Dream Killers

Women should only ever be a complement to a man’s life, never the focus of it.

How common it is today to be married or getting married before we’ve realized any of our potential. For all the articles I read moaning and groaning about what a listless generation of “kidult” males we’ve inherited, that’s far removed from the reality of the young men I do consults with. No, what they want is just enough Game knowledge to connect with their Dream Girl and relax into a blissful beta cocoon of monogamy. They want to commit. Their lifetime AFC psychological conditioning makes commitment an urgency.

It never ceases to amaze me when I talk with these young men in their teens and 20s and they try to impress me with their fierce independence in every other realm of their lives, yet they are the same guys who are so ready to limit that independence and ambition in exchange for dependable female intimacy. They’re far too eager to slap on the handcuffs of monogamy, rather than develop themselves into men of ambition and passion that women naturally want to be associated with.

The truth however is that the longer you remain uncommitted, the more opportunities will be available to you. It’s been stated by wiser Men than I that women are dream-killers – and while I agree with this, I’d say this is due more to the man involved, and their own complicity and apathy, than some grand scheme of women.

It’s actually in women’s best interest that you don’t commit to them for a variety of reasons. I realize how counterintuitive that reads, but in your being so readily available you decrease your value as a commodity to them. Scarcity increases value, and particularly when the reason for that scarcity is something that serves another’s interest (hers in this example). The mid-20s Man pursuing his ambition to become an attorney in law school or the pre-med intern spending long hours at the hospital with aspirations of becoming a doctor is hindered and encumbered with the complications that maintaining a monogamous relationship necessitates of him. His time and efforts need to be applied toward acheiving his goals to become an even higher value Man – not just in terms of financial success but for his own edification and confidence. Needless to say, the constraints and obligations that maintaining a monogamous relationship require – both in time and emotional investment – make achieving these ambitions far more difficult.

I tend to promote the idea that Men should be sexually and emotionally non-exclusive until age 30, but this is a minimal suggestion. I think 35 may even serve better for Men. The importance being that as a Man ages and matures in his career, his ambitions and passions, his personality, his ability to better judge character, his overall understanding of behavior and motivations, etc. he becomes more valuable to the most desirable women and therefore enjoys better opportunity in this respect. Women’s sexual value decreases as they age and it’s at this point the balance tips into the maturing Man’s favor. It’s the Men who realize this early and understand that bettering themselves in the now will pay off better in the future while still enjoying (and learning from) the opportunities that come from being non-exclusive and non-commital make him a Man that women will compete for in the long term.

In your mid-20s you are at the apex of your potential with regards to the direction you will influence your life to go. I’m not going to make any friends by pointing this out, but what pisses off most “serial monogamists” is the unspoken regret of having assumed the responsibilities, liabilities and accountability of what monogamy demands before they truly understood their potential.

If you are single at 35 with a moderate amount of personal success, you are the envy of man-dom because you possess two of the most valuable resources most men your age or older statistically do not – time and freedom. I envy you. You are unshackled by the responsibilities, liabilities and accountabilities that most men your age in marriages, LTRs, with children, or recovering from divorce must contend with daily. Without any intention you are in such a position that you can go in any direction of your choosing without considering the impact of your choice for anyone but yourself. Many other men, in the most ideal of LTRs, do not have this luxury.

When you think of all the responsibilities that are required of most men (and women) in modern life today, you have won the lottery! I was once asked what I’d buy if money were no object, to which I answered, time. Power isn’t financial resources, status or influence over others; power is the degree over which you control your own life, and right now you are powerful. Trust me, this is as good as it gets and this is made all the better because you are old enough to understand and appreciate what is really at work here.

Women are damaged goods for you now? So what? You have the freedom to sample as indiscriminately or as particularly as you choose. Can’t find a good LTR? Why would you want to?! Let her find you! You fear you’ll end up old and lonely? I’d fear ending up so paralyzed by a fear of loneliness that you’d settle for a lifetime of controlling misery in a passionless marriage.

I’m an adherent of the ‘build it and they will come’ school of thought in this regard. Women should only ever be a compliment to a man’s life – never the focus of it.

Is it better to choose the path of least resistance to get to an idealized, prefabricated intimacy or self-develop and get the same intimacy? True, both instances put women as the focus of a Man’s life, and this is a position that most women will find endearing at first, but suffocating in the end. Women want to ‘want’ their men. Women want a Man who other men want to be, and other women want to fuck. She doesn’t want a slave to her intimacy since this puts her in the masculine role. Rather, she wants a decisive mature man who has the confidence to put her off, to tell her ‘No’, in favor of his ambition and passions as this serves two purposes. First, it sets his direction as the one of authority and his development as the primary; the results of which she and her potential children will benefit from. Secondly, it puts her into a position of chasing after him – essentially his legitimate ambitions and passsions become the ‘other woman’ with which she must compete for his attention.

Note that I stated ‘legitimate’ ambitions here. A woman involved with a law student or an intern who have the potential to become lawyers and doctors are fairly solid bets for future security. An artist or musician, no matter how talented or committed to their passions will only be viewed as beneficial if they can prove their case to select women. However this can be offset by singleminded determination, once again, with select women with a capacity to appreciate this. This said, think about the fellow who’s chosen to be a plumber or a mechanic as his calling. The best plumber in the world is only going so far unless he has dreams to own his own business.

All of this is limited by a man’s attitude towards the opposite sex. Women are dream killers. Not because they have an agenda to be so, but because men will all too willingly sacrifice their ambitions for a steady supply of pussy and the responsibilities that women attach to this.

So yes it is better to develop yourself rather than take the path of least resistance. That’s not to say don’t sarge until you’re out of college, in your 30s and have your career in order. It is to say don’t consider monogamy until you are mature enough to understand it’s limitations and you’ve achieved a degeree of success to your own satisfaction according to your ambitions and passions. It is also to say that women should compliment and support your plans for your own life.

The Burden of Selectivity


You get the men you deserve ladies.

The latest hotness in feminine self-righteous indignation in the manosphere this week is the new Atlantic article by Kate Bolick (courtesy of Susan Walsh and her self-impressed 3rd page link). I generally don’t bother myself with bleating, overwritten catharsis articles bemoaning the woes of an HB 5, post-Wall, aging spinster upset with (beta) men not excusing her indiscretions by sharing in her entitlement to provide her with the loving stable relationship she maliciously turned down at 28. However, it did spark an interesting debate at SoSuave with regards to the variance in selectivity in mate selection respective to each gender.

I believe there’s an interesting misconception about the mutuality of shared criteria both men and women commonly seek in a life-partner. Women, steeped in their solipsistic ‘girl-world’ reality, tend to find it inconceivable that a man wouldn’t share in precisely the same life expectations and scheduling that women would. Their feminine imposed reality presume that men will autonomously know that what works best for women is ALWAYS the “right thing to do.”

However, I think we’re kind of assuming false equivalencies in respect to how either sex goes about choosing an acceptable mate for life. On this side of 40 (or hell, even 30) it’s real easy to reflect on our past experiences and presume we as men actually had any clue as to what qualities in a woman we knew were or weren’t deal breakers for commitment. Infidelity notwithstanding, what was really a red flag for you when you were in your mid-20s? Did you even know? I sure as hell didn’t.

Women’s hypergamous natures make them far more exacting in their selection process, far earlier in life, and their list of prerequisite attributes and characteristics more rigid than any man’s would ever be. This same innate hypergamy also makes them susceptible to a constant doubting about any selection they do commit to. Ergo, the biologically hard-wired need to shit test even after 10 years of marriage.

Not so for men. If she’s relatively hot, sexually accessible and marginally loving, we’re usually in. And you know why we’re in? Because it seems like a good idea at the time – and that’s what gets us into trouble in our youth. In fact we’re not encouraged to presume we could actually be selective. That would mean preempting women as the prime selectors for their imposed reality – men even being educated in what would account for a red flag is pretentiousness deserving of shame.. Men are far less prone to turn down a ‘sure thing’ that’s producing semi-regular rewards / reinforcement (sex) in favor of an ‘unsure thing’ that’s an unproven commodity for him. It’s only later in life, when we can remove ourselves from the game and look at things objectively that we get even an inclination of what characteristics a woman needs to possess beyond the physical and sexual for us to decide what works best for us.

And then, God forbid, a Man actually take action based on his personal assessment of the characteristics he does decide upon. From a societal standpoint men will never enjoy the same degree of social support women do for taking action in “doing what’s best for them.” Any Man with the forbearance enough to reject or break up with a woman based on his personal criteria is instantly labeled ‘shallow’ and shamed for daring to reject the poor victimized woman he was “lucky” to have had ever accept him.

The trick of women’s mate selectiveness lays in keeping men ignorant of what qualities (beyond the sexual) might make for the best LTR pairing long enough for her to capitalize on her beauty and youth, but not so long as to push past the expiration date of her hitting the Wall. This is why the 28 to 30 year mark is so pivotal to women. Her decade (or so) long window of prime beauty and selectivity is winding down. It’s not a woman’s mythical biological clock that’s prompting her to consider her maternal instincts – it’s the, now very real, actualization that she needs to lock down a commitment to provisioning from a man who, by the time he hits 30-35, should be awakening to the way women’s game is played and starts to feel more comfortable in qualifying women based on his learned experiences.

Nothing simultaneously frightens and excites a woman more than a Man who’s self-aware of his own sexual market value. This is why every effort is made via social conventions to repress him from realizing this, and every effort is made to shame and ostracize him once he’s conscious of it – and a prime example of this is the duplicitous nature of articles like Bolick’s decrying men’s unwillingness to grow up and give women the life they should know is “doing the right thing” after 20 years of berating men for not respecting them asserting their independence from men.

Would you leave if she got fat?

Tony Romo would.

It appears that the topic du jour in the community this week has been, (how shall I state this?) women of “larger girth” and their oddly commensurate attitudes of entitlement, due to the the ‘love thyself’ body image apologists making their mark on popular culture.

I generally go into great detail on a lot of my posts about the conditions for intimacy women place on men. Roissy codified this as the “436 bullet point checklist’, but I just tend to distill women’s list of stated criteria a man needs to meet in order to be acceptable for her intimacy. He’s got to be attractive, tall, well employed or the potential to be so, he must have status (some call it power), be caring, sensitive, humorous, educated, not overbearing, decisive, confident, a good listener,..etc., etc. and the list goes on and on.

However, rarely do I have the chance to explain men’s one condition for intimacy – physical attraction. She’s GOT to be hot. Guys rarely start thread topics seeking advice in order to hook up with  HB 2s or 3s – they post about HB 7s to 9s.

That said, a Man’s one condition should be pretty important as well as effect the highest standard he’s capable of attaining. Not accounting for Game, men’s individual ability to attract women is based on a number of criteria (including his own appearance) and respective of his own physical conditions – in other words, fat guys are going to be limited in their ability to attract exceptionally fit women, and those that do so by meeting women’s other conditions for intimacy (most commonly wealth) will still be hindered in their ability to maintain a woman’s continuous interest level, genuine desire, arousal and passion. 

The same situation holds true for women only there is a much higher standard for maintaining her physical attraction. His one condition for intimacy is that she remain attractive and to a greater degree, sexually available to him. In order to circumvent this women for centuries have maintained a complex social dynamic that makes his one condition his greatest fault. Thus we hear how ‘shallow’ he is for not seeing her ‘inner beauty’. We are scolded for being ‘superficial’ and ridiculed as being unevolved troglodytes for those men with still enough testosterone to overtly say they’re looking for the most attractive woman they can get.

“It’s what’s on the inside that counts”, or “Beauty is only skin deep” has been the Disney mantra of westernized romanticism and ‘courtly love’ since the Renaissance. And why not? It works in a woman’s biological favor to breed with the male gifted with not only the best genes, but also the best ability to provide for her security and that of her offspring. What better social dictum than one that shames him for recognizing his one condition for intimacy while simultaneously giving her the advantage of better selection when she doesn’t measure up to what his standards would biologically be his preference? Human beings have many social practices that have the latent purpose of thwarting our evolved, biological best interests; this is one of them.

Just as a side note here, I should point out that the two most common reasons cited for divorce in western culture are sex and money, and in that order. Men most commonly complain that their wives are no longer in the shape that they were when they met and women generally complain of reasons relating to his ambition and economic status.

Every married man I’ve known has always expressed feelings that his wife isn’t as sexually available – in frequency or intensity (i.e. passion/desire) in comparisson to when they first encountered each other. Generally this is due to her “letting herself go” after marriage or childbirth and she no longer ‘feels sexy’ so sex becomes less important to her or worse still, it takes the status of becoming another ‘household chore’ to add to her list. This then becomes a vicious cycle; she’s let herself go, sex decreases in importance to her and she makes little attempt to, or has no time to take care of herself physically as she did in her youth when she had a prime motivation to maintain herself in peak physical shape (or as close as she could). Add to this the psycho-social dynamic that stresses that men ought not to be so concerned with the physical or place such importance upon sex, and goes as far as to shame him as a ‘deviant’ if he is unwilling to internalize and accept this. Her lack of desire is characterized as HIS problem.

He of course feels cheated and goes through the frustrating internal turmoil of dealing with a social dynamic that tells him he’s ‘bad’ for recognizing his wife is no longer the woman he married. This is the ‘bait & switch’. Her sex drive and physical condition is more than acceptable during courtship and pre-marital relations, but after the marriage he feels he got a raw deal and is powerless to even mention that she ought to take better care of herself for fear of driving that psychological wedge between them that the dynamic of ‘loving her for what she is and not her physical form’ dictates. Essentially he is stripped of his one condition for intimacy while her conditions remain and are even more pronounced in light of the responsibilities he assumes in marriage or an LTR.

How important does the role of attraction play in a relationship? The funniest thing is you can apply the same idea to women with regards to a man’s level of success. If a guy cheats on his girlfriend or wife after she ‘lets herself go’ and puts on 20 extra pounds he’s called ‘shallow’, yet if a woman, hypergamously, leaves a guy who’s out of work and/or lacks a certain level of ambition she’s just ‘being prudent’. That said, the definition of what is ‘shallow’ is generally defined by women. It’s a man’s biological imperative to mate with as many fit and attractive females, while it’s a woman’s imperative to choose the male who is best capable of providing her with security and by default to ultimately share in parental investment. But, feminized (not feminist) society calls a man shallow and a woman wise for accepting the roles nature has dealt for them. So it’s my advice that we stop accepting this epithet of ‘shallow’ as some kind of punishment for simply being a man.

In terms of life investments and capitalizing upon opportunity and ambition, men have FAR too much on the line in the long term NOT to be concerned with demanding the highest standard from a woman for an investment that goes beyond anything she could hope to genuinely appreciate or match by other means. It’s really up to you to make the judgement call, but by no means should you allow accusations of superficiality influence your decisions in which woman you ‘should’ find attractive. As a Man, you are well within your rights to expect a maintained physique from a woman, considering the far greater sacrifices she expects from you. Would you leave her if she got fat? Damn right you would. Would she leave you if you went beta-listless-unemployed-alcoholic? Damn right she would.

Women & Sex

“Booty is so strong that there are dudes willing to blow themselves up for the highly unlikely possibility of booty in an other dimension. There are no chicks willing to blow themselves up for a penis.”
– Joe Rogan

One of the single most annoying tropes I read / hear from men (more so than women) is the “Women are just as / more sexual than men” canard. Nothing stops me in my tracks more abruptly than reading this line parroted back in some form by a self-effacing white knight trying to convince himself, hope against hope, that it could be true. This is a VERY effective feminine social convention, even internalized and spouted back by the likes of more than a few infamous PUAs. This fantasy belongs among the higher order social convention myths like the Myth of Sexual Peak. Just a rudimentary knowledge of female biology is all that’s needed to deconstruct the myth.

Women are more sexual than men, but they are repressed due to a lack of “trust”.

Patently false. A healthy male produces between 12 to 17 times the amount of testosterone a woman does. It is a biological impossibility for a woman to want sex as much as, or as often as men. Trust me, when a woman says, “I don’t understand why sex is so important to guys” she’s speaking the literal truth. No woman will ever experience 17 times the amount of her own testosterone levels (barring steroids). Amongst its many other effects, testosterone is the primary hormone involved with stimulating human libido. I should also add that, on average, and barring environmental variables, a mans testosterone only declines 1% per year beyond age 40, so even at age 60 the average, healthy male is only dealing with an average 20% deficit in testosterone.

Critics of this observation like to argue that, for female sexual response and arousal, testosterone isn’t the only factor to consider. To which I’ll agree, however it is the PRIMARY factor in sexual response. A woman cannot possibly understand what 12 to 17 times their present amount of testosterone could feel like without steroid use. In fact the first effect female bodybuilders report when cycling anabolic steroids is a 100 fold increase in sexual interest and libido. So in terms of natural female hormonal / biochemical response there is no unaltered way a woman could ever make an accurate comparison to what a man’s baseline libido is in relation to her own. Women’s sexual desire is also cyclical. Even at the peak of her ovulatory cycle, when she’s at her horniest, she’ll never experience what men do 24 hours a day. This is the root of the myth, and the source of the social convention.

Other critics would erroneously argue that estrogen plays a part in female sexual arousal. They’d be wrong.

Estrogen does ‘control’ libido – for menEstrogen Have a look at the Functions section here. And while you’re at it you may want to have a look at Testosterone; and in particular this:

Like men, women rely on testosterone to maintain libido, bone density and muscle mass throughout their lives. In men, estrogens simply lower testosterone, decrease muscle mass, stunt growth in teenagers, introduce gynecomastia, increase feminine characteristics, and decrease susceptibility to prostate cancer. Sexual desire is dependent on androgen levels rather than estrogen levels.

I also understand that female sexuality functions differently than male sexuality, but this only reinforces my point. Women’s sexuality is cyclic, not only on a monthly schedule, but also over periods of a lifetime (menopause, and peak fertility for instance). There are periods over a month and a lifetime where sexual desire waxes and wanes, (healthy) men’s stays relatively constant from puberty to about age 40. Women are slower to arouse, they tend to need more than just visual stimulation, and there is definitely a psychological element (they need a fantasy) necessary. Men only need visual stimulation and minimal feedback to get aroused (i.e. porn).

It should come as no shock that post-menopausal hormone therapies use testosterone to boost women’s flagging libidos too. When women are at the peaks of their ovulatory cycles, low and behold they experience a sharp spike in testosterone levels in order to facilitate pregnancy and then it gets flushed out during menstruation. You can debate about how best to get a woman’s testosterone flowing, but it’s testosterone that’s needed to prompt a sexual response.

Now the real question is, why would such a popular myth be such a useful social convention? Think about it. It sexualizes women, while not making them outright sluts. They can avoid the stigma of promiscuity while presenting the fantasy that they are secretly “more sexual” than they are “allowed” to be, if only they could meet a man skilled enough to bring this out in them. It’s a sexual selection convention. The fantasy is that women are really these wolves in sheep’s clothing for the right guy. To an extent this is true. Studies do indicate that women in their peak fertility window do in fact aggressively seek out Alpha males for conventional sexual encounters. However, again, the root of this social convention is in the presumption that “women are just as sexual as men”, which is simply not the case considering the conditionality of the female sexual response.

No self-interested Man is ever going to be encouraged to refute the idea that women are equally preoccupied with, equally aroused as, or equally desirous of sex as men are. We love the fantasy that women are secretly yearning for sex with us, if only society were more open and accepting of feminine sexuality. Yet, in the same breath we’ll hear about how slutty and aggressive women have become in the fall of western society by the same guys. It’s ironic, but it gives guys hope that if they can find the secret formula to unleashing the sexual beast within every woman he’ll find this insatiable she-devil to pair off with monogamously. If women were men’s sexual equals, why would they not be given to the same drives that conflict with monogamy? Imagine a world where women are as horny as men. Think of a gay bath house and you might have a workable model.

Women of course love to encourage and reinforce this social convention because it sounds like empowerment in the face of patriarchal sexual oppression (yes, we’d be more sexual if you’d only allow us to you evil men), while at the same time tacitly acknowledging that it turns men into white knight sympathizers of the cause (i.e. feminine entitlement and primacy).

The point of my starting this topic wasn’t to debate whether or not women are sexual at all – obviously they are – however it was my intent to draw attention to the canard that women (and their would-be male identifiers) would like everyone to believe, “women are just as / more sexual than men”. No woman can make a realistic assessment about that unless she’s had 12 -17 times her natural testosterone levels increased and lived in a man’s biological condition. Just on the face of it the assertion is silly, but as I said, for women it’s empowering to think that women are “just as sexual” as men. And female-identifiers are all too happy to reinforce that meme because it offers them the hope of getting laid with one of these ‘sexually repressed’ women.


I’ve never had meaningless sex,… I meant to bang every girl I ever did.

Whenever I author a particularly inflammatory post or forum thread that grates on people’s ego-invested beliefs, one of the first accusations I expect to have leveled at me are those that echo a shaming appeal to moralism. I can generally identify a pretty important issue if the response to exposing some uncomfortable truth requires questioning my common sense or ethics. On a larger scale, many a White Knight, and many an ethics-invested woman will simply default to ‘higher self‘ arguments when confronted with simple observations that challenge what they believe – and what they assume everyone else believes along with them.

People with questions don’t frighten me, it’s the people without any that scare the hell out of me.

My problem isn’t necessarily with principles or morals or ethics in and of themselves, but rather men chumpishly clinging to them when in actuality they really had no other options to give themselves a wider perspective on what they believe.

They make necessity a virtue.

For instance, telling yourself you’re remaining (conditionally) celibate in order to hold to some higher ideal is really just trying to prove a negative if you don’t really have any valid options to influence your decision in the first place. If you weren’t get laid to begin with it seems like prudence to convince yourself and others that it’s really by your design. You ‘win‘ by not doing anything.

And it’s unassailable. I can’t doubt the merit of a guy’s convictions when nothing is what’s required to prove them. I read a lot of guys who question the merits of Game. Some reject it entirely or profess some desire to “get out of all the game playing” in order to rationalize their inability to adopt a new, more productive, mindset for themselves. Usually this is accompanied by some qualification as to how they’ve seen it all, banged their fill of “low quality women“, and now have developed some higher sense of self – all while implying those still “in the game” have not – and are now giving themselves ‘permission‘ to exit the game by settling down with some girl in blissful monogamy. They’ve finally grown up and are doing “the right thing.” It’s like all endings to romantic comedies – he’s really a bastard with a heart of gold who met the ‘right’ woman to bring it out in him. For women, this is usually part and parcel of the Epiphany Phase, but for men it’s the virtue signaling that accompanies his following The Script.

Anyone would sound like an idiot for trying to convince you not to be moral – to drop your integrity or demean yourself – but that’s the reason appeals to moralism sound good. Being resolute is admirable, but until your virtue is significantly tested they’re just excuses that look nice on your sleeve. Guy’s who have legitimate harems don’t make announcements about how they’re renouncing them in favor of ONE quality woman. There’s no self-convincing, they just do it, without any fanfare or seeking affirmation from others for having done so.

It’s been my experience that the guys who are the most vocal about the merits of self-esteem and personal integrity trumping sexual experience are generally the same guys who aren’t hooking up with any real frequency anyway. Remember, a sacrifice is only significant when you actually have something relevant to lose.

The points these guys like to make are generally based on common truisms that very few people will argue with – and they know this. We’d all like to think that possessing some basic form of self-control is admirable, particularly in respect to our base impulses, but for as much as we’d like to self-righteously pat ourselves on the back for “resisting temptation“, the fact remains that yes, we are still motivated by those impulses. I can’t think of anyone who’d want to identify with the “sex driven man” label – the guys who lets his dick do his thinking – and certainly not as his recognized source of esteem, however, the physical/biological forces that motivates his libido is still very real.

Flowery prose doesn’t make a personal anecdote a universal truth. It’s interesting that a virtuous Purple Pill guy will make a point of personal esteem being a paramount virtue in one paragraph, yet still equate bedding a “woman of value” with a sense of victory. He did it the right way, right?

It’s interesting to me when I hear appeals to righteousness in the form of deriding the experiences of men (sexual or otherwise) by characterizing them as worth less because they supposedly compensate for some inner failing or need for ‘personal validation. One canard is the presumption that a guy with many lovers in his past must somehow be banging his harem to impress himself or others. I’ve honestly never known a guy who didn’t enjoy sex for the sake of sex. Considering the difficulty most men encounter in just banging the handful women they do in the average lifespan, I doubt the few men who actually can enjoy a variety of women do so simply to acquire more accolades from other men for having done so. And that’s the utilitarian aspect of moralistic men shaming other men – it’s not that men with more access to sex need to validate themselves, it’s that moralistic men with less access to sex believe that those men would even care about their opinions enough to be validated.

What’s ironic to me is that the same self-righteous appeal to adhere to convenient convictions is actually done for much of the same reasons they accuse other men of – to garner respect and affirmation for doing so.

If you choose to derive your personal value from some esoteric sense of what sex ‘should‘ mean, more power to you, but I find it’s a much healthier position to accept a balance between our carnal natures and our higher aspirations. It’s not one or the other. It’s OK to want to have sex just for the sake of having sex – it doesn’t have to be some source of existential meaning.

It is as equally unhealthy to convince oneself that self-repressions are virtues as it is to think that unfettered indulgences are freedoms. There is a balance.

The Ballad of Clark Kent

When Lois Lane met Superman he was fighting crime, could bend steel in his bare hands, stop locomotives, leap over tall buildings in a single bound; shit, Superman could fly! Then one day he met Lois and swept her away, rocked her world in the sack and fell in love with her because thats what Super-Men do. After a year of this whirlwind Lois starts to feel her relationship with Superman was lacking something, “Why does he have to always be out there fighting crime, huh? Why does he always have to prove he’s so Macho? Does it threaten his Ego? He really needs to get in touch with his feminine side. What about MY needs and why can’t he just grow up and get a real job? I’m not getting any younger you know, he’s got some responsibilities to live up to. When am I gonna see a ring?”

So eventually this wears down on Superman and he submits to Lois’ requests (demands?). After all he ‘should’ really ‘grow up’ anyway, right? It’s the right thing to do. So Superman changes his name to Clark Kent (Super-‘MAN’ was so male self-aggrandizing anyway) and lands a job as a reporter at a great metropolitan newspaper. Clark begins wearing glasses – even though he can see X-Rays, and shoot lasers out his eyes, he wears them because Lois says it makes him look distinguished, intellectual and SHE likes them.

Time goes on and Lois and Clark marry. 5 years into the marriage Lois gets bored. Same old, same old. Clark is so mundane and unassuming. She longs for the days he would fly and do that funny steel bending trick he used to do when they were dating. He hasn’t done any of that for so long; not because he can’t, but because he’s afraid she’ll get upset with him and not put out that evening if he gets ‘cocky’ with her. In fact she’s not putting out even half as much as she used to these days. Clark just doesn’t arouse her as much as he once did and she just can’t seem to put her finger on the reason for it.

Then one night Lois ran into a wealthy fellow named Bruce Wayne at a charity mixer. Bruce was dark, mysterious and in great shape! He couldn’t fly, but he made up for that in so many other ways. He fought crime! He wore a mask and spoke in short, purposeful sentences, never mincing words. He didn’t wear glasses (that was so retro!) and he came and went at the time of his pleasing, not hers. He sent tingles down Lois’ spine (and other places that hadn’t felt tingles in a while) when he began seeing her.

The weeks went by until, after a 60 hour work week at the Daily Planet (swanky apartments don’t rent cheap), Clark made his way home on the subway (since flying had been out of the question for a while now) and picked up a dozen roses to surprise Lois with (he thought she tended to put out when he showed his ‘feminine side’) when he got back to the apartment. However it was poor Clark who got the surprise upon discovering Bruce Wayne bending Lois over the kitchen table when he opened the door. Bruce propmptly toweled off while Clark, slack-jawed with horror, watched speechless.

“How could you? After all we’ve meant to each other!” Clark began to cry as Bruce excused himself from the now estranged couple. Clark was used to crying a lot now to show his sensitivity.

“What could you have possibly seen in a guy like that?!” He shrieked like a school girl.

“Well,..I couldn’t help myself” Lois said indifferently, “Batman is a Superhero.”

And that’s the danger, where do you end and she begins? The reason I wrote Identity Crisis (almost 5 years ago) was exactly this: Men tend to adopt a position of constantly qualifying for a woman’s intimacy, and understandably women reinforce this because to puts them in control of the frame and aids in their sexual selection. Most guys willingly make fundamental changes if they believe it will increase their chances of qualifying for a woman’s intimacy. Are they genuinely inspired, or are they deductively reasoned changes meant to qualify for her acceptance – A+B= sex?

The real insidious part is that the more deprived a man is of that intimacy, the more he’s likely to convince himself that the change is genuine. Whenever I hear a guy or a woman say “we’re working on our relationship” or “relationships are a lot of work and compromise”, it translates to the man changing or compromising to better fit the woman’s ideal. He’s being ‘fixed’, he’s broken and he needs to change. It often gets to the point where the guy will believe that there IS something genuinely wrong with him – it’s her reality he must conform to because the feminine reality is the ‘proper’ reality. The rude awakening comes when she discovers that the man she’s fixed her husband to be is the polar opposite of the Man she was attracted to at the start.

Musings at the Gym

Why is the assumption always that if a person is exceptionally good looking, fit, and prides themselves on the personal dedication and discipline needed for being so, that they are necessarily compensating for a lack of “depth”, personal, or emotional intelligence? Why should outer beauty necessarily imply inner ‘brokenness’? Can’t a person be both physically and emotionally healthy?

I find it fascinating that it’s often the same people who tell you “you can’t judge a book by it’s cover” in regards to a less than physical ideal (being polite) and personal merit, are usually the first people to tell you how “shallow” a person must be if they devote what they “see” as too much time to improving their appearance. I’ve been a bodybuilder for over 20 years now, my brother competed on the amateur circuit when we were younger, I’ve met a lot of fitness competitors and just average men and women who pride themselves on their physique, and I have to say the majority of them were very positive, intelligent and psychologically healthy people.

People who look good, generally, exemplify the hard work and conviction that’s necessary in staying that way. It’s not just the physical that makes them attractive; it’s the subconscious understanding of the dedication necessary to be so that’s attractive too. When you look better than the norm, especially in an era and culture where 66% of the population is clinically overweight, there’s an ambient understanding that it takes a mind for dedication and conviction to be so. That’s not to deny that some people don’t hit the genetic lottery jackpot, but largely, maintaining a great physique is the result of a focused effort.

The gym is the perfect environment for sexual equalization from a physical standpoint. In a club or at a party or any other social gathering our masks are on; we can hide deficits more easily with clothing, the lighting and sounds is conducive to giving us more appeal, our inhibitions may be altered due to alcohol, etc. But in the gym all of that is out the window. Oh, women attempt to hide their fat butts with sweat shirts tied around their waists, but everyone is sober – in fact we’re in a better than normal state of awareness from the exercise – both sex’s physical deficits and assets are out in the open.

It’s Darwinism at its finest and both sexes strive for attention in some form or another. Guys can only rely on their physical presence & prowess, and whatever Game they possess to impress since there’s generally no way to judge a man’s socioeconomic status in the gym. Women are stripped to a primal physical competition where they’re judged on their physical form which is men’s primary criteria for mate selection. This is why you commonly hear women complain about ‘hating’ going to the gym and why female specific gyms are profitable; it has less to do with the actual exercise and more to do with an inability to cope with the intense competition present on a level that most are unacustomed to in other social environments. This is why there is such a market for ‘women’ only health clubs such as Curves and Planet Fitness (yes PF gyms are for women), in fact I’ve yet to encounter a men’s only gym and I’d speculate that this is due to men experiencing far less intimidation in a gym setting.

I really wish I could type away here and tell you about all the hotties I see at my gym everyday, but that’s simply not the case. I can tell you I’ve seen a drastic change in the women who populate the “fitness clubs” now, and it’s not for the better. I’m sure I’ll read someone in the comments relate how they have gorgeous attention whores at their local gym, but that’s simply not my experience these days. The women at the gym NEED to be in the gym. Mostly overweight, mostly self-conscious, I can tell by the effort each post-Wall woman exerts as to whether they’re recently divorced (or planning to be). Just on observation, I see far more men in MUCH better shape than the sample of women present. I’d guess it at 80% – 20%, and that’s here in Florida, I can just imagine what it might be in other regions. Even the cardio and zumba classes are overwhelmingly filled with thick soccer moms, “doing it for fun”.

A Billion Wicked Thoughts

I’ve recently finished reading “A Billion Wicked Thoughts”  by Ogi Ogas PhD. and Sai Gaddam PhD. and I’d have to place it next to The 48 Laws of Power as a seminal work for the Game community. It statistically confirms a lot of Game principles, but at the same time it will challenge more than a few. Highly recommended.

As expected it appears that yesterday’s Women’s Physical Standards post drew a bit of consternation from both sides of the aisle. Women predictably want to cling to what’s always been a useful canard for their victimhood psychology (i.e. men fixate on specific physical perfection) and ‘community’ men, predictably, want to point out that it’s not JUST looks that gets a guy laid. One of the most sacred cows of the Game community is the ‘Game trumps Looks’ debate. Nothing inspires a more heated discourse than when making physical comparisons and drawing conclusions from observable events and behaviors in this regard. But that’s not what I was getting at in yesterday’s post.

Oh, I’ll get to that in time, but what I was driving at in that topic was dispelling the popularized notion (as lamented by the Body Shop’s and many more positive body image ad campaigns) that men have some twisted, media-fueled physical ideal that women can’t possibly attain and that, statistically, it’s really women who have a far more rigid standard for male beauty than they’ll ever publicly admit. Understandably this makes guys squirm for the same reason it makes women squirm; trying to live up to a rigid physical standard.

On the flip side of that coin, I’m fully aware that there are a host of other factors that influence a woman’s overall attraction for a man, (the classics of status, power, affluence, Game, and Alpha dominance come to mind)  but I was comparing the isolated physical standards for both genders. I also understand that attraction doesn’t happen in a vacuum, however, raw physical arousal – the precursor to a more protracted degree of attraction – often does. George Clooney and Johnny Depp are sex symbols, but Bill Gates (younger, richer and more powerful than either of them) is not. Women’s chances of marrying any of them is infinitesimal, however, when women fantasize about sex, it’s with the good looking guys, because all they’re thinking about is sex from an arousal perspective.

Now, all that makes for a good response in the comments thread, but I wouldn’t have composed any of this into a fresh post had it not been for another related issue I’ve been recently debating. And this is the issue of how easy-access contemporary pornography has become the greatest catalyst in changing the inter-gender landscape since birth-control and the sexual revolution.

Has high quality ubiquitous porn changed Generation Y men? This may seem like a stretch, but in the same way that women want to cling to the idea that men harbor impossibly high physical standards, the comparative argument holds that women also apply this template to the influence of pornography on men’s sexual appetites. Feminine-centric porn complaints generally lump all porn into the same stereotypical profile. By ignoring the overwhelming variety of porn that any given man may “consume”, the sympathetic reader (mostly concerned women and their white knight sycophantic men) are left to presume “porn” means the unattainable, blonde hair, blue eyed, perky-boobed, perfect bodied girl in nothing but high heels and ready to take the money shot in her mouth. Porn hating women love this caricature of porn because, in this characterization, it’s just as unattainable for them to live up to as it is for most men to actually experience. Needless to say the latent purpose of maintaining this opinion is ensuring a position of sexual selection based on feminine-centric criteria. Biomechanics are a bitch, and reducing the threat of sexual competitors provably outperforming them by example (in porn) is increasingly more imperative as access to the “performances” become more easily available. The logic is one of ignorance is bliss; the less exposure a man has to sexual variety the more valuable her sexual agency becomes to him.

All one need do is look at the sex category sections of any free video porn site (Pornhub, Red Tube, Tube 8, etc.) to see what a parody this really is. Porn’s not just the 80’s standard blonde and brunette in a threesome with some random guy rented from the VHS store. It’s amateurs, asians, lesbians, interracial, orgy, fatties, skinnys, matures, teens, etc. Just name the body type, sex act, racial profile, age, hair color, etc. and there is a pornographic niche for it (Rule 34). Considering the sheer amount of sexual variety available for a myriad of preferences, women bemoaning their inability to “live up to” porn star requirements is ludicrous and indicative of their complete lack of understanding the male sex dynamic. As I stated in yesterday’s post, name the niche and there’s a fan-group ready to bang you.

For the past several decades it’s been a very easy sell for women to characterize porn as degrading women, or setting an impossibly idealized standard of sexual expectation; that is until the rise of digital media and the capacity to empirically track the access to it. A Billion Wicked Thoughts admirably compiles the statistic ‘evidence’, the hard web-trend data of more than a decade, that disproves the idea that porn is ‘one-size-fits-all’. All the self-reporting and biased corollary studies on porn’s influences of the 80’s and 90’s are wiped away in one stroke with the statistically verifiable data of online porn consumption habits – leaving all of us with the question of what were they trying to prove then?

I’ll save the debate on whether porn’s influence is retarding men’s overall maturity by too easily satiating their libido for another thread, but I can’t end this without also pointing out that a great many statistics revealed in this book also contradict more than a few presumed tenets of Game theory. Among those is the same one I’ve just pointed out for women; men have a plethora of sexual tastes and fetishes, not just the “perfect 10”. You simply can’t ignore the statistical variances in men’s appetites for MILFs, Matures, Asians, Big Asses, Chubbys, etc. and come to the conclusion that there is a one-size-fits-all sexual type preference for men. You can argue as to why men opt for these variances, but you can’t argue they don’t opt for them.