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.
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?
@Glenn 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? … 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? Hypergamy is a biologically enforced, ladder-climbing motivation. Chaos is a… Read more »
http://i.imgur.com/j4GQzWP.jpg?1
To me at least this is when women look the hottest. Natural. Flip flops, jeans, t-shirt = SMOKIN!
When chicks get dressed up like John Sculley’s new girlfriend with the caked-on makeup, fancy clothes and jewelry it makes them look old. I know some people love it but I hate it. Throw that shit out.
Jeremy – “…realistically the best way to force women to stop overvaluing themselves is to teach men to value themselves and their freedom properly.”
Other than the homosexuallity the classical Greek approach makes more and more sense.
Jeremy – “But even in a masculine dominated world, female sexuality has value, and it should not be otherwise.”
Allow me to rephrase.
But even in a masculine dominated world, women have value beyond sex, and it should not be otherwise, but in a feminine dominated world their only value to men is for sex.
@ allons
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.
No, unless the woman is 1-2 SMV points below the man (not based entirely on his looks), then she’s likely doing other d1ck and he’s the schlub for whom she settled.
@ Jeremy
Hypergamy is a biologically enforced, ladder-climbing motivation. Chaos is a ladder. Therefore, it stands to reason that hypergamy would have selected for women who create chaos
Huh? Chaos is a ladder?
@Badpainter, re: “in a feminine dominated world their only value to men is for sex” Yes. In a male dominated world the female’s contributions are valued to the precise extent that the male is able to *expect* them. “Marge, I’m going to miss you so much. And it’s not just the sex. It’s also the food preparation.” And the purpose of the sexual revolution was to undermine men’s expectations for women, so men would have to settle for less. In a female dominated world, she only makes sandwiches and gives footrubs when she g_d_ well pleases, i.e. basically never, and… Read more »
Chaos is a ladder. Examples: — More fortunes were made during the great depression than any other time in history. More fortunes were made during the 2007/8 financial crisis than in the 40 years previous, and those fortunes are still growing thanks to debt-bailouts. Financial chaos is a ladder for those who are prepared and remain calm. — Human social/political revolution is always chaotic. If it were possible/normal for humans with reasoned/popular arguments to ascend during times of calm, they would do so. History says otherwise. Social chaos is a ladder for those who want to advance an argument. —… Read more »
More pedantically, chaos creates opportunity from the misfortunes of others.
Maybe, but it’s not necessary to create misfortune in others. For instance, when a politician latches onto a crisis, or perceived crisis… terrorism for example… there’s really no misfortune. More people die from Bee Stings each year than die from terrorism. The perception of potential misfortune is enough to convince people that we need to bomb ISIS, even though rational thinking should tell us otherwise. Stable societies have stable values and very predictable judgements on any event that occurs. This makes it extremely difficult and slow for the psychos among us to climb to the top. But drop a bit… Read more »
@ jf12 It’s less a matter of the value of individual women to individual men but rather the aggregate reality of what feminism has turned women in the West and the first world into. That is modern women in developed first world societies have become smaller, weaker, lazier, less creative, whiner men by having forfeit their biological role as the sole producers of children. Giving live birth is the only thing women can do that men can’t, and men do everything else either better than women in aggregate or well enough to have eliminated their comparative advantage except as sexual… Read more »
re: gay marriage and gay arm candy
I think it says something about women, not just gay women, that lesbian couples are an order of magnitude more likely to get state-married than gay male couples.
Beside the few obvious lesbian examples, I’m trying to think of gay couples that could be said to involve arm candy.
Or does it say something about the “idealistic” family of the 50’s that hypergamy had to throw chaos into it? Was there simply not enough social chaos in that world for hypergamous instincts to avoid screwing it all up? Are we as humans, as complementary sexes, only capable of advancing humanity in unstable societies such as a frontier or war? That’s what I wrestle with. I’m convinced that humanity would be very different right now if middle-class families could afford to send their children to frontier colonies where they could live outside the reach of earthly governments. When men can… Read more »
If you want to improve your status with your buddies, keep your house in order, physically and financially. Women come and go.
“Was there simply not enough social chaos in that world for hypergamous instincts to avoid screwing it all up?”
Notice how this shit storm ramped up faster and faster after the end of the cold war.
“In short, we’re born to be nomads, and women (ultimately) can’t stand the civilization men built for them.”
Umm…no. Men built civilization for men. Yes women aren’t happy or appreciative of that, and lack the ability to understand the delicate and fragile system that permits them to acquire ridiculous amounts of footware.
What’s the line about women being charge and living in grass huts? Nothing makes women happier than watching men die for them, there’s no greater drama, and the emotions are at maximum intensity.
@Jeremy, re: “When men can leave all society and take a woman with them, the reproductive imperative becomes much clearer” I’m convinced that dad reproduction i.e. monogamy comes so naturally to most men because monogamous pairings are the best way to increase population to exploit new resources. Thus most all of us are descended from large nuclear families from the periods of exponential population growth with stable social structures. In contrast, during episodes of chaos, famine, war, decreasing resources, it is ever-changing strong-man rule and cad reproduction, with effective polygyny resulting both from strong men acquiring harems and sneaky cads… Read more »
Yeah, but BP, civilization doesn’t help a man become sexually successful. War does though. Many soldiers can end up raping many women as they like during the chaos of invasions/etc.. Reproductively speaking, civilization helps women more than men, or at least it helps their BB requirements. It does nothing for men, whose polygamous strategy works best in a situation where women with no protection are readily available (wartime).
@zdr01dz
I couldn’t care less what a woman wears so long as it ain’t a bunch of extra pounds.
Well, lemme take that back; I briefly dated a chick that decided to pull out the full length jean skirt. No. Just no.
@ Jeremy There’s a constant tension between monogamy and polygamy. Monogamy is stable and makes life better for everyone at the expense of a relative few, and yes women are less than amused. Those few in return don’t have to worry as much about pirates and brigands, and the women don’t have to fear rape (though I think they want to). Polygamy is unstable long term and requires tyrannical, in the modern worst sense, oppression and makes life awful for most including most women. While I know you’re arguing abstract amoral naturalism, I can’t ignore the moral reality of the… Read more »
@ Glenn, January 26th, 2015 at 8:34 am . “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.” Nobody is suggesting that you “let women off the hook” for anything. But “teh wimenz be bitches” is not an answer for everything. And “hypergamy”, “solipsism”, and the “FI” are not magic words that are always applicable and available to wash away your bullshit. In spite… Read more »
@BP
Is that the “restraint of civilized men”? Or is it the FI? It’s hard to separate them in my mind. I’m not actually certain where the civilized man ends and the feminine imperative begins.
@ Jeremy
The uncivilized Hobbesian state of nature man would have killed the children and possibly the women. Not all male actions that benefit women are manipulations of the FI.
@ Jeremy – You are badly misusing the word “chaos” and of course it’s not a ladder, that’s just something cute a writer for a TV show dreamed up. In reality, we live in a complex system with independent agents acting in their own interests and against the constraints of that system institutionally and otherwise. Sometimes there are social upheavals, other times there aren’t – yawn. Yes, tumult can create openings and opportunities for someone who is looking for them. But your quote on the financial crisis of ’07/08 is truly ludicrous. Trillions in wealth evaporated too, btw. Sure, some… Read more »
@ eon – Such a steaming pile of nonsense I’m not even going to bother.
@Badpainter, re: ” Besides women like watching men die so they’ll get a charge out it.”
Maybe, but dying also makes reproduction more difficult for those men.
@Jeremy, re: ” I’m not actually certain where the civilized man ends and the feminine imperative begins.”
The FI never ends.
Brain candy.
http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2015/01/26/research-suggests-that-up-to-one-in-25-people-hears-voices-regularly/
Bed candy.
[link removed]
I only feel the sting of lower smv women dragging me down, I can’t ever recall bringing a girl around my friends for the sake of seeming “cool”. That said i would be just as satisfied with her if she never met them. Often times in my ltrs i would see these outtings with her and friends as “maintenance” so as to ensure sexy time after.
Booty candy. Meghan Trainor fan base. She sexed up her image so that mothers of little girls would be more interested in her.
http://mediaassets.caller.com/photo/2014/12/01/concert_5_10252936_ver1.0_640_480.jpg
@Tiberius, re: “Often times in my ltrs i would see these outtings with her and friends as “maintenance” so as to ensure sexy time after.”
Good catch! That is indeed an important reason, probably the single most important reason that men bring their ltr women to functions.
Your experience of women as drags resonates with practically all men here. Women don’t elevate but certainly can drag down.
@ Glenn
“Such a steaming pile of nonsense I’m not even going to bother.”
I wasn’t writing for your benefit, dumbass, lol.
Did you notice the last sentence quoted from your buddy Svyatski?
It was: “These are qualities which it was essential to teach them.”
But according to you and your sycophants, it is not possible to teach women qualities like how to be good wives and mothers.
@ Glenn But your quote on the financial crisis of ’07/08 is truly ludicrous. Trillions in wealth evaporated too, btw. I really do not consider it so ludicrous, when a Rothschild is quoted as saying this: “The time to buy is when there’s blood in the streets.” When you say “wealth evaporated” you’re not wrong, but you’re using the standard of “paper wealth”, which anyone who knows anything recognizes as mostly a big game. Real wealth is in who owns the assets, Real Estate, Utilities, Gold, etc.. That’s real wealth. Everything else is just cash flow. So yes, paper, financialized… Read more »
@eon re: “good wives and mothers” The quote is ““These girls are weak,” he says in the film. “They don’t have the strength of character. They don’t even have the desire to be strong. Instead, they show submissiveness, spinelessness, lack of punctuality, and many other factors which prevent them from becoming political activists. These are qualities which it was essential to teach them. …”” He said he chose these women because they were easily led, and he had to work to turn them into appearing to be SIW. I don’t know about you but being a shrieking topless globe-trotting activist… Read more »
The first word in “arm candy” is “arm” not “candy”. The first and most important aspect of arm candy is her obedience to and/ dependence upon The Man. This is what Vashti messed up when she disobeyed Ahaseurus.
@ jf12, January 26th, 2015 at 3:15 pm “These girls are weak. They don’t have the strength of character. They don’t even have the desire to be strong. Instead, they show submissiveness, spinelessness, lack of punctuality, and many other factors which prevent them from becoming political activists. These are qualities which it was essential to teach them.” Is equivalent to: “These girls are weak … they show submissiveness, spinelessness, lack of punctuality, and many other factors which prevent them from becoming political activists. They don’t have the strength of character. They don’t even have the desire to be strong. These… Read more »
@Eon, Glenn, Jeremy, etc. When I wrote the post Empathy Sunshinemary (before she cuddled up with Aunt Giggles) linkjacked that post to one of her own where she went into great detail about how women needed to be taught to consider and appreciate their husband’s humanness, particularly when they were incapacitated due to some physical injury or medical condition. The greater whole of her “good christian women” commenters agreed with her assertions after reluctantly admitting that when they discovered their husbands had suffered a debilitating accident, their first concern, their first thought, wasn’t for his physical wellbeing, but her and… Read more »
re: “qualities are teachable to women.”
All qualities? For example teachableness?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Teachableness
jf12 – “Maybe, but dying also makes reproduction more difficult for those men.” And thus the source of enjoyment. AND they get that wonderful combination of schadenfreude mixed with guilt and sympathy for the merely injured men and grieving widows and mothers. An intense emotional experience, especially with the possibility of rape and pillage to follow. A veritable downpour of cascading tingles. My guess is the reality of so many dead men, and the raping and pillaging soon becomes a sort of let down. Possibly damaging if there’s too much intense reality. I wonder if the women of Caen were… Read more »
Friction is a familiar example of a force that is always negative, always slows things down. It does no good to say “Well, but, it’s a force, for heaven’s sake, so use it to your advantage to speed up, since that what all forces do.”
No. Not all forces.
So, if a woman makes reproduction a lot more difficult if not impossible for the majority of men, and if she does reproduce then she makes the man jump through a lot of hoops, then she has fulfilled her role in sexual conflict. And if a man, despite women’s flak, manages to reproduce with an easy Skittles woman and/or more than one woman than he has fulfilled his role in sexual conflict.
Uneasily, I move my game piece and my wives’ game pieces to the winning side.
@jf12
Friction is a familiar example of a force that is always negative, always slows things down.
You’ve apparently never tried to make a wheeled vehicle accelerate or get through a turn.
If you’re only talking about dynamic friction, that’s true jf12, but static friction is actually required for speeding up relative to the surface you’re pushing off against.
What I meant to try to illustrate is that just because a particular motivation/force is subtle, that does not mean it does, or can not dominate the situation.
You can go a whole lot faster skating on ice than walking on concrete, dudes.
If by “use it to your advantage” you mean “ok, it sucks, but if you crawl across broken glass then at least you’re not sitting still”, then ok.
jf12 – “because a particular motivation/force is subtle, that does not mean it does, or can not dominate the situation.”
For example Japan is staring down the barrel of genetic and utural suicide. The current birth rate mean an almost 2/3 reduction in population by 2100. The subtle force is the complete lack of give a shit on the part of the women.
Hypergamy doesn’t care. That absence of caring is the subtle force needed to resist, mostly, all attempts at restraint.
above quote was Jeremy not jf12. Apologies to both.
And for that matter, if you take all of the energy you would have used for static friction and instead throw it behind you for the rocket effect, then you will go a lot faster.
re: sexlessness in Britain too.
In Britain “About 15pc of men and about 35pc of women weren’t interested in sex at all and about 40pc [of couples] had not had sex in the last four weeks.” compared to 20% of young Japanese men and 46% of young Japanese women and 50% of young Japanese couples.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11362306/Why-dont-Japanese-men-like-having-sex.html
I fucking hate you!!!! I have boinked 9/10s, but they were like blow up dolls in bed, just laying there. On with my life I became the beta boy for my now wife of 20 years, she is a solid 7. I never cared about what other guys thought with my hotties. Like you at that age I just wanted a hot chick in bed. My wife was the epiphany girlfriend!!!!!!!!!!!!! She is 9 years older (30 when I met her) and we were friends for 2 years then ended up in bed. To this day she is still the… Read more »
I was not attempting to suggest, to Glenn or anyone, that hypergamy washes away responsibility.
I was simply saying that Glenn’s perspective (in his original comment to which I was responding) was expecting the scorpion to not sting the frog.
re: uneasily winning. As far as I can recall, every woman I’ve actually discussed this with, online for the most part, has eventually made this same point: “You’ve had children, raised to adulthood, by two different women? So you ARE winning.” And I would whine that it didn’t feel like me winning with them, it felt like the women were winning with me. And they’d go “So that means they too thought you were the best one to have children with. So you ARE winning.” It’s difficult to express just how Matrixy it feels to fail to convince (some) women… Read more »
@jf12
Indeed, it’s like being handed a huge payout by someone you know is fabulously wealthy, and having them tell you how awesome you did, and how much of a “winner” you are as they retreat back inside their compound. Sorry ladies, your judgements on male success are as satisfying as conversations with used auto salesmen.
re: Loser game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgSPaXgAdzE re: “That’s chokin’ on the splinters”. My unneutered rescue Weimeraner-mix is a buff 80 lbs in winter. He was bought by me, wife selected for cuteness, to be a companion for our aging spayed female, but merely got on her nerves. For the past five years or so he has been the absolute undisputed ruler of almost half an acre of the Earth, but I am his sole benefactor and sole worthy opponent. I am the only Thing that ever controls him. When he was little, I tried to train him to chase sticks. He was… Read more »
Women go out to get cute dogs to peep cutely out of their cute purses on their arms, to show off to other women.
Men go out to get faithful companions to ride shotgun and flap their ears in the wind, enjoying life together.
Dog, dude, sorry I’ve been inattentive. We’ll go fishing one day this week, just you and me.
@Jeremy
when a Rothschild is quoted as saying this:
By my observations, when any wealthy investor states publicly what you should do, it’s because they stand profit from the misfortune you’ll suffer by doing it. I know if I were at the top of the financial food chain and had the bully pulpit, I’d see that strategy sitting there like an HB12 pushing a pair of angelic boobs at me.
The silly Dodai Stewart misses the entire point.
““[T]he objectification of men is a false equivalency to the objectification of women, because what’s being fetishized is strength. Virility, capability, vigor, fortitude. Power.”
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/bachelor-shirtless-men-dawn-female-gaze-hesaid/
So the things that women ogle, like bulging biceps and bulging crotches, are *good* to ogle, because what women do is good, by definition. A woman’s arm candy is a guy who can deadlift her with one arm.
The most amazing thing to me about women’s resistance is that it can be so easily overcome, if you want to. This resistance tops out at pretty weak in my book, and hence fails badly if it were supposed to be a real test of genetic fitness or other nonsense. Very much like men’s attraction to beauty fails to be a real genetic test: men’s beauty threshold for having sex is quite low. Similarly women’s dominance threshold is quite low in reality.
@Sun Wukong, re: full length jean skirts. These be my peeps. I don’t see the prob. Of course, “we” don’t show elbows either.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pPp38l0RP0o/TjmIPGl6pQI/AAAAAAAAA5k/aM5iuAkGlUQ/s1600/pentecostal%2Bladies.jpg
In front of males I’m slightly ashamed or slightly proud of my ugly or hot fucks. In front of women I’m very ashamed (to be point of never admitting it) or proud of my ugly or hot fucks.
The Rothschilds were bankers, not investors, back when they were actually separate activities. The advice of bankers should always be suspect, but in this case the advice is mathematically sound. Save your money into hard forms of wealth wherever you can (also note how bankers try extremely hard to get every large population saving in anything other than paper forms of wealth), wait for the day that the market (casino) collapses, then use your stored wealth to buy what’s on sale.
Err, I misstated myself there… Bankers tend to prevent large populations from saving in anything other than paper wealth.
@ Rollo, January 26th, 2015 at 4:26 pm I agree with what you wrote, and with what many other men write on this site. My main points often deal with the need to understand that we are talking about a natural system with many levels, and inter-level feedback loops, and to be consistent. By being consistent I mean, among other things, accepting both halves of an almost tautology of one’s own creation, for example: if men are stronger, smarter and more capable than women (who also lack leadership and organizational capabilities), then men are responsible for their society, through action… Read more »
@ Tomassi,
Will the book be offered in a digital version? I’d rather not tip my hand by having your book on my coffee table. Digital versions need never be seen.
@David, of course. That’s actually the delay at this point, but I’m going to release them both at the same time.
Women are notoriously bad at picking mates and determining what are good traits in mates (note the plethora of stories that everybody hears of young women running off with the village idiot or loser bad boy, and we all know how those stories always end). That is why women need men to lead them. However, the current laws and social conventions encourage womens’ worst destructive innate behavior unfortunately. Men and the civilization they built for women serves as a constraint on womens’ behavior, but these constraints to keep womens’ behavior in check have been stripped away. Men have given women… Read more »
@if12
How about we just cover women completely?
That way they’ll know how a man feels.
Women (and not so good looking rich beta men)would completely lose the one and only weapon they have.
I visited Saudi Arabia 10 years ago and I doubt the Saudi men or women knew what an arm kandy is , what was interesting though that women-who are covered- would find a way to pursue good looking men and, ,,yes, and fuck them.
The dynamic was an out of world experience though.
Lookswise, I find it best to leave the considerations of others out of your head. Your attraction to her should be your only concern. However, there are those who seek out easy opportunities for sex (think 250lbs/low relative sexual rank/etc) who brag about having regular sex, but refuse to show any instagram stills to their friends. This comes full circle into a double validation seek (one for bragging, two for hiding the undesirable). As for guys with other girls, I look at the dynamic more than her looks. It’s easy (contrary to popular belief) to lock down a good looking… Read more »
One more thing,
In the early Islamic time the Boss Muhammad ordered ONLY beautiful women should cover their faces , and that prompted the not so beautiful women to object ! So the not so beautiful women were the early feminist pioneers who lobbied for : covers for all .
It sound nuts, but that was for real.
Re: woman commenters; derailing threads I think it’s always important to consider intentions when one is interpreting another’s words. My only intentions, when posting on this or other “red pill” blogs, is to gain insight, pose and consider unsettled questions, and contribute to the development of the collective social analysis by offering my point of view when I think a theory has become exaggerated, off-track, is marred by confirmation bias, or has missed some key considerations. Or to provide supporting experiences/data in areas that I think are on track. In general I think Rollo’s framework is useful and often right.… Read more »
And as an example of me trying to contribute where I think a theory has failed to consider the data rather than anecdote: regarding empathy and injured or ill men, all data I’ve seen shows the opposite effect, with men being much less likely to support an ill spouse than the other way around. See: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33832513/ns/health-cancer/t/men-more-likely-leave-spouse-who-has-cancer/#.VMdHJdLF-ik Men are six times more likely to abandon a spouse with a cancer diagnosis than the other way around. Divorce likelihood after a cancer diagnosis goes way DOWN when it’s the man with cancer, and increases sharply when it’s the woman with cancer. So,… Read more »
I know this is going to get lost, but this section: 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. isn’t quite right. Little girls are no more socialized to fear social ostracization than boys are socialized to punch each other to work out problems on the playground. The fear of… Read more »
@eon Your comment on the fembot 9/10 wife vs. the supportive pretty wife is so amazing. My husband and I talked about this a lot… roosh is right when he says that the manosphere is going the direction of men who are bitter because of their choices being bad. If you choose a woman based only on her looks (and only value 9’s 10’s), you MAY end up with a woman who doesn’t love supporting you in your life goals (she may not even care about your life goals because of her self-absorption), doesn’t love having passionate frequent sex with… Read more »
@Krypto kate
re: “contradictory facts”. You didn’t respond to my points, for example a woman not increasing a negative effect on status is not the same as a positive effect, or that in every single one of your proffered examples of power couples (Bill and Melinda Gates, e.g.) the woman do not increase his status.
@Kryptokate, re: Kipnis
She makes the point that she perceives rapacious men as being the most masculine. But in her Freudian envy she pretends that “women rape too!” instead of women getting raped.
@cupkate
“One study showed that in 93 percent of cases of MSbP (Münchausen syndrome by proxy) the abuser is the mother or another female guardian or caregiver. The female preponderance of the perpetrator may be attributed to socialization patterns that encourage females to seek the sympathy and assistance of others, and to the prevalence of women as the primary care giver within such patterns.”
@Kryptokate re: cancer study
The funniest part about the women divorcing with cancer is that the women filed more. Chamberlain et al. left off that rather pertinent detail, but there were discussions about it. According to the ex-spurts, the reason that the women filed for divorce more is that the women didn’t like how their men were caretaking.
Re: Cynthia
The belief about shame / relational aggression used by girls / women, but not by boys / men (or more than boys / men) is not supported by reality.
Boys use relational aggression (shame, exclusion, gossip, false rumors, ridicule) more than girls:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/AB.21563/abstract
http://www.macleans.ca/society/qa-are-boys-even-more-mean-than-mean-girls/
Pop presentation:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/carolynkylstra/more-like-mean-boys
“more than girls”
That sounds ridiculous to me.
This blog rules. Just a suggestion. I’m sure you are doing it this way on purpose, but I would like to be able to see replies to *my* comments. It seems like registering by email does not really do this since all comments are independent. Follow me? You don’t allow comment “threads.” Actually, it does not appear I am even getting notice of *new* comments. I made some comments using my real email address and I would like to be able to see if you reply with advice. Like you replied to one of my comments with a link to… Read more »
jf12 beat me to it.`
“They found that boys admitted to significantly more acts of relational aggression than girls did.”
Newsflash: study concludes girls dont admit to relational aggression
@anon, I actually had the comments set like that in the beginning, but it got really confusing and cramped sorting out return comments.
I only dislike Disqus because it’s one more app I’d have to deal with. It’s a good comment system, but I like everything in one place.
I’ll consider it.
dude, LOL
” the students were asked how often they had done the following things during the previous 30 days”
Unsurprisingly, girls said they were more often the victim than they were the aggressors, and boys said they were more the aggressors than they were the victims.
Are you kidding me.
Put hidden cameras and record conversations. This self reported business with a hidden agenda is too cliche by now.
re: the narrative of “man bad” regarding women with cancer
In every large study of the effect on couples of cancer, e.g.
Syse, A., & Kravdal, Ø. 2007. Does cancer affect the divorce rate? Demographic Research, 16(15), 469-492.
http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol16/15/16-15.pdf
the effect of cancer on divorce is minimal. Almost always, the divorce rate *drops* slightly after diagnosis. And in the cases where it does rise, it is almost always the women filing more. Keep in mind it was Elizabeth Edwards who filed.
today’s Dear Abby:
“DEAR ABBY: I am considered to be a quite attractive — easily a nine or a 10 — professional dancer here in Las Vegas. I recently met a guy who has literally met almost all my dream qualities for a life partner, husband and father of my future children. The problem is, I’m not attracted to him …”
Abby replies: “… Whether lack of sexual chemistry is a deal-breaker for you depends upon how important sex is to you …”
http://news.yahoo.com/woman-isnt-really-attracted-man-her-dreams-050114253.html
notice there is no consideration for the feelings of BB, he is disposable
The comment format seem to be a pretty good compromise the way that it is now.
I would prefer a single page, because that would make it easier to save an article with all of its comments. But I think that someone mentioned that this slows down loading on some mobile devices.
Slowing things down is why I don’t like Disqus. Disqus requires scripting to be enabled, and when using certain devices on some sites, by the time all of the extraneous ads, videos and other crap gets loaded, I have become bored and moved on.
re: the narrative of “man bad” regarding women with cancer
Laurel Northouse has made a long career of studying the relationships of women who get cancer.
http://nursing.umich.edu/faculty-staff/laurel-northouse
“Northouse found that only 3 to 4 per cent of marriages ended in divorce within the first 12 months and that, in some cases, it was the wife who decided she no longer wanted to invest emotionally in a man she did not love. “To outsiders it might look as if the husband is leaving her,” Northouse says.”
Perhaps less wivs leave their cancer striken husbands because: Cancer provides drama and strong emotions She is probably getting lots of sympathy support from her circle. If the hubby kicks the bucket, she gets everything. Divorce only nets half of everything. Look, I can absolutely believe some women would stay and support a sick husband from a strong sense of loyalty. But please, let’s not try and yet again paint women as saints. And with the same blow paint men as cold and emotionless robots “ditching” a sick wife. Are we going to also pull out the old “trading for… Read more »
Which sex carries the most life insurance benefits? Which sex dies sooner and carries the most life insurance risks? Which sex is more socially expected to provide for their family post mortem?
It’s not rocket science, it’s just pragmatism.
re: “Look, I can absolutely believe some women would stay and support a sick husband from a strong sense of loyalty.”
Me too. My mother did.
“Abby replies: “… Whether lack of sexual chemistry is a deal-breaker for you depends upon how important sex is to you …” Jesus Christ, most men really have no idea how much women will compromise in relationships with men. If he meets her provisioning requirements, She’s game and she will husband him up, even though she has no or little sexual attraction to him – I’ve seen this shit with so many nerd betas. It’s sometimes painful to see this stuff happen. These marriages are more common than one would think I believe and are ticking time bombs. If he… Read more »
“Abby replies: “… Whether lack of sexual chemistry is a deal-breaker for you depends upon how important sex is to you …” I’ve never once in my entire life heard any such advice given to/by a man. Women NEED to understand that for not men sex is THE primary need he is seeking to fill by getting married. No man ever has thought “I can’t wait until after the honeymoon when the sex will finally dry up so I can relax” yet it seems from the quote above women are actually choosing that path. And as pointed out, not one… Read more »
From the happybachelorsforum blog: This comment was from a woman who made a very big confession. Here it is: It is a little strange to be saying this, but you guys are far too nice to the women out there. I was always the “conservative” girl in school. I got married early. Let me tell you, most women out there have had LOTS of sex partners. The idea that there are two kinds of men, those you have sex with and those you marry, is the rule. Basically, a lot of women like to fall in love over and over.… Read more »
Blue-pill beta guys generally do not understand women, even so-called “nice” women that try to present themselves in a good light. See here: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/03 … ize-women/ Why do so many betas harbor gauzy delusions about female sexual nature? Why are monogamously inclined traditionalists, manginas and white knighters so quick to sanctify women and paint their misbehavior in rose-colored hues while simultaneously offering unconditional support and shitlapping amen choruses for women when they accuse men of committing a litany of hackneyed misdeeds? I’m here to provide what I believe is the most parsimonious answer to this riddle: Beta males are rarely… Read more »
re: Dear Abby answer
Abby goes so far as to imply that the woman’s lack of sexual interest is a *good* thing, for her, in the long run. Abby basically says that even if the woman were sexually interested then that sexual interest would inevitably go away anyway.
“Abby goes so far as to imply that the woman’s lack of sexual interest is a *good* thing, for her, in the long run. Abby basically says that even if the woman were sexually interested then that sexual interest would inevitably go away anyway.”
Well that will certainly get men lining up to say “I Do” faster!
Do women truly not see the problem here?
Again, men expect sex to continue pretty much til their last breath. In fact, I’d like to leave this world with a bang. Literally and figuratively.
@ Jeremy – Let’s be clear about something. You lecturing me about the financial crisis is absurd, so just stop. The more you say, the more obvious it is how little you actually understand about global financial markets and economics. I won’t go into it any further but your entire analogy was silly and is no proof point of anything to do with this blog or topic. Chaos is not a “ladder” and someone is always making money when others are losing, yawn. Just because some Rothchild banker made a comment adds exactly zero to this conversation. But hey, wow,… Read more »
@ eon – We also have uncovered something else. You don’t know the meaning of the word solipsism. It’s not “being selfish”, no it’s walking around with the delusion that others aren’t real. A solipsistic being treats the rest of the world and those in it no differently than he treats the thoughts in his head. Such a person acts like the only reality is what is inside their mind. It’s like the real world is no different from a cartoon to them. Do yourself a favor, before you start another stupid argument, why don’t you make sure you know… Read more »
@ Rollo – Don’t change the comments. By making us work to dig through and keep track of things it discourages the trolls. Disqus makes it to easy to just flame away whereas here you really need to work to keep up with the thread and I think that’s why so many commmenters here are awesome.
@ jf12, teddj4g
“Abby goes so far as to imply that the woman’s lack of sexual interest is a *good* thing, for her, in the long run. Abby basically says that even if the woman were sexually interested then that sexual interest would inevitably go away anyway.”
It would only go away for her husband. It would remain for other d1ck.
@ Kate – So what say you now? Since it’s actually more women cancer victims filing for divorce than the husbands, do you change your equalist view of this? And let me just reiterate. While I don’t agree with some of your commentary, I very much take it as the kind of contribution to intellectual discourse and discovery that you intend it to be. I don’t find it self-serving or unnecessarily antagonistic. For example, when tangling with Dragon-Tatoo-Hamster, you chimed in that you absolutely understood what dressing up and going out and about does, and how you are intentionally arousing… Read more »
Marriage statistics indicate that couples are more well matched now in terms of finances than what they were 50-60 years ago. Why is this the case? Is it a sign that men care about status too and want to pool their resources with women in order to achieve a higher standard of living, or is it about protection? In other words, is it a conscious trade off by most men to trade off the ‘best looks’ for (the illusion of) greater security? I’d argue it’s about protection, and that’s certainly the case with most men I know. If you are… Read more »
Bios – maybe that’s a regional/class thing. My wife makes less than half of what I do. Of my male friends, only one comes to mind where both make about the same income, and they are the only couple I know without kids. Instead they spend their free time and mteoney travelling. At any rate, I don’t know a single man that purposely looked for high income or status in a wife. Most did their best to avoid taking on debt, which may be a contributor to their wives lower income. They dsidnt bring huge college debt with them into… Read more »
girlwithadragonflytattoo (January 27th, 2015 at 8:57 am), Thank you for your kind words about my comment. You are absolutely right that “Some women create a beautiful marriage, and some are all about themselves. You MAY have more of the latter when you are dealing with 9’s 10’s.. but definitely not always. Inner beauty really does matter”. I emphasized the 7/8 and 9/10, not to imply that outer beauty was ever inversely correlated with inner beauty, but to remind people that outer beauty without inner beauty is of little value. “… I go to a wives group JUST so that I… Read more »
@ Glenn “One last attempt. You wrote a 1500 word comment replying to my comment, but didn’t ‘write if for me’ …” My comments are for the benefit of honest seekers. . “We also have uncovered something else. You don’t know the meaning of the word solipsism. It’s not “being selfish”, no it’s walking around with the delusion that others aren’t real.” We have also uncovered something else: you can’t read. I didn’t write “selfish”, I wrote “self-centered” (engrossed in oneself), because it is a practical equivalent for “solipsism”, whose dictionary definition is “The theory that the self is the… Read more »