How many dates max, before you fuck her?
Let mé know your thought and an explanation.
The problem inherent with coming up with hard and fast Game rules of engagement is that there’s always going to be a caveat or special conditions for a guy’s particular girl of focus at the time. Even when there’s not, guys are prone to think “there’s something special about this one.” Part of the reason that Plate Theory is integral to Game is that it encourages Men to disabuse themselves of their previous beta impressions of each woman they accidentally drew interest from as some unique little snowflake. It’s hard for your average chump to think of a woman showing base-line rudimentary IOIs (indicators of interest) and NOT think she’s predestined for him by virtue of his self-acknowledged scarcity mentality. When you’re starving in the desert, Saltine crackers seem like mana from heaven.
Risk & Reward
In Game, there is a subtle balance that needs to be recognized between risks of over-investing in a particular woman with regards to practicality and not throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water and losing on a potentially rewarding opportunity. Women, as is particular to their own Game, will naturally come down on the side of casting doubt on a man’s valid assessment of a woman’s potential value, both in long term perspectives and potential sexual satisfaction. This presumption of doubt is a built in failsafe social convention for women; if only you’d been more patient, if only you invested a little bit more, you’d be rewarded with a great mother for your children and the best pussy of your life – don’t blow it now!
The short version is that it’s not in women’s best sexual-strategy interests for a man to have sexual options. Women’s sexual strategy is very schizophrenic – ideally women want a Man that other women want to fuck, but in order to assess his sexual market value to other women he’s got to have exercisable options for her to compete against, or at least display indirect social proof to that effect. So, she needs to limit his options while simultaneously determining he has those options. Now add to this the hypergamous necessity of maintaining a reasonable pool of suitors suspended in doubt of her own SMV in order to determine the best one among them for short term sexual provisioning and long term security provisioning.
In light of understanding women’s sexual strategy, it’s important for Men to adopt an mental schema of pragmatism – in the SMP you’re really another commodity in hypergamy’s estimation. I realize the difficulty most guys (particularly younger guys) have with mentally training themselves for thinking this way, so let me state from the outset that I’m not suggesting you kill your romantic, artistic souls in favor of cold calculations. In fact it’s vital you do keep that side of yourself intact for the survival of any future relationship and a more balanced human experience. Plate Theory and, really, efficient Game can seem dehumanizing, but what Game denialists fail to grasp is that they’re already operating in a dehumanized environment – it’s the social conditioning of the feminine imperative that makes men believe that Game is inhumane, because the feminine imperative has made itself synonymous with humanity.
Hypergamy doesn’t care if you’re a great, poetic soul. Hypergamy doesn’t care about your most sincere religious devotions. Hypergamy doesn’t care if you’re a great Father to your kids. Hypergamy seeks better than its own level, it wants the best commodity it’s capable of attracting and maintaining. Hypergamy is above all, practical, and thus Men, the True Romantics must be pragmatists to enact their own sexual strategy.
I had a lot of shit slung at me when I offered up Wait For It? As I stated above, I had the predictable feminine doubt doctrine lobbed at me in response from the beginning. I expected that, but to answer European DJ’s question more definitively, be pragmatic.
Put it this way, with just average Game, in 3 dates you should be able to determine if her desire level is high enough to want to fuck you.
In 3 dates you’ll know if her desire is genuine or if it’s mitigated by something else – another guy in rotation, sexual hangups, filibustering, etc.
In 3 dates you’ll have had sex or you’ll have had the “I wanna wait / I need to be comfortable talk.”
If you have sex on the 1st date or a same-night-lay, in all likelihood she’s really hot for, and into, fucking you based on physical criteria alone.
If you have sex on the 2nd or 3rd date, she’s into fucking you and probably wants a relationship because she wanted to give you a token impression of her not being ‘easy’.
If she fucks you after the 4th date, you’ll do as her first alternate.
My Services Rendered post generated a lot of response in the comments, PMs and even sparked a good debate on the SoSuave forum. All of this got me thinking about economics in the SMP.
It’s funny, I can remember a time in the early 90s when getting your GF to shave her snatch clean was scandalous. It seemed to imply that a guy’s true desire was to bang prepubescent girls. Shaved pubes was ‘niche porn’ back then and you’d have to actually seek it out in the print and VHS days. Now it’s just incidental, and hairy bushes are the niche.
I also remember when I first saw strippers with navel piercings and thinking “goddam that is hot!” Then I started seeing hot ‘normal’ girls doing it, but there was this initial stigma that only sluts, porn stars and strippers got their belly buttons pierced so it was slow to catch on at first – which of course made it all the more hotter when you got with a girl who had one. Don’t even get me started on tongue piercings.
Same thing with tramp stamp tattoos. Initially hot, now, no big deal. I think maybe nipple piercings might be the next thing, but it’s not like average girls go about getting them and showing them off as readily as other “slutty” fashion statements.
I bring all this up as a starting point to illustrate the progression of how the feminine sexual arms race evolves in the sexual marketplace (SMP). It would be very easy to simply pass all of this off as just further indications of society’s moral decline, but that’s too easy an answer. Everyone thought Elvis Presley’s hips and rock & roll would be society’s ticket to Sodom and Gomorrah too. Sexual trends and catering to men’s sexual imperatives makes today’s fetishes tomorrow’s normalized expectations. I expect there was a time when getting a hummer was considered sexually deviant; now it’s expected sexual behavior to where it’s a point of pride for women to give a good one, thus making women uncomfortable with oral sex the deviants.
I can’t think of porn clip I’ve seen in recent memory where a woman didn’t have a navel piercing or shaved snatch. Porn sets a sexual standard, but it also takes it’s cues from larger society. When women complain that they can’t compete with porn stars (dubious in an age of instant amateur porn) you’re listening to a woman resorting to men’s preferred method of communication – overt communication. Essentially she’s exasperated to the point where she needs to make absolutely sure that men unmistakably understand her anxiety, so she speaks his language. “I can’t compete.”
Ironically it’s the same women who were ‘competitors’ in their youth, are the same women who consider their husbands viewing porn to be tantamount to marital infidelity.
Controlling access to sex (women’s primary agency) is the most important aspect of a feminine-primary reality. This reality necessitates that Men’s sexual interests are by default, deviant, hurtful and shameful, while women’s sexual expressions are normative, correct and above reproach. Men are perverts when they masturbate, yet women are so sexy when they masturbate that there’s a niche for it in pornography. The problem the feminine faces in maintaining this control to sexual access is that the same competition that drives women to restrain it is the same competition that forces them to ‘up the ante’ and allow it in order to beat their competitors.
What’s interesting, and ironic, is that women’s push to ban pornography is motivated by the same impetus that makes pornography appealing. Pornography is simply a manifestation of men’s desire for unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Women’s desire is rooted in hypergamy, from which the best possible situation would be unlimited access to the best quality males. In order to effect the best possible sexual outcomes, both sex’s mating schemas are at odds.
In a male-centric sexual reality, most women would simply never be able to compete; in fact unlimited access to unlimited sexuality ensures they will be outstripped at some point by a sexual competitor. Even in a feminine-centric reality this is at least the mitigated situation. They certainly cannot effect their own sexual schema under these conditions, so the recourse is to use that same sexual agency to control the narrative and enforce their own sexual primacy as the correct one. His access, in fact his very exposure, to sexual competitors must be limited in order for her to select from the most, best, suitors. Limit the experience, limit the options, make her sexual schema the primary normative, inflate the value of her sexuality as a reward, and enforce it with specifically defined moralism.
From a pragmatic, power retention point of view, it makes sense that women would expect men to submit to what best fits their reality and sublimate their sexual imperatives to accommodate a female sexual imperative. This can be effected by reward and punishment. Reward in that a man is allowed sexual access for compliance to her imperatives, and punishment via shame and ridicule for noncompliance or even being critical of it.
The Morality Clause
Appeals to religion or morality are simply convenient tools of this punishment to enforce a female-centric reality. It’s hard to argue against religion or puritanism in a “gender appropriate” debate – it’s unassailable. God / Polite Society dictates that women are to be respected, protected and valued as an unquestioned default position, and even when her actions do not match her words or convictions she’s to be given the benefit of the doubt; and even when she’s caught in her indiscretions it makes a man a Man when he forgives her.
At present, all tenets of conventional morality exist to serve a feminine imperative. That may seem like a bold statement, considering that moralism can be considered a form of ‘slut control’, but think of any example of a vice or a virtue and you can link it back to a latent purpose for it being considered such that serves a female reality. Pornography and prostitution are only considered vices by society at large because they conflict with a broader female-primary reality. Encouraging virtues like temperance and honesty, still serve a female specific reality in that men believe they will be considered higher value mating potential than men who do not possess these virtues – and they help to keep men rooted in one set of social rules while they are free to operate under another set.
As feminism progressively ’empowered’ a more overt feminine reality, so too were methods adapted to circumvent this by men (i.e. Game). Since the sexual revolution, men have been forced into 3 camps; those who embrace and function within the feminine imperative (male feminists), those who reject and remove themselves from it either temporarily or permanently (what Jay Hymowitz calls “man-boys” or “Kidults”), or those who learn the mechanics of the female imperative and subvert it to their own purpose (PUAs, DJs, Game).
These camps, and men’s increasing refusal or abdication to play in an overt, female-centric reality, is the reason for more and more litigation intended to get men to either comply or be legally bound to the responsibilities of living in a female reality. For centuries women have relied on passively engineered social conventions that were accepted into our cultural consciousness that carried shame or some attached social stigma for a man who wouldn’t comply with them. Since the beginning of the sexual revolution however, these social conventions have become increasingly less effective as women perceive them as vestiges of a male patriarchy. Men see women eschewing these “traditional” conventions, but are themselves still expected to abide by them while respecting women for NOT abiding by them. So over the course of 2 decades men become less controlled by the old social structure, and unwilling to participate in a female-centric reality. What to do?
Now, as men are becoming increasingly aware of the raw deal they’ve gotten, and with the advent of global interconnectivity with other men, the female-centric response is to legally force men into that reality. Thus the laws enacted which pertain to a specific gender become more and more gratuitous for women and more draconian for men. If men will not respect a feminine imperative by social means, then it will be necessary to petition the state to enforce their reality upon men.
Buy a man a whore and you get him laid for an evening. Teach a man Game and you get him laid for a lifetime.
If you aren’t already familiar with the writings of Ferdinand Bardamu, owner / proprietor of In Mala Fide, I’d suggest you take a half an hour or so of your blog reading time to peruse his work. I pay homage to the Man primarily because he’s got an original insight, particular when it comes to observations of intergender dynamics. Today’s offering was the topic Why You Shouldn’t Trust Men Who Can’t Get Laid, and it’s really a brilliant observation that served as a recent springboard for another topic I’ve been asked to cover numerous times – the role of prostitution in intergender relations.
Ferd’s observation was that of what appeared to be a dweeb relatively socially inept guy getting his hands buffed by a tag team, mother & daughter working a mall kiosk:
My friend pointed at the kiosk outside of FYE, where a dweeby youngish kid was having his hands washed in a sink.
The Israeli mother-daughter duo who ran the kiosk were well-known for the scam they were running — selling massively overpriced soaps and shampoos supposedly containing Dead Sea salt. They used a combination of hard sell techniques, sexual charm and guilt to reel in people and get them to leave with their wallets a little lighter. Watching the busty mom ring up items on the register while her college-aged daughter soaked the dweeb’s hands, visions of incestuous threesomes danced in my head.
It would have been easy to go, “Haha, what a loser, he just got swindled into spending $80 on bath soap.” But looking at the guy, I realized something else. He wasn’t inherently repulsive-looking — messy dark blonde hair, skinny, glasses — but his slumped posture and look of defeat suggested loserdom, of many lonely nights masturbating in the glow of a computer screen. This was probably the first time in eons that a woman touched him or talked to him outside of a professional context. How could he resist? He couldn’t. I felt sorry for him.
The kid at the mall was essentially a ‘John’ for a couple of mother & daughter prostitutes. What was he paying for? Physical contact from a woman. It’s an indictment of the point to which our society has progressed to that women can now sell themselves without actually having to deliver sexual services. So disconnected have men become that even women’s feigned interest and the vaguest passings of kino / touch can be monetized. Women have learned that men will pay to be nice to them.
Strippers know this very well. What mom and daughter were doing here was tapping into providing a need for attention starved men. There are other examples of this, however the operative point is understanding the elemental exchange in the transactions men agree to with women.
The blogger Advocatus Diaboli has written extensively on the subject and his preference for relying on escorts as a means to satisfying is sexual needs. He sums his position up succinctly in the commet thread of Ferd’s article:
That is precisely why using escorts and buying sex is so liberating. The only thing between you and hot ass is whether you can pay or not..
Paying For It
This is a very uncomfortable principle for Game-aware men to confront. I think what a lot of guy’s fail to grasp is AD’s reasoning behind his decision to use escorts. There will undoubtedly be the predictably ingrained responses about him being a core misogynist, he has psychological issues or he was so burned in the past by women that this is his misguided retribution for all of that. I’ve read his blog for over a year now and my opinion is that he’s really being more pragmatic than he is lashing out. The guy impresses me as someone who’s done a lot of critical thinking and came to the conclusion that the solution to his need for sex is just deductive reasoning.
That’s a tough pill to swallow for guy’s invested in the tenets of Game – because it essentially invalidates Game in a practical sense. I’d argue that it doesn’t invalidate Game from a theoretical perspective, but in practice, if you can buy the means to your sexual satisfaction what’s the point of practicing Game?
What I think hits so close to the mark for most guy’s calling him some hapless loser for paying for sex is that they CAN see his logic, but still choose to play by a set of rules they think is morally or socially correct. They still believe in a social contract between men and women that dictates that if they’re not directly paying a hooker for services rendered, they’re not technically paying for sex. It’s scary for them to see the cold facts in light of investing themselves in the hope that women will love and understand them in ways they think they can or should. They’ll recoil from the discomfort of confronting this by calling him maladjusted, but it’s due more to his exposing incongruent ideas with experiences.
Public Relations in the SMP
Needless to say, the feminine imperative will always default to demonizing prostitution. It has a vested interest in maintaining a supreme valuation of gender, both amongst women themselves and for the purposes of shaming men. The sad fact remains though; you will always pay for sex in some form. You can finance it in the long term (marriage), you can beat off to the advertising (porn), you can rent it for an evening (prostitutes) or you can pay for it by more conventional means, but rest assured, you will pay for it. All AD is really doing is distilling this idea down to core elements and looking for the best service for his money.
Once you’ve crossed that line, Game, in practice, becomes irrelevant (for purposes of becoming sexual with women at least). I’ve got to admit, I have far more respect for AD than I ever would for guys subscribing to the “true forced loneliness” idea, and when you think about it, isn’t removing oneself from the game the ultimate goal of the MGTOW denomination of the manosphere? AD has at least, if not more, sexual experience with a larger variety of women than most betas or even some self-evincing PUAs do based on numbers alone.
Furthermore, a guy can flex a sense of confidence around ‘unpaid’ women when he’s safe in the knowledge that he could have (and has had) sex with women who’d otherwise be higher than her own sexual market value. It’s much easier to display the devil may care attitude women find so attractive when you really have nothing to lose. So from a certain perspective, using escorts can be a form of plate spinning. Granted, you are paying for the experiences, but it may be worth the trade off when you consider the time and cost invested in maintaining a solitary ‘unpaid’ plate.
Cost and Benefits
Whenever anyone makes a cost to benefits comparison in regard to sex with women it’s inevitably going to draw up some very uncomfortable truths. On a very base, psychological level, guys want desperately to believe that there exists some woman with the capacity to love and relate to them unconditionally, in spite of an inherent, predictable and provable hypergamy. Prostitution and social interdependence with men has been what has historically kept that hypergamy in check. Post sexual revolution, Game has evolved as a countermeasure to hypergamy, but it’s hard to ignore the utility of a classic like prostitution.
Even for the MRA guys who are well versed in the nuts and bolts of gender dynamics from a social and biological standpoint, it’s too terrible a thought to think that all the results of their efforts really just hinge upon how well he’s able to satisfy her base hypergamic list of prerequisites instead of some more esoteric value they both share together as a couple. It devalues that humanity, in a way similar to confronting nihilism, or having a deeply held ego-invested belief empirically dispelled.
Naturally, women will reinforce the opposite perception. It’s in the feminine’s interest to shame and deride any man pointing out the Achilles heel in their equation. It’s equally important to shame and deride her sisters who’d make a living from practicing the same truth they need to repress. Gold Diggers, Attention Whores, they’re both threats of overtly exposing the mechanics behind the feminine imperative – which is essentially an exchange of provisioning for sexual service – so they must be marginalized and shamed to keep the social convention operating as discreetly as possible.
Sexuality defines our relations with women. Sex is the deal breaker. Sex is the glue that holds relationships together.
Sex is the deal breaker, without it a woman becomes your mother or sister. How you choose to address that need for sex, what price you’re willing to tolerate is at the heart of what AD is getting at in his posts. Why would anyone pay for a substandard experience at an exorbitantly overblown price? $80 will legally get you a reasonably satisfying blow job in Nevada. $300 might get you laid with an HB7 for an hour.
For Better or Worse
Before anyone gets the wrong idea, what I’m driving at here isn’t an endorsement of opting for prostitution. It’s in the interests of understanding Game in its totality that I’m exploring this. I’ve never directly paid for sex – and I lived in the state of Nevada for 8 years. I have however paid for sex (and probably far more than the direct route) in the traditional sense by over-investing in women’s intimacy for minimal or mediocre returns. I should think that this is a common thread for most men whilst plugged into the social contracts the Matrix normalizes for us. Either we don’t know any better (lack of options) or we’ve been convinced that the experience is priceless (pedestal mentality).
One of the primary reasons I disagree with the MGTOW or TFL movements is this desire to remove oneself from interacting with women. Basically they don’t want to play by the rules of the female imperative, and while there’s merit in rejecting it, I fundamentally don’t believe that abdication is desirable or even achievable. Isolation is dangerous – building fortresses around yourself only cuts you off from information and experiences that will help you become a better Man. And while I think it’s an unavoidable reality to pay women for sex in some context, I would still advocate for learning Game (theory and practice) to maximize a Man’s potential for getting the best return on his investments. The Game-aware man is a student of the sexual market place, and he knows that it’s essentially a commodities market.
Every man wants a slut, he just wants her to be HIS slut.
ANDREW DICE CLAY: Hey, is that your chick there?
GUY IN THE AUDIENCE: Yeah!
DICE: Damn she’s pretty hot!
DICE: You been together a while?
GUY: About 6 months.
DICE: Nice. She faithful to you?
GUY: Oh yeah.
DICE: She good in bed?
GUY: *nods head enthusiastically*
DICE: She suck a good dick?
GUY: (laughing) Ohhh yeah,..heheh,..
DICE: I suppose the next question would be, “How do you suppose she got that way?”
If you had an idealized Quality Woman girlfriend who was smoking hot, well adjusted mentally, loyal, would make a good mother, came from a good family, etc. etc., but would only ever begrudgingly have sex with you, in missionary position only, never consider giving you head, and only once a month (in 13 minute increments) because she’d been conditioned to believe that sex was immoral and she didn’t want to be thought of as a slut, would you marry her?
This is the Slut Paradox that vexes contemporary man; what number of prior lovers can a woman have that would be acceptable for you? Seven? Five? How many hobby horses should there be on the cock carousel before a woman is a slut? Don’t bother answering this, because for your average (beta) man, the number – even if you could get full disclosure – is irrelevant to him.
You see, thanks to the pre-existing social infrastructure that the feminine imperative has established, the average man can’t believe his luck when he finally does become sexual with a woman – whether it’s his first time or it’s the hundredth with his wife. So high is her pedestal that it’s literally a twist of fate. The gods have smiled upon him with the sexual favors of a woman, and his good fortune is made all the better when his lover already knows how to perfectly suck his cock just like the women in all the porn he’s watched since he was twelve. No questions are asked – you don’t qualify a gift from the gods, you just accept it.
The Slut Paradox is a very complex issue because it wraps up so much social, emotional and biological importance and details. I’m using the ‘average’ man here as a starting point because he’s the social majority; he’s the benchmark for how both genders approach the paradox, because it’s his discretion to give a woman’s sexual past any kind of gravity. For as much as women will bleat on about “slut status” and double standards, it really all comes down to how the average – in this case beta – male contends with (or doesn’t) a woman’s sexual past. As enlightened Game-aware Men we’re largely exceptions to this rule, or at least blamefully aware of the mechanics of it.
In the initial attraction and arousal stages of a sexual pairing, the average guy doesn’t care about a woman’s prior sex life. It’s only after that pairing becomes solidified that it becomes a consideration.
Unless a woman is a porn actress, I don’t think it’s the number of guys that bothers Men; and I don’t even think it’s the details of how many dicks she’s had. What’s bugs men is that they want to possess her. Men want her genuine desire, but know other guys have had it already and moved on – and they’re cool with it, and she’s cool with it, but he’s not because he wants to own her. He wants to know that he’s getting the best of what she has to offer sexually and emotionally. He wants to know that HE’S the guy who brings out the slut in her that no other guy has experienced fully.
This is the root of the paradox issue. The average guy is playing by the feminine imperative’s stated rule set. He wants monogamy, he had to work at it. He had to negotiate with her for what she willingly, genuinely, desired to do with 5 other guys (assuming she’s honest). And on some level, he knows her desire for him is compromised because he had to plead his case with her so she’d warm up to him. Only now that he’s gotten what he’s idealized for so long he realizes other’s have had it before him without anything that comes even close what he invested to get.
Now before I get run up the flagpole here, I’m completely aware of the studies indicating a woman’s capacity to bond monogamously is inversely proportionate to the number of sexual partners she’s experienced prior to monogamy. I wont argue the merit of that concept, but I also don’t think that it fully encompasses the dynamic. I say this because, as Katy Perry so adequately illustrated recently, even ONE prior lover (or even unrequited obsession) can be Alpha enough to upset that bonded monogamous balance. These are the Alpha Widows – women so significantly impacted by a former Alpha (or perceptually so) lover that she’s left with an emotional imprint that even the most dutiful, loving beta-provider can never compete with. A woman doesn’t have to have been an archetypal slut in order to have difficulty in pair bonded monogamy.
So again I’ll ask, how many is too many? For an Alpha Widow, one’s enough. It’s my contention that the Slut Paradox isn’t a numbers game so much as it’s an Alpha impact game. What if your new partner has only banged a mere 2 men before you, but engaged in intense sexual experiences she feels self-conscious about doing with you? Is she a slut?
As a final thought, I should add that women have long been aware of the utility that the Slut Paradox represents in maintaining primacy for their sexual strategy. I elaborated on this in the The Tool of ASD,
You know, I’m not quite sure if my readership is aware of this, but I’m a Prince. No really, I’m a Prince (stop laughing), or at least that’s the expectation I’ve come to have others recognize in me after sifting through women’s online profiles on such fantastical dating resources such as Plenty of Whales Fish and OK U-Bid Cupid. But don’t think I’m such a rare bird, because amazingly enough, if you’re reading this blog, you’re probably a Prince too! And you didn’t even realize it did you?
You see, virtually all the women you encounter on these Buffers online dating resources are simply undiscovered, under-appreciated jewels in the rough. They’re Princesses, and goddammit they deserve to be treated as such. Just reading through each profile is like going on safari and encountering a virtual cornucopia of rare and exotic animals (kind of like a zoo), each meticulously described in encyclopedic detail of their uniqueness and rarity of finding. What mere mortal man could possibly deserve to touch such feminine refinery?
A few years ago the denizens of the SoSuave forum accidentally conducted one of the most humorous social experiments ever performed. A member by the handle of Bonhomme was a frequenter of Plenty of Fish and noticed an interesting trend in women’s profiles. Though most of the women using online dating run the gamut from hopelessly fat to 2-drink fuckability, the one thing most had in common was an entirely overblown sense of self-worth to compliment their grossly overrated self-impression of their sexual market value (SMV for those of you playing the home game). This is nothing shocking for unplugged Men; the ‘community’ has long held that social media and online Buffers work in tandem to convince a woman she’s 1 to 2 degrees higher on her SMV scale. What hadn’t been studied up to then was the descriptors and qualifications that online women used in both their “list of demands” and their own self-evaluations, or “the brochure of value added features” any man with common sense (see fem-centric conditioning) would ever be considered a ‘Man’ for appreciating in a woman.
The following is an example pulled from a typical profile:
Here is a well thought out idea of what kind of guy I am interested in… 5’10” or taller, lives near by, compassionate, intelligent, giving, VERY Attractive (someone other than your mother or sister has said so, lol) and in shape, prefer self employed, FAMILY orientated, open to new spontaneous things, likes to camp, likes to golf, wants children, would be a good father and faithful husband, a gentleman, gives me my space when I need it, not a nerd or too sarcastic, can take a hint, social, calls for no reason, remembers sending a note or a nominal gift IS romantic and necessary, respectful, sense of humor, and thinks the world of me. I am not interested in anyone older than 41 and anyone who makes less money than me since I do not plan on changing the lifestyle I have grown accustom to and hope to one day be a stay at home mom and furthermore… my children will never want for ANYTHING (but of course will not be spoiled brats either lol). You should also love animals I am not attracted to red heads at all lol sorry.
Wow! A rare find indeed. Thank heaven for the internet in providing men such a valuable resource that we might encounter such rational and strong women as this. This is one common example, but by far the most common self-references women made involved the word “Princess” – “I’m a Princess waiting for my Prince” or “I’ll admit it, I’m a Princess, I just need to find a man who can appreciate that and treat me right.”
Well, far be it from Rollo J. Tomassi to deny these undiscovered royals their due! Quickly I began to craft a cunning profile of my own; one which these pouting Princesses would surely recognize as that of none other than the Crown Prince of Man-dom. Using their own profile’s jingoisms and idioms as a template, I established an idealized persona, one that any woman worth her equalist “common sense” salt would instantly be irresistible to,…
Here is a well thought out idea of what kind of gal I am interested in…5′ 5″ or taller, but not over 6 feet (because while I don’t mind being eye to eye with you, I won’t ever be looking up to you), lives close enough to be at my house within 10 minutes after I make the call, genuinely passionate, intelligent enough to be good company, sexually available (preferably insatiable) and VERY attractive – we’re talking Jessica Alba, Keyra Augustina attractive – women with a body-fat percentage higher than 8% need not apply. Must be employed but not so well as you’ll interfere with our sexual activities, FAMILY oriented, but only after you’ve hit 30-33, open to spontaneous sex (you know, like outdoor stuff or a surprise 3 way with one of your hot girlfriends after our 2nd martini), likes to camp (in the nude), knows not to complain when I go play golf with the clients from work.
She must want children after 33 years of age if at all, and only after she’s proven to be a good mother and faithful wife, must be a lady with class and know when the right time is to speak and not to speak, not a prude or bitch, can take the first hint, sociable, unexpectedly texts me pictures of her wearing something new from Fredericks of Hollywood, understands that the best gift she can give me is expressing her desire to fuck me like a wild animal, and also understands that gifts for her are treats or rewards for desired behavior.
Must be respectful of my decisions being final, can’t take herself too seriously and thinks the world of me. I’m not interested in anyone over 31 (since this is most women’s expiration date anyway), she cannot have exorbitant spending habits or a credit debtload in excess of $1,000 since I do not plan on changing the lifestyle I have grown accustom to and hope to one day be able to send my own children to college (rather than pay for your student debt), and furthermore… my children will be taught to reasonably earn their achievements on their own and respect the decisions of their Father and mother (and absolutely will not be spoiled brats either). I’m very attracted to redheads, blondes, brunettes, Latinas, Asians, African-Americans, Pacific Islanders, etc., pretty much any woman that meets my physical requirements. I am not attracted at all to even slightly fat women no matter how much “inner beauty” you think you may possess. Hope to meet you soon, your Prince.
There! What woman could possible fail to appreciate all of the qualities of a Prince based on their very own template? Insidious, clever and witty. All I had to do was await what could only be a landslide of returned affection and positive responses. I contemplated how I would have to let down the poor cast off Princesses who failed to meet my humble criteria as the first response came in,…
“I read your profile, and is any of it serious?????”
A bit perturbed I reply,
Why do you think it’s not serious? Am I not allowed to be a bit specific?
“Sorry not about to put up with your kind of shit.”
Strange and yet strange again. Here I’d learned that self-confidence and assertiveness were traits women admired in the land of gender-equalism. Ah, perhaps this Princess was a bit jaded by such a dearth of qualified Princes at her disposal. I waited a bit more and was rewarded by a Princess called ‘Lil Sweet Heart’ who’d randomly read my glowing self-description,..
“what a profile
see iam a strong willed person!!
i speak when i want to say what i want and when i want and the way ur profile sounds i dont we;d be a match and the part about raising a spoiled brat thats a hard one to over come depends what u see as spoiled sure my boys r a bit spoiled well a lot but thats the way i was raised and it did me no wrong my kids know that they have to work to earn their spending and treats but no reason why a parent cant buy something just because so maybe ur profile can off wrong but my feeling is not some one id wanna meet hmmmmm”
Egads! I respond,
“Honestly, I really tried to read your message to me, but all of the bastardized English and the run-on sentences made it virtually impossible to understand what you were trying to say.”
I do say. Whomever this royal child’s au pair was is deserving of a public scourging! The thought of so ill-preparing a Princess for courtly discourse with the Man who will one day be her King is inexcusable. Bah, the blazes with this one, I’ll be patient on another,..
“uh, yeah, i don’t think so. maybe your profile’s a joke (which would make it less sad), but i don’t find it amusing, not my sense of humour at all.and the fact that i’m even bothering to reply to say no, rather than just ignore you, should tell you how distasteful it is.happy hunting. (though you’d have better luck if you went back in time 100 years or so, have fun finding chics like that today)
After checking out your profile, you are one of the rudest people i’ve even encountered. In your dreams…”
Hmm, I was beginning to see a flaw in my profile design. You see I had simply reworded the profile of my original Princess’ profile and changed the gender specific terms to the masculine, while adding a bit of my own desires to the outline of the ideal Princess I’d like to meet. After all, they all want to be treated like Princesses, I’m just asking to be treated like a Prince. But,..perhaps I’d been remiss in my waiting for the Princesses to respond. How unmanning of me – I would seek out my prize and pursue her. This profile caught my eye,…
“I am friendly, outgoing, generous, loyal, honest and adventurous. I work in a hospital. I also drive and have my own car.
I love to get my nails done every two weeks. I love fashion and style. I care about pop culture and social issues.
I have an IQ of 146. I am extremely intelligent and educated.
First Date: I dont want to meet Cheaters, users, players, haters, crumb bumbs, guys who want booty calls or fuk buddies… ya’ll dont let the door hit cha on the way out… I guess Im looking to meet someone around my own age, who is taller than me preferably caucasian, attractive, who likes to work out, has a unique, ghetto and sarcastic sense of humor like me.”
Well, not the ideal prize I’d been seeking, but perhaps this was another jewel in the rough that just needed a bit of spit and polish. I respond in the affirmative to her brassy, assertive equalist nature. After reading my profile, she responds,..
“i mak emy own moneya nd pay for own 5hit.. and for someone with such high standards take a good look in the mirror becuz these girls aka jessica alba are way out of ur league… if u want someone who is hot at least BE hot urself!”
I found this confusing since I had no picture on my profile at this point. I’d have to address that, but strange that the assumption was that my physical stature would necessarily be inadequate for her. I respond,..
“Dear woman, for someone with such a high opinion of her intelligence your grammar, punctuation and syntax are far from reflecting this. You type like shite.”
What I’d found most entertaining of this whole affair is that these women somehow feel compelled to respond to the profile. As if it were some personal affront to their sensibilities that it should need their attention to correct, rather than simply move on to the next profile. Judging from the frequency and intensity of the responses, how many men do you suppose responded to the original woman’s profile with the same fervor?
One of the best ways to illustrate how insaturated feminization has become in society is to flip the gender script on certain gender-specific dynamics. As funny as all this was, it serves to show that women live and operate in gender assumptions that they simply take as normalized conditions. Were a Man to publicly expect the terms and demands for his own provisioning and intimate access that women demand without an afterthought, he’s instantly accused of misogyny at worst, comedy at best. There are many more dynamics that illustrate this fem-centric normalization. My critics get fits of hysteria when I describe the acculturated, feminine-centric undercurrent operating in society. Girl-world is the only world for them, so pulling back the iron-veil of the feminine reality like this is usually a hard revelation. Ironically it’s the vitriol engendered in the responses to my reworded profile that prove the point.
Thank you Mark Zuckerberg for creating the single greatest time-comparative engine men have ever known. I’m not a big fan of Face Book from a male standpoint, but if it has any redeeming aspect it’s that it provably shows men, in stark contrast, how women’s SMV declines. This is driven home all the better because the subject women are usually ones he’s known personally for a few years.
I entered my 20s in the early 90s, well before the internet went mainstream. I can vividly remember the women I was banging then and the ones who wouldn’t have a thing to do with me. Now I see them 20 years later thanks to social media and every single one is just ravaged by time and lifestyle. I’ve accepted friend requests from women whose memory from 20+ years ago are ones of flirtatious, beautiful lust-inspiring youth, all to be shattered when I see photos of them in their late 30s and early 40s. Then I pray to God and thank Him for sparing me from being yoked to cows like that in spite of my consuming desire at the time to get with them.
Take a minute to digest this: we are really the first generation of men to have such a convenient comparative tool. There was a time when a man could get with (or not) some girl he fancied and never see her again. Young men hear all the time how inconsequential the women they pine for really are in the grand scheme of things. Now the older men giving him advice have a tool to prove and emphasize that advice, and women have cause to lament the ugly, provable truth.
I had imagined going into this dynamic in more detail when I wrote it a few months back, but Roissy’s pretty much summed up my thoughts fairly well. However, one thing I couldn’t have accounted for is the inevitable female response to this dynamic, as represented in the comments by Maya (the troll):
Such a pleasure when you see us getting old and worthless, isn’t it?
If this makes you feel better about yourself …
I can fully understand why women would think men acknowledging this would be mean-spirited. Women’s innate solipsism predisposes them to thinking that viscerally identifying their SMV’s decay is an attack on them personally. Vitally important ego-investments tend to bring out that kind of defensiveness. That’s really not what I had in mind when I wrote that.
I primarily write for Men’s benefit, though I think women may learn something along with it. In writing this, my intent was to provide men with an overall perspective of their own, protracted SMV in comparison to women’s protracted SMV. Naturally, women will see that as an affront because it casts their sexual strategies in a negative light, but think about the beta chump struggling with thoughts of suicide because he thinks he’s losing his soul-mate in a break up at 19. We may live in girl-world, but sometimes our emotional wellbeing, even our own survival, depends on resisting it’s influences. As I said, I believe Face Book, and the greater part of social media, dynamically serves the feminine imperative – attention, affirmation, voyeurism, gossip, etc. – but allow a man to even recognize a use for it that serves to put things into a masculine-positive perspective and he’s attacked and shamed for it by default.
It’s a simple matter to tell a guy he’s dodged a bullet in the cosmic scheme of things, but it’s altogether different to provably show him how he’s dodging it. For all the evils of facebook at least it gives him an ability to see the forest for the trees, but the feminine can’t even afford him that. You must stay dumb, you must stay plugged-in for the feminine to maintain primacy. For all the benefits of a globally connected world, the feminine imperative expects you to accept a feminine-centric normalization of it.