with a fattie (but I’ve never dated an ugly woman, aside from random hookups usually when drunk and horny) and that is about status. But for me I think women signal a man’s status. It reflects his status so when you see a mismatch you wonder what’s wrong with that guy? Same thing for a hot woman. She reflects my high status. But does being with her give me status in society that I can notice or feel? I don’t experience it that way. It’s signaling.

  34. “men would seek post wall women until they are in position to seek young and hot. An equalist approach would eliminate “idealistic” love, and replace it with status and external validation. Do women realize what happens when men make decision without any influence of sentiment?”

    Exactly. If you’re a late bloomer like me, this describes your experience to a T. You just bang whoever until you can be more selective than any other dude you know.

    “No I think he bought his way into her or she’s got low self-esteem and is “settling”….If this means trying to AMOG a guy with a hotter girlfriend—no, it doesn’t work. I tried this once it only raised the guy’s status by making ME look “jealous” and insecure and sparking more attraction as the girl rushed to his defense….If you want to “shame” you have to look for something in the dude’s character—is he cheap, poke at his confidence or use classic boyfriend destroyer: “You’re the best that he’ll ever do…”

    This is sad. Though I do like the Moneyball clip, which is accurate. If I see a dude with an ugly girlfriend, that definitely alters my judgement of him. But the comment below that is essentially a pedestalization. If your goal is to elevate your social proof in any relatively neutral social setting, and you go about it making these hostile ‘AMOG’ comments, you’ll only damage your own standing. But more importantly, you’re just seeking to tear other men down to get your dick wet (which, you almost certainly won’t in doing this). And even more pertinently, any dude worth his salt knows that ‘the best he’ll ever do’ will keep improving as he ages, right up ’til he dies, a la Hugh Hefner. Not that he’ll be famous, but he has complete control over becoming very wealthy, and then can just basically buy any chick / any relationship he may want. He can just keep trading up til he croaks, if he wants. With that in mind, your thirsty M.O. seems utterly foolish and counterproductive.

  35. @zdr01dz, re: “Their self esteem is so off that charts that if we don’t show interest they assume we’re gay. ”

    Now you’ve done it. You’ve stated the problem so clearly that the solution is evident. Women’s entire problem with nice guys, with polite guys, with nonviolent nonthugs, with Christian study group LJBFs, is that the women are reacting as if these men were gay. The only thing women respond to properly is sexualization.

  36. re: Clinton

    What’s astonishing to me is how unattractive were the women he pursued to treat roughly. He could easily have had his choice of two 8s bouncing together in his expensive hotel bed with him all night, but he instead preferred to bite and choke an ugly girl in a closet for a few minutes.

    All the time.

  37. @zdr01dz

    Their self esteem is so off that charts that if we don’t show interest they assume we’re gay.

    If we’re being fair, you’d have to be gay to not want to fuck Kidman in her prime. When it gets really lol-worthy is when some HB4 or less out on the street or hanging out with your friends calls you guy for not wanting to fuck her. Of course it’s really her just rationalizing in the way the FI has taught her: “The problem isn’t me! I’m a Strong Independent Woman and that’s exactly what every man wants! The problem is him; he must be gay to not want some of this. I should get some Ben & Jerry’s on the way home to console myself.”

  38. The look on that dude’s face is priceless. The perfect devil-may-care grin, laser-focus on the camera, giant jew-nose proclaiming his strength to the world. Clearly this is one sassy Semite with some solid inner game to back up his outward mousy confidence.

  39. @jf12 – So, to be bound by your own reasoning, you have to wear a zipper bangle to your next prayer meeting with the age-appropriate gals to reset the frame so you they don’t treat you like you are gay. I dare you to show up in some skinny legged black jeans with a spider or perhaps a lizard dangling from your zipper. Say nothing about it. I dare you. This could be a new craze for men, we could tie them lie fishing flies, giggling now. Just got back from gym, regrooving that rhythm I had going for a while.

    Here’s a video that you must watch. Diana Davidson takes apart a conversation between a wife caught hiring an undercover cop to kill her husband, and the husband right after she’s arrested. She’s on video – the entire thing is black and white – she hired the guy to kill her husband, gave him money and everything. I won’t spoil the ending, but it’s worth finding out for yourself. Blue Pill conditioning runs very deep.
    http://youtu.be/SddZvNQOuFw

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SddZvNQOuFw&w=560&h=315%5D

  40. I ran into Nicole Kidman at Chelsea Piers gym, at the desk. I was struck dumb because she is so tall, she’s 5’11” and I don’t approach women I’m 3 inches shorter than, they just aren’t interested. She’s been on my “list” for a long time but I didn’t know how tall she was, it put me off my game otherwise I would have tried. Of course, Cruise was short but he’s also Tom Cruise…She had hit the wall already but it was pre-bad cosmetic surgery, so she still looked soft and dreamy to me. Truly, I just didn’t say a word and let her glide off. Not my best moment, but there it is. I swear, if she’d been 5’7″ I’d have tried to hit it, lol. It’s so weird, I really didn’t understand that at the time, I thought I just wimped out but it really was the height. I had one GF 4 inches taller than me, she was quite hot but being with her was like climbing a tree. And big woman often have cavernous nether regions, something I like even less.

  41. @jf12 – Bill Clinton had 8 regular plates spinning, two of whom were prostitutes and one who worked out of an apt known to sell crack, in Little Rock when he announced he was running for POTUS. He did crack and coke and banged everything he could get his hands on while Governor of Arkansas.

    Can you imagine what he did as POTUS? Fyi, he had a 10 plate flying around on his campaign plane who was given the cover of being on staff as an low level admin of for the entire campaign, and then she showed up on staff in the WH to many people’s shock. He fucked plenty of dimes – and nickels too. Everyone in the press and campaign knew. He fucked Eleanor Clift, she stayed over in the Lincoln bedroom while Hillary was away and went running with him the next morning, along with the Secret Service. I’m just sayin’. Clinton is a predator and, if there is such a thing as a sex addict, he is one of those too. He takes what isn’t given if he can. This is where I draw the line – using force and assault isn’t being dominant. It’s a fine line, but you know when you’ve crossed it. The line doesn’t exist for Clinton and he has more ass at his disposal than he knows what to do with.

    His Presidential library in Little Rock has a luxury suite on the top floor in which Bill entertains women to this day. He’s a machine and will never stop as long as women are saying yes or no. He’s a sick, empty man and someone I would never want to be like. Just sayin’…

  42. @ Jeremy I am not saying your concerns about women commenters are not valid and I hope I have neither spouted fi trope not attention mongered, and if you feel so my apologies. I visit and post here and at other manosphere sites because I am very interested in these topics. When I stumbled across the red pill sites, I was seeking answers about how men actually think. And I have learned so, so, so much about men, how they see the world, their thoughts on women and relationships, etc. following these blogs has helped me improve in my personal life and also helped me to advise friends at times of how their spouse might be feeling and yes even to correct their wrong thinking on frivorce and other relationship mistakes. I have learned men feel much more deeply and are much more complex than has ever been portrayed in mainstream media or society. I post as a woman because I don’t want to misrepresent myself, and I often ask questions or chime in a female take on the topic that would not be possible were I pretending to be a man. I don’t defend women coming here and shaming men or arguing or upending the apple cart. Anyway I just wanted to say I hope my participation adds to the discussion and if not or if rollo asks, I will just read and not post bc the last thing I intend is to be disruptive. And maybe you were not talking about me. Anyway, you guys have taught me a lot and I thank you for allowing me to participate thus far here and on other blogs. Peace!

  43. @Glenn, re: crotch bangles

    I promise if I were either single or secular I definitely would, knowing what I know now. Maybe yoga pants too.

    re: Clinton

    I’ll have to take your word on the dimes. I’ve heard he left nice arm candy at the table to go do a 2 in the kitchen, though.

  44. @Observer, one thing I run into with virtually any post I make is the accusation that I’m in some way projecting a “bitterness” onto a situation that was somehow neutral before I did.

    It’s one of the more common criticisms I get (and not just in the past couple of months), but I find that any time a man is bold enough to make even a marginal critique of anything unflattering to the feminine imperative the “bitterness” label is the first to be rolled out.

    There really is no parallel for this from an opposite perspective. It’s expected that men will just ‘take it on the chin’ when any woman or man has a critical thought about men – anything else is not ‘being man enough’ to take some criticism. Rare is the woman accused of being ‘bitter’ with men. In fact to do so reverses the shame back to the guy accusing a woman of being “bitter”, because only a “bitter” guy would try to paint a woman as “bitter”.

    All I do is hold up a mirror, you have to want to look. In a feminine-primary social order just my doing so makes me “bitter” because it’s an affront to the system. Funny how no one accused me of being bitter when I wrote New Hope only 3 months ago. Rather, I got run up the flagpole for being overly optimistic with that.

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/25/bitter-misogynists/

  45. @Bloom, re: “And maybe you were not talking about me.”

    For certain not you.

    @Jeremy, re: “they’d post here pretending to be men.”

    I’ve got a confession to make. …
    This opens up an interesting can of worms about gendered writing. I’ve got an online tool bookmarked on another computer, courtesy of MarcusD (from Dalrock’s), that was trained to discriminate male writing from female writing. And it does as good a job as that job can be done automatedly, style vs content. But I didn’t rank very male on it, maybe because of my abnormally low psychopathy, and I’m sure Glenn wouldn’t either. Nevertheless content-wise I’m almost certain we’d both rank near the top on the least likely commenters to actually be females.

  46. @jf12 – Can’t divulge my source, but it’s impeccable and someone who has firsthand knowledge of him.

    I still think you are missing something, surprisingly. Guys like Clinton exist in an utterly different economy of sex. Consider the example you give of Clinton leaving a hottie at a table at a nice place/function and fucking a waitress in the kitchen. He probably would have to do a lot of work to get his arm candy to blow him spontaneously. He couldn’t just take her by the arm and lead her to the Men’s room or elsewhere to “do him” right then and there. The SMV gradient doesn’t allow that – but the gradient between him and the 2? He simply smiles, whispers in her ear and whips out his dick. He’s opportunistic – and this doesn’t cost him the 10 back at the table. He fucks her later too.

    Once a man realizes his value with women and masters seduction, really wild things happen. I was too Blue Pill and pedestalizing and fucked up in the head to really ever capitalize on my skills, as I felt ashamed of my sexual escapades for the longest time. I stopped using NLP and “falling in love” game with women because I thought it made me a bad person. I was to try and be a “good man” and good men didn’t do that. But I did it anyway sometimes…And women continued to be a riddle I could not solve.

  47. Wow, watching that video… The woman who tried to have her husband killed… At one point, near the end, in some desperation she cries and says “I love you.”

    And I’ll be damned if I didn’t believe that she believed herself when she was saying that. He still had ‘status’ and ‘resources’ that she ‘loved’ him for, so she was perhaps actually feeling love as women feel it… How fucked up is that?

  48. Apologies for not participating as much this weekend, I’ve been lurking for most of this thread while I work on the book edits this weekend. Writing and compiling is easy compared to fishing through edits, but I wanted to make sure the book is bulletproof this time.

    Once I get this off to publish, I’m going back to the first Book to do a revised edition with better edits.

    FWIW, of the 40+ women in my sexual past, I can honestly admit that I had no intentions of marrying any of them (even the BPD), including Mrs. Tomassi before or after I had sex with them. Only one did I propose to, and that was based entirely on my own self-evaluation as to whether Mrs. Tomassi was someone I could be faithful to. I know me, I’ve seen me do it.

    I’m happy to say that decision worked out, even after 18+ years in the liquor and gaming industry and having more than enough opportunity (not to mention propositions) to have easily cheated and moved on. While I’ve had many opportunities, Mrs. Tomassi has never given me a reason to be unfaithful.

  49. As a woman, it surprises me more women don’t call Hilary out on tolerating bill’s behavior or doing anything about it. Doesn’t she care about women if he is indeed predatory? Or her own dignity? How does that show her leadership potential, giving all that a pass? I can’t believe anyone takes her serious as a candidate and yet… Anyway, I don’t get it. Off topic I know, sorry!

  50. >do you give any headspace at all to considering how your status might improve with other men if you’re seen with a hot woman?

    Not really. The first thing I think about when I see a hot woman is sex. If I think about it, I wouldn’t like being seen with a fat girl but that thought only came up because we’re discussing the subject of status with other men based on your woman. Otherwise I just feel disgust towards a fat girl.

    >When you see a guy who’s physically an obvious 1-2 SMV degrees lower than the woman he’s with, do you think any better of him or do you presume the imbalance is due to some other external factor (such as wealth or fame)?

    When I see this I start wondering if it’s an external factor or his own game and if he is a natural or if he learned it.

    >Do you see the method behind the madness of shaming-down apex Men in order to better optimize Hypergamy for “lesser” SMV women?

    Considering you just pointed out the method the only possible answer is ‘yes’. But I did indeed know that women like to rationalize things as “men’s faults” to escape accountability.

  51. @ rollo that is a very flattering compliment to your wife! 🙂 she sounds awesome. Maybe you have posted on that topic or maybe it’s too personal but I would be interested to hear what she’s doing right or if you prefer a more general angle, a male take on keeping a husband happy!

  52. @Redlight – ”

    “The commodification of men by women is a routine part of the FI”

    This weekend my wife has told me “I love you” several times. Yesterday, as we were preparing for guests, she told me “I love our dinning table”, and “I love our new couches”. I have a woman’s true love ™.”

    Haha! That moment when it all becomes clear…

  53. @Jeremy

    Recently I nuked and dropped a BPD plate I’d been spinning for shit test practice. This is, BTW, NOT something I recommend most guys do. I literally did it as a personal frame test from the outset, and it requires holding your goal in mind at all times. BPD chicks shit test at a rate that exceeds all reasonable expectation.

    When I confronted her directly about emotionally manipulative behavior I had documentation of, her reaction was a blanket denial of objective reality. In her voice you could hear genuine conviction; she believed she’d done nothing wrong to warrant my suspicious treatment of her, despite my clearly stating events that proved her to be untrustworthy.

    Women employ one of the techniques all the best salesmen use: they sell themselves their own lies. They fully replace the objective reality they’re aware of with a lie more conducive to their objective. It’s truly amazing to watch and listen to in action if you can get past how incredibly disturbing it is to feel the pull of their actions on your own psychology.

  54. @redpillgirlnotes

    Jeremy I am not saying your concerns about women commenters are not valid and I hope I have neither spouted fi trope not attention mongered, and if you feel so my apologies.

    There is no apology necessary, not even from the ones that annoy me. People follow their nature as they feel they must.

    That is kind of the core problem with women in male spaces. They pretend like their presence has no impact, even to themselves they pretend this. They wield the “logic” of equalism and convince men that “little old me” couldn’t possibly affect all those men and then ten minutes after say that, they’re wielding their submissiveness, attractiveness, or victimhood as a discussion weapon. Even if they’re not doing it verbally, they’re doing it in other ways.

    Women are born with game, they are born with sexual weaponry, and they learn tremendous numbers of manipulation tactics through childhood because they’ve got all the tools they need throughout their young lives. You ladies have all of this at your disposal pretty much at all times. So how can you pretend that rational discussion among men can take place while you’re pulling out and wielding earthmovers of sexual power in a quiet garden of men tending to creations of reason and logic?

    Watching Glenn’s exchanges in the previous thread with GWADT, it seemed fairly transparent to me that GWADT wanted to make it known that she was attractive and successful with men. I attribute her behavior there as basic human nature. But, in order for men to think clearly, that kind of female sexual display should be called out for what it is, and frankly eliminated from a male space. It has no place here.

    Is this making sense to any of you women who comment here? I’ll bet that even though you do understand me, you don’t feel like answering that, because women *love* to pretend they have no power.

    Note, that I am not saying women are incapable of logic. I’m not saying you’re incapable of reason. What I’m saying is that women as a species are incapable of refraining from trotting out the nuclear weapons of female manipulation and destroying actual logical discussions in places where men are talking with men. It get’s worse when there are multiple women around, because a subliminal competition takes place and it escalates, even if just covertly. It’s human nature. Women are just as incapable of this as men are from avoiding staring at bare breasts, your hypergamy dictates that where you see high value, high intellect men men, you’ll attempt to put yourself there. Believe me, I (and all men) can relate, because we generally try to find places to live where there’s lots of young attractive women.

    But just because I want to put myself into a town with lots of young, attractive women walking around… that doesn’t make it o.k. for me to walk into the women’s locker room, look at women naked in female private spaces, and ask for their phone numbers while they’re in a vulnerable state. Savvy?

    I agree with Rollo, the openness of the forum must be preserved. I love the fact that it has remained so, and constructive. I actually do enjoy hearing what women want to say on the topics here. I just think that the women should recognize their social power and completely refrain from unleashing their sexuality into the discussion in any form whatsoever, and furthermore, recognize that they exist in a social order that is feminine-primary, so simply contradicting the men here on their views while projecting your own (female) views onto men comes across as naive social engineering.

  55. @jeremy and redpillnotes – Just want to chime in on women commenting here. Two things seem to need to be understood. One – this is a male space where male rules of civility and exchange prevail. Accordingly, we aren’t primarily worried about hurting people’s feelings or not, but rather are trying to figure things out and have a conversation that pursues truth and insights. So, if you aren’t doing that, consider what your purpose is here. And if it’s not to be part of that, then you will very likely be made to feel unwelcome by some people. As well, this is a place where aggressive, smart, dominant men play – we will not be shamed by normal female techniques or shut down by them. We like it rough and if you don’t? Well you won’t like it here.

    The second aspect is a doozy. Are you really willing to digest the Red Pill and all of its implications for human intersexual relations? I had that blistering interchange with GWADT on the last thread because she would not admit that dressing up to look attractive when in public is about exciting male interest. When women won’t admit basic things like that, I can’t take it. Not here. In most of the real world, I don’t bother arguing with women because if you are arguing with a woman you’ve already lost. But here? We are going to discuss reality.

    And reality includes an amazing, very large scale con game built on a set of gynocentric social conventions that are steeped in feminine imperatives. The largest being women’s intentional concealment of their mating strategies and their creation of social conventions like “the good man” and romance, courtly love and chivalry to shame and reshape male sexual behavior and attitudes to suit the purposes of women. This is accomplished via female sexual selection, which women are born into – women did nothing to earn this privilege. In fact, sexual selection may be the mother of all privileges – and feminists run around talking about male privilege without ever mentioning any of this. It’s ridiculous – beyond ridiculous at this point.

    If you are willing to look at how you lap up these female privileges and perpetuate this social order, and perhaps even look at the harm men suffer via all this, great. I’ve always welcomed your commentary.

    And of course, Rollo is clear – you can do what ever you want here, I have no say and many men here probably disagree with me, so this is just my opinion, and there it is for your consideration.

  56. My only disagreement with female commenters here is how arguing with a woman whose mind won’t change sometimes seems to derail any productive discussion amongst us. That’s pretty much the attention whore MO, and having watched women repeatedly disrupt every male space I’ve been in on the Internet with it, it’s gotten really fucking old.

  57. @jf12

    re: Clinton

    I’ll have to take your word on the dimes. I’ve heard he left nice arm candy at the table to go do a 2 in the kitchen, though.

    lol, like I said, he’s a dog. Not that I couldn’t be pals with the guy, far from it. I think he’d be awesome to hang out with… but dear god… lol

  58. @ Rollo

    For future reference, keep this quote by Ray Peat on hand. If only for your own amusement. From his article, “Membranes, plasma membranes, and surfaces”:

    http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/membranes.shtml

    “Twice, editors have printed my articles…with adjoining “rebuttals,” but I was disappointed that all of my points were ignored, as if you could rebut an argument by just saying that you emphatically disagree with it. I think it is evident that those people don’t know what would be involved in refuting an argument. They are annoyed that I have bothered them with some evidence, but not sufficiently annoyed to cause them to try to marshal some evidence against my arguments.”

  59. @ Jeremy and Glenn, I appreciate the additional explanation. I used to pretty much only follow and post at j4g (as bloom, redpillgirl is a blog I started later). I think that blog was intended to be a male/female space, although no bs-ery from the women folk would go wo being called out, and rightly so. I don’t expect anyone to make their posts there, or here, “female friendly” for my sake. Please don’t. And if this space is more male locker room than mixed company you are right, I don’t belong here and my presence would naturally cause a change in behavior even if I did not intend that. If I say something that is incorrect, from the male pov, I expect to be called out accordingly and can handle that (and I have been at j4g and they were right) so I don’t take offense. I am here to learn, not argue. So I will take all that under consideration, I think you guys are discussing things here needing to be discussed, the truth is always socially unacceptable, and yet it needs wrestled with. Yes the red pill can be at times very threatening to me, as a woman, bc I am a woman and if AWALT well then I am too, even if I don’t want or mean to be. I have the “girl” operating system, it is what it is. I do have to say I have altered my behavior in good ways after encountering the red pill, and I examine my actions and motives far more than I ever did before. I hope other women who visit here do so w an open mind and a willingness to listen. Peace!

  60. @ fakeemail

    Walking with a blondie feels great. Men DO care about status; not just sex.

    Meh, I dance with beautiful women alla time. Sometimes I notice men and women staring at me admiringly. Meh. IDGAF.

    I exchanged butt swats with an 8 who is a 25 yo friend with flirting benefits. Another woman who is a 28 yo 7 invited me to sit and chat with her. I expressed implied disinterest in the 7 after she volunteered that she was looking for a relationship with a hawt guy. She left with a “I’ll be right back.” I also went looking for other action, lol.

  61. “I always suspect the hotter partner of an imbalanced couple has sacrificed hotter sex for, security, financial, gain, etc. This is true regardless of which gender partner is hotter. A man who settles for a woman of 1 to 2 SMV points below his SMV is making this sacrifice. He is actually exercising a form of mate guarding.”

    This is not necessarily true, because SMV =/= MMV, and “security, financial, gain, etc.” implies some type of long-term relationship.

    A woman who is “loyal, pleasant, demure, feminine, cheerful, obedient, supportive …” will have an MMV that is higher than her SMV (unless she is maxed out on both).

    If a man has a woman whose SMV is lower than his, but who is attractive to him sexually, and who is an emotionally positive force in his life, then he is not “making a sacrifice”, and he may consider his relationship to be ideally optimized.

    A woman’s natural role is to be taken care of by a man, while a man’s natural role is to take care of a woman. Because of this biological “wiring”, men seek to protect those who are weaker, while women seek desire from those who are above them.

    This is one reason why hypergamy is part of optimization for women, but not for men.

  62. <@ Rollo Tomassi
    I’m happy to say that decision worked out, even after 18+ years in the liquor and gaming industry and having more than enough opportunity (not to mention propositions) to have easily cheated and moved on. While I’ve had many opportunities, Mrs. Tomassi has never given me a reason to be unfaithful.

    That suggests that your wife is faithful and honestly that means a lot. Your wife is a pretty blonde. She could fuck a different Alpha male hedge fund manager every night of the week. But instead she goes to sleep next to you. However women experience love she feels it for you. That’s what her actions say.

    AF/BB is real. But most female behavior suggests that AF is the weak tail of that strategy.

    Of course if I find out my wife has a Mixxxer account my opinion may change dramatically.

  63. @jf,

    Peacocked the crotch bangle yesterday for a plate. Genius here. She never said anything but drawing the attention here with a Pokemon hanging from my zipper.. I kept catching her gaze where I wanted it. Genius.

    If men are reading this and have some game they can get a leg up without ever saying a word. I’ll run some day game using something else later. This plate loves that Pokemon crap. She even played with the bangle. God this crap is absurd. So much red pill truth to always absorb. Women so want you to sexualize everything. As quickly and subtly as possible before your go completely overt and draw her into your frame.

    Now it is so obvious that this is going to work wonders. Genius post.

    @Glen,

    I do understand your anger. To have your own fatherhood stolen from you? It’s why o went through a period where all I did was fuck married women. Or hurt them on purpose. I’m glad my anger is fading. Everything in my life is my fault. Because I’m a man not a child. Not the most responsible teenager in the house. Accepting that everything is my fault and that I lost my child and no one cares is my fault. My ex doesn’t use drugs and barely drinks. Though she does have a huge number of men running through the house I get to pay for. The courts just don’t care. I will do my best to raise my son into a red pill aware man. I wish I could move to the Philippines but I can’t abandon my son. His life will be hard enough being raised by his crazy mother. Again, my fault that she is raising my son. So hard to accept responsibility for everything and have no support. But we are men. There is no other option.

    @Jeremy,

    Incredible posts. I’m learning tons from you.

  64. @ son I would add the woman’s natural role is to help support the man so he can take care of them both and to have and care for children. I think part of the problem today is women expect provision/protection but w/o the supporting/helping in return and putting her man and family’s needs top of list. Women today want to be provided/protected and then also to be able to focus on her own needs and wants as her primary. Take-take does not work. Take-give (each partner both giving and taking) is a balanced system. I largely see women not wanting to give their part because “that’s oppression” and the rest of the feminist dogma. Do women think a man going to an often tedious and not that fulfilling job every day to provide and protect is his dream? Too many do not recognize how much men give and have always given, IMHO. Women’s sophilistic ways likely serves a purpose but when unchecked can be a me-me-me monster. I did it myself, For years, I am ashamed to admit. I didn’t even see it, either. I just bought the blue pill girl version, feminism, as truth. I bet many women don’t even realize how feminism took what was a pretty good system for most (a d yes some were oppressed too, but most were not) and replaced it with one much lesser for BOTH men and women. It’s lose-lose, not that they will see or hear that anywhere mainstream. Women were created to nurture and support others, not to in eat all that in the self (which actually leads to unhappiness, not happiness.) not sure I am saying this right, what you say is beautiful but woman has to give, too.

  65. “That’s why supposedly Red Pill chicks can claim that they don’t dress up when they are out and about in every day life to excite male attraction.”

    A woman’s resource IS her sexuality, a man’s resource is his provisioning.

    Under monogamy culture a woman gave ALL her sexuality to one man and withdrew her sexuality from other men. A woman’s sexuality was removed from the purview of other men and safeguarded for her husband. Her attire reflected this, Islamic women ‘hide’ their hair from strangers but reveal it to their husbands, that’s the monogamy contract.

    Under serial polygyny culture women are deliberately advertising their sexuality to other men under the auspices that serial polygyny allows them to branch swing or engage in extra marital sex if that is their perogative.

    Animals don’t engage in sexual displays for the fucks sakes of it, there’s no way around it, a sexual display is a sexual display no matter how it is dressed up.

    Now, I wonder how these married women would feel if their husbands engaged in the same behaviour and shared their sexual resources? How would these wives like for their husbands to give away half their pay checks to attractive female strangers? Why wouldn’t that be acceptable?

    Rollo is correct, the feminine imperative wants to facilitate serial polygyny culture for women but lock men into monogamy culture strictures. Pure and unadulterated optimized female sexual strategy.

    For me but not for thee.

  66. @redpillgirlnote,

    After being forced into a red pill awareness 15 months ago I agree with so much of what you say. Many men no longer know how to be men. And many women no longer know how to be women. Not that there is anything wrong with being a man nor a woman. I just end up with the conclusion that feminists want women to be men and somehow expect women to be attracted to female traits.

    Hence why I lend credence to the idea that the leaders who dominate the feminist movement are probably high T women who wish they were men. Our culture should celebrate our biological gender roles. Yet it does not and actively tries to condition us to fight our nature.

    I am very thankful that I woke up prior to bring Glens or Rollo’s age. Though had I known the truth of reality fifteen years ago my life would be much improved as would everyone around me.

    Should I be able to own the sexuality of a high value attractive woman who would support me I would be very happy to slave away to support her. But the state is now aligned against me to force me to provision for women who create low value children. Often children who are brought into a line of fire and abuse that I do not want then to suffer.

  67. “Hence why I lend credence to the idea that the leaders who dominate the feminist movement are probably high T women who wish they were men.”

    And/Or lesbians who want access to younger, higher SMV women. Which would encourage “experimentation” and blurs the lines between the difference in masculine vs. feminine dominant behaviors, while at the same time suppressing masculine behavior generally.

  68. @ redpillgirlnotes
    Maybe you have posted on that topic or maybe it’s too personal but I would be interested to hear what she’s doing right or if you prefer a more general angle, a male take on keeping a husband happy!

    1) Put out
    2) Look good – keep your hair long and your body-fat around 20%
    3) Be a nice person

    It’s exactly that simple. He will never leave you. If for some reason he does leave or cheat he’s a psycho. You’re better off without him.

  69. @ jf12
    Now you’ve done it. You’ve stated the problem so clearly that the solution is evident. Women’s entire problem with nice guys, with polite guys, with nonviolent nonthugs, with Christian study group LJBFs, is that the women are reacting as if these men were gay. The only thing women respond to properly is sexualization.

    Hehehe, yep. One of my buddies is an IT nerd and I set him up with an HB6 girl that I worked with. By the end of the second date he still hadn’t kissed her because he was so shy. That was the kiss of death. She executed him. She made up so much bad shit about this guy that never happened and spread it all around the office. It was like a first strike in war. Because he didn’t sexualize the relationship she took it as a rejection. If he would have had enough balls to kiss her none of that would have happened. Needless to say that was their last date.

  70. 3) Be a nice person

    This above all else where #s 1 and 2 flow from #3.

    You serve his interests because provides for and protects you. His interests are not served by nagging and criticism, and yours won’t be either.

  71. @ Sun Wukong
    When it gets really lol-worthy is when some HB4 or less out on the street or hanging out with your friends calls you guy for not wanting to fuck her.

    Yep. If a chick is HB3 or higher she thinks that her shit doesn’t stink. It simply doesn’t compute that men won’t find her attractive enough for sex.

    Exhibit A)

    He’s Just Not That Into You!

    After a magical first date, Susan was so sure that she would hear from Stephen again that she even boasted to friends that she’d met “the one.” Two agonizing weeks later, she was shocked that she never did. “Maybe he got back together with his ex,” one friend piped in. “Maybe he was too intimidated by you,” another said. “Maybe you should call him,” offered another. “Maybe he’s gay,” suggested yet another.

    Maybe you’re fat? Did you consider that?

  72. @zdroi1dz,

    “Maybe you’re fat? Did you consider that?”

    LOL! On they never consider that! At least until one of their group loses 100 pounds and is hit on relentlessly. Then they start talking about getting their stomachs stapled.

    Oh women. So insane.

  73. @redpillgirl, re: “am a woman and if AWALT well then I am too, even if I don’t want or mean to be. I have the “girl” operating system”

    Yes, exactly, and this is what makes you different from all the others: knowing you are like all the others, and being willing to do something about it.

    Although I hear the dual boot options are gaining popularity with other girls these days.

  74. @StringsofCoins, a Pokemon was a good first choice, especially if personalized to her preference. I’m leaning away from the Lucky13 or other lures, even without the treble hooks, and more towards something, I dunno, chick magnety. I’ve literally never worn jewelry of any kind, so I’d have to guess based on what 1970’s disco dudes might have worn as pendants on necklaces.

    A big star, a Nazi cross, a chuck of crystal (or maybe turqoise? chime in gals, we’re trying to invent a trend), a brass ring (“try to grab it”), an old skeleton key, two little ivory tusks (“you wanna see his trunk?”), NOT a dog tag or other name or initial tag, a captain’s wheel (there’s probably a punchline involving “for the seaman”)

  75. @Johnnycomelately, re: “a sexual display is a sexual display no matter how it is dressed up.”

    Yes, of course it is. It is institutionalized torture of unlucky males. Remember, what women enjoy most about hypergamy is getting to turn down good-enough men.

  76. A little shaman bag, no tea bag no politics, something digital – flashing led? Ah! With radar homing signal sound effects, it flashes faster when you point your crotch at the one you plan to love. Boop … boop …boop boop boopboopboopboop …Girls will say “Ugh! That’s a terrible idea! Never do that!”, so it probably works.

  77. @StringsofCoins

    At least until one of their group loses 100 pounds and is hit on relentlessly. Then they start talking about getting their stomachs stapled.

    No way, the rest of her group just sits around complaining about how men only like her because they view her as a sex object. Commerce hamstring to justify not losing a pound because men should like them for their personalities.

    Nevermind that I we can’t put our dicks in their victim mentalities.

  78. @ jf12 – dangly things

    And that’s why the Scots where sporrans with their plaids and kilts. Sadly my ancestry doesn’t justify such fashions. Maybe I can hang a pretzel when wearing lederhosen.

  79. @ jf12 I am not sure about this zipper thing, I must have missed the backstory. Is it a new fad? But I think I get the idea. Of those you suggested, brass ring was the bait that jumped out to me. But you have several great zingers there! (Look away from the zipper! Lol)

  80. Dangly things continued.

    For those of us out west it might be an opportunity to repurpose the fashion abomination known as the bolo tie.

    Perhaps cod pieces will make a comeback. Maybe just sewing gaudy, shiny buttons to flies of our trousers would do the trick.

  81. redpillgirlnotes,

    “I would add that woman’s natural role is to help support the man so he can take care of them both and to have and care for children.”

    I think that you are absolutely right, and that any honest disagreement arises from confusion about the word “support”, which tends to be used to mean many different things.

    In some of my previous comments I have mentioned complementarity, which is essentially a natural interdependence, in which capacities satisfy needs, and strengths compensate for weaknesses.

    However, men and women have different capabilities, and when they choose / desire to support each other, they can do so only in ways that are possible / natural for them, and these are not the same for men and women.
    .

    “I largely see women not wanting to give their part because “that’s oppression” and the rest of the feminist dogma. … I didn’t even see it, either. I just bought the blue pill girl version, feminism, as truth.”

    Because survival (throughout most of our history) has required women to be accepted into groups, they are very easily swayed by supposed consensus, and thus misdirected from a path that otherwise could have been natural for them.

    And enormous resources have been expended to enable the negative types of women, who have been mentioned in some comments here as the “cause” of feminism, to appear much more prevalent and significant than they actually are.

    Furthermore, it seems odd that some who can explain in great detail how undesirable (depending on your agenda) male traits were enabled and amplified by societal conditioning, the Blue Pill, will then refuse to consider that the same could have been done to women.

    Because women operate from emotions (which is necessary for raising children, especially infants) and not from principles, and because they are not natural leaders, for a positive complementarity to be possible, it must first be enabled (and everything that that entails), for women, by men.
    .

    “Women were created to nurture and support others, not to in eat all that in the self (which actually leads to unhappiness, not happiness). Not sure I am saying this right, what you say is beautiful but woman has to give, too.”

    You are saying this exactly right, but some may not yet have the proper context to understand it.

    For the past 50 years or so, the self-reported unhappiness of women has been rising steadily and significantly. But if you look at the women who have self-reported happiness during this same period, and indeed throughout history, you will see that they are precisely the ones who have been “nurturing and supporting others”.

    Unfortunately, it is not difficult to create a self-fulfilling prophesy by constantly telling people that their natural and normal inclinations are bad and will lead to unhappiness, because this can cause them to either 1) follow their ideal path, while simultaneously fighting against themselves to a loss, or 2) do the opposite (which could not possibly lead to happiness, in the first place).

  82. @ Stringofcoins – Please, oh please post a pic of the PokeMon thing hanging from your zipper.

    @ eon & redpillgirl – The operative question when evaluating who is screwing who in the Blue Pill, FI informed world is to ask the age old question: “Qui bene” – who benefits? Women, in spades. So pardon me if I don’t let women off the hook for this shit. I was that way for a while in my early RP journey – a good year of just saying “hey, we have all been operating with a bad script” after being initially pissed and so hurt. It was a nice reprieve to not be angry for a while. Nah, not so much anymore.

    Consider what redpillgirl notes about “take-take” relationships. This isn’t a revelation, women can and do cooperate with others when it suits their interests to do so. Women behave as they do with men because they can get away with it. It’s the old “Why does a dog lick his balls? Because he can” thing.

    Even here we claim they are “solipsistic” – really? As though this is something they are overcome with that can’t be helped. Isn’t it convenient how the solipsism comes and goes? And seems to only apply when women are manipulating and abusing men to get their way or maintain the social order they benefit from? Yet, these same women can turn around be quite rational and aware of others when organizing a fundraiser for the local non-profit or when shopping (crawl inside a women’s shopping mind to see keen analysis and rationality). I keep saying that I’ve been observing women carefully, and this is what I actually see. Women simply know that the fastest route to “winning” with men is to escalate conflict and to not engage in our arguments. That’s an automatic win for a women in the media or interpersonally. All she has to say is, “You’re being too aggressive”…I mean, can you imagine if men held a similar trump card over women? No, I know, neither can I, short of smacking them into submission (which I have no interest in doing).

    Women don’t have to treat men well in today’s world and in fact men are disposable to most women in today’s society. Our suffering is also irrelevant and none of this is true for women in our culture. So pardon me if I don’t go down the “we’re all in this together” path. While of course we are all acting out of instinct and biology and social norms that have been imposed upon us, we also make choices. And most women choose to lap up their privileges and laugh at men the whole way these days.

    The very fact that some women notice it is all the proof I need. It’s not automatic and any woman with a conscience can change her behavior to a significant degree. @KryptoKate – you really can resist fucking that hot guy, you just choose not to because in that moment you’d rather have great sex than be a great wife/mother/partner. It’s a choice. The plain truth is that women are optimizing and using the power of the pussy to get away with social murder in our society.

    Keep it up girls, you’ve just about destroyed western civilization in 50 short years. And while politics is verboten here, the only way this goes on steroids is via politics and the power of the state that politics parcels out. Just look how women vote – always for Daddy state and more goodies for them. Women just gave the U.S. two terms of Barack Obama – a dilettante, a wannabe, a “community organizer” and a well established Marxist (and if you don’t know he’s a Marxist that’s your ignorance, not my bias). Men didn’t put him and his ilk into office, women did. They happily lap up the Marxist division of society into oppressor/victim dyads because it aggrandizes female power. In fact, without Marxism, women would not be seen officially as a “victim block” of their own in our politics. Do you folks here realize that women get “set aside” contracts from the federal and state governments, just like blacks and other minorities under today’s civil rights laws? As I said to a young woman recently, “Look me in the eyes and tell me you or any woman in this country is oppressed.” She just laughed and immediately admitted such an idea is absurd. And every woman here knows the same.

    Why do you folks think it’s women running all these “activist” and Social Justice (that term makes me want to wretch at this stage of the game) NGOs and non-profits? The entire Social Justice Warrior complex is aimed squarely at demonizing men and masculinity, white men, sort of, but really do you see any SJW actually advocating for black men? They advocate for racial justice but not really black men. Nah, they are kind of scary to upper middle class white girls which is why they fantasize about fucking them. The idiocy emanating from this quarter of society is nothing short of unbelievable but now the ideas of the Social Justice Warrior are held by most institutions and the elite in our society, and this moral code informs their actions. All due to mainly to women – not men.

    Nietzsche predicted what the world would become like when women attempted to adopt masculine traits and asserted themselves in our societies politically and intellectually. He claimed that our public political and social discourse would descend into a hash of nonsense, that everything would become dumbed down and absurd. If you can look at the news today and not feel that he was correct, well I say you just aren’t paying attention.

    @ Redpillgirl – The above is just a start on the ‘butcher’s bill’ for women’s perfidy in our world. Which is why I say that any Red Pill Girl should do the following if she’s really been woken up to this insanity.

    1. Don’t talk to us – we know. Take on your sisters. In fact, take on the worst of them, the RadFems, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren. And don’t just do it to advocate for your Christianity – that isn’t the answer here either. Reason and truth are the way forward but women’s very participation in public and political discourse is cheapening reason itself. Commenting here makes no difference. Women will only change if enough women enforce a better standard of personal and political behavior upon their insane sisters – who women currently are allowing to run things. Does it ever occur to you how convenient this is for women? Most distance themselves from RadFem ideas because those ideas are patently insane, but how many women actually refuse to take the goodies these insane bitches win for women? The question answers itself.

    2. Fuck incel guys – I’m no incel and am not asking you to fuck me. But one of the things that I just never knew about before the manosphere was how badly many men suffered due to the unforgiving nature of the SMP. I’ve heard the laments over and over again of men who are 30 year old virgins who ache for the soft touch of a woman and the sexual release only a woman can give them.

    I mean, you are Red Pill now, right? That means you realize that he current SMP leaves as many as 50% of men in sexless, loveless lives. I actually know men who haven’t been touched intimately in 10 or more years (again, not me, my N is over 100), but they are just like me – bio programmed to be very sexually attracted to women. These guys live lives of incredible suffering – and you (and most other women) could relieve their suffering in real ways anytime you choose. But of course, I’ve never yet once met a “Red Pill chick” who actually would devalue her power of sexual selection and her SMV in this way – which tells me everything I need to know. If you really got the monumental suffering this imposes on many men, you would be at least giving incels handjobs with a nice makeout/cuddle session. I mean, do you have any idea the joy this would give guys in this state of affairs? It’s not a stretch to say you’d be saving lives.

    But no, you won’t do that. In fact, whenever I suggest this to Red Pill chicks they freak out and tell me that I don’t “deserve” sex, that it’s their choice and that I’m a pig for suggesting this. Really? Red Pill girls say they care and “get it” – if so, using your biologically granted privilege to relieve some men’s suffering seems a logical personal reaction. It’s easy to comment on blogs and talk – but action is what counts. What are Red Pill women actually doing to change things and help men and to reduce male suffering? Yakking on blogs – and color me as unimpressed.

  83. Just a few minutes before reading this post I messaged a friend suggesting I bring a hottie I’m currently banging to a gathering where I know several of our friends will be. I did this consciously aware of the fact I’d be showing her off. I don’t think my ego is low or I’m low on confidence. In fact I’m quite confident generally and am banging two other hotties on the side (not as hot as the one I’m inviting). I think this has mostly to do with me perceiving her as a trophy, demonstrating to the others that Game works (all of whom are Game aware but not all agree with it) and boosting my own value/ego.

    Seeing a man with a 1-2 point higher SMV chick I think better of him. Seeing a man with a woman that’s 4+ points higher than him I think the relationship has much to do with external factors.

  84. @glenn

    My Red Pill thinking has come with a heavy dose of Machiavellian thinking and understanding of people and their interactions. If you really want to understand what women are up to, do the first thing you must do to form a strategy in war or negotiation: find their true objective. From there you can derive almost all their future actions.

    Women aren’t solipsistic as much as they’re cut throat. If you serve their current objective, you’re part of their life. The moment you don’t, you’re not. It’s pragmatic, efficient, and ruthless particularly when dealing with men. It isn’t personal though, it’s strictly business so long as they win. It only becomes personal when they lose, and even then that’s only a last ditch emotionally manipulative attempt to win before giving up.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: