In his latest post The Abdication Imperative Rollo explains how the subconscious programming of women defines our post feminist culture. In direct contrast to conventional wisdom (but in perfect alignment with our lying eyes), Rollo describes the cultural mechanisms put in place by women in an attempt to deal with their profound fear of commitment:
In an era when women’s sexual selection has been given exclusive control to the feminine, in an age when hypergamy has been loosed upon the world en force, social conventions had to be established to better silence the doubt that hypergamy makes women even more acutely aware of. And nowhere is this doubt more pronounced than in the confines of a monogamous commitment intended to last a lifetime.
The degree of denial here is so great that outside of the manosphere few would be able to accept that it is in fact women who naturally are terrified of (true) commitment. Part of this is projection by women onto men, and part of it is the deceptive nature of women’s sexuality. The feral woman’s preferred sexual experience is to be seduced by a series of men who prove their alphaness to her. Essential in this process is that her risk in being seduced is rewarded by the man’s commitment/investment in her. Women are driven to secure commitment from the men they mate with in order to secure the protection, resources, and parenting assistance she will require for the resulting children. This push to secure maximum commitment from men has been widely misinterpreted as women naturally wanting to commit in marriage. Our friend Glenn T. Stanton expressed the conventional wisdom in his Christian parenting book Secure Daughters, Confident Sons: How Parents Guide Their Children into Authentic Masculinity and Femininity.
Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies.
Actually he is technically correct. Women do want to marry. What they don’t (innately) want is to stay married. More accurately, they want the exclusive option to unilaterally end the marriage should they feel that they have better options. Women’s natural desire for marriage needs to be understood in the frame of the feral woman’s script. The flawed assumption is that a woman marrying naturally represents a woman who has found her rock and intends to stay there.
This may well be the case. Women are in fact capable of taking their marriage vows seriously. The problem is the assumption that this is the natural tendency for women, when the true natural tendency is quite different.
The way women experience this isn’t via a conscious desire to hop from man to man. A former commenter Paige shared her own insight into how a young woman experiences this:
Relating Pump-n-Dumping to Serial Monogamy assumes more self-awareness in the woman than she actually has. At the beginning the woman is convinced she will be in-love forever…if the romantic feelings decline she believes the relationship is no longer worthwhile for either partner. But she doesn’t just assume at the beginning that this will happen.
In fact, the woman’s preference would be to have the man she has sex with and obtains commitment from continue to prove to be the best man available to her. In this way she validates her past choice and provides stability for her existing children while experiencing the pleasure of being seduced/courted over and over again.
But this doesn’t mean that her natural inclination is to find one man and remain faithful to him. Marriage has moral force because it requires a moral choice from both men and women. For a man to remain faithful to his vows he has to suppress his natural urge for sexual variety. For a woman to remain faithful to her vows she must suppress her natural urge to constantly search for a better man to mate with and extract commitment from. She must also suppress her natural urge to attempt to dominate her husband, and to use denial of sex as a tool to do so.
What is so dangerous is the way the subconscious female imperative has corrupted our ability to perceive sexual morality. Glenn Stanton made the statement I quoted above in the context of excusing women for the fact that 40% of children in the US are now born to unwed mothers. Millions of children are doomed to grow up without a father because men like Stanton lack the moral clarity and courage to speak out on their behalf. To Mr. Stanton, feral women are proof that men are failing to sufficiently man up. Since he assumes (contrary to both the Bible and science) that women are programed to find a rock and stay there, women’s failure to do so must indicate a lack of suitable rocks.
This misconception persists despite a mountain of both scientific and statistical evidence. Women are consistently the initiators of divorce, and at the same time they deny the very possibility of frivolous divorce. Yet we deny all indication of reality, in a misguided effort to shelter immoral women from moral judgment. It would be far kinder to all (including women), to tell the painful truth.
This tendency to rework morality to suit the female imperative has saturated our entire view of sexual morality, both inside and outside of marriage. In a recent post on Hooking Up Smart (HUS), Susan Walsh demonstrates the subconscious assumption that promiscuous sex is immoral if it isn’t conducted according to women’s preferred script. In her post Studies Reveal Players Like Their Women Dumb, Drunk and Easy, she describes men who fail to cater to the feminine imperative as predatory and exploitive:
An exploitative mating strategy is defined as an adaptive strategy to get sex when a cooperative strategy is deemed unreliable. Cooperative mating strategies are exemplified by mutual interest and consent. There are two primary reasons why males might employ exploitation tactics:
- The female does not want to have sex, while the man does.
- The female wants a relationship, while the man wants casual sex.
Keep in mind she is talking about men interacting with young women engaged in the hookup culture. These aren’t women who are taking great pains to find a husband; they are interested in casual sex. Such women are in fact the target audience of Susan’s site, which explains the very title of the blog. If her target audience was women looking to save their chastity for marriage, her site might instead be titled Marrying Right and Smart (MRS). But it is not MRS, it is HUS, and the preferred female form of promiscuity rules the day for the HUSies. They are looking to be seduced by a mysterious stranger, and then convert a no strings attached sexual experience into ongoing investment and commitment from the man. Should this mysterious stranger continue to win the HUSy’s favor, she will then demand he offer a greater level of (unilateral) commitment in the form of a marriage vow.
But as Susan points out there are men who refuse to play by this script. They maddeningly take the “no strings” part of the hookup bargain as seriously as the HUSies do, and don’t fool themselves into thinking random hookup partners are owed any more commitment/investment than they choose to freely offer. Such men must be shamed. Susan finds them guilty of being exploitive, and defines four different exploitive tactics employed by men in the hookup market with the help of a UT Austin academic paper. The first is seduction, which the UT Austin researcher defines as:
Sexual seduction is the act of charming or convincing someone into having sex. Seduction differs from courtship, which may include long-term commitment and investment as goals.
Implicit in the definition is the belief that women have the right to have men standing by at the ready to offer commitment following no strings attached sex. The pure insanity of this idea is only eclipsed by the fact that such thinking has made its way into academic research.
The second category of sexual exploitation is what Susan calls “verbal or nonverbal pressure”, which the UT Austin paper defines as:
Pressure involves relentless persistence, threats, or coercion to induce an individual into having sex.
Notice how salesmanship is subtly compared with rape. Men pursuing their own desires in the SMP is deemed unacceptable. Only women can morally do so. Men who are moral are expected to understand this and only hookup based on the motivations of the HUSies.
The next category is deception, which the UT Austin paper defines as:
Deception is dishonesty about intentions, likelihood of further commitment, or personal characteristics such as those sought by members of the opposite sex—a phenomenon well documented in human mating (Haselton, Buss, Oubaid, & Angleitner, 2005).
The profound absurdity of this is due to the deliberate vagueness of the hookup process. As Susan herself explains in the section What is Hooking UP? in her about page:
- Hooking up is a term to describe a sexual encounter between two people. It is a deliberately vague expression, and can mean making out, having intercourse, or anything in between.
- Hooking up has replaced traditional dating on college campuses, and has also become prevalent in the general population and culture. The hallmark of hooking up is the clear understanding between both parties that the encounter will be free from any expectations for further contact. It is designed to avoid the possibility of commitment. However, hooking up is still the primary pathway to a potential romantic relationship.
- The hookup script reverses the sexual norm; the pair becomes sexual first, before emotional intimacy or a relationship is established.
The only rule of hooking up is there is no expectation of commitment or relationship. Susan knows this, but she frames men who don’t offer HUSies commitment as deceptive, and therefore exploitive.
The last category of exploitation of HUSies is outright sexual assault. The need to add this to the list while subtly framing seduction as rape is very telling. Men who don’t play by the woman’s rules are guilty, and should be looked at as possible rapists. Straighten out young man, and offer those HUSies the commitment their gift of no strings sex entitles them to. But remember, you don’t own her, so don’t try to constrain her sexuality by assuming she should offer you commitment after she blows you in the back room.
Woman on a rock pic by kimba. Woman on stepping stones pic licensed as creative commons by Steve-h.
“But it is not MRS, it is HUS, and the preferred female form of promiscuity rules the day for the HUSies.”
I lol’ed so hard at this line.
The sheer dedication that women show in rationalizing their unaccountability to their own actions is truly profound. Eight years ago a woman i was dating kicked me in the stomach and then screamed “I didn’t just kick you!” At the time I thought that was an exception, not the rule.
Brilliant.
If her target audience was women looking to save their chastity for marriage, her site might instead be titled Marrying Right and Smart (MRS). But it is not MRS, it is HUS, and the preferred female form of promiscuity rules the day for the HUSies.
I second Joshua: Very good work, sir.
The last category of exploitation of HUSies is outright sexual assault. The need to add this to the list while subtly framing seduction as rape is very telling.
It’s everywhere, isn’t it? Deciding to have an argument with a feminist is actually a decision to have two arguments, because before you dare commit to the topic, you have to bring them to the knowledge their worldview is lousy with these unconsciously misandrist assumptions. They don’t even know it, and many of us don’t recognize them either.
Moral godless:
My wife actually once said to me:
“I lied to you. I know now that it was a lie. But I believed it to be true when I told you. So therefore, I did not lie, because I thought it was true when I told you.”
So — If I say that 2 + 2 = 5, and I believe in good faith that that is true, then I didn’t lie?
A lie is a lie, regardless of your belief in good faith of the “truth” of that lie.
“Every individual needs revolution, inner division, overthrow of the existing order, and renewal, but not by forcing them upon his neighbors under the hypocritical cloak of Christian love or the sense of social responsibility or any of the other beautiful euphemisms for unconscious urges to personal power” (Jung, 1966:5 ‘Two Essays on Analytical Psychology’).
Who is motivated to acknowledge hypergamy? Encourage morality?
-Alpha Males- Hypocritical: yes, else no- they get too much free sex
-Beta Males- have no idea it exists / ego too delicately pussified to agree
-Omega Males- guilty of any and all transgression they may or may not have committed, so automatically guilty by ad hominem attack
-Alpha females- age 40: hell yes – no power anymore= soapbox preaching
-other females- physiologically incapable of seeing past their own nature
-score: 6 for not acknowledging, shaky 2 for acknowledging.
I tend to think morality can only form when absolutely everyone is thrown into chaos to experience the shortcomings of our own nature. Then and only then can society as a whole operate from a position of abundance and experience- which only an alpha can do in safe times.
Let’s try a little experiment to show the falsity and bad faith involved. Sexual exploitation?
Could there be such a thing as commitment exploitation?
The paper says this: “Sexual seduction is the act of charming or convincing someone into having sex. Seduction differs from courtship, which may include long-term commitment and investment as goals.”
What if it said this:
“Commitment seduction is the act of cajoling or convincing a man into providing investment in and commitment to a woman. Seduction differs from good faith courtship, which may include marriage as a goal.”
Compare and contrast this: “Pressure involves relentless persistence, threats, or coercion to induce an individual into having sex.”
with this:
“Pressure involves relentless nagging, complaining, threats of ending the relationship, or coercion through withholding sex, to induce the man into providing investment and/or commitment.”
Consider this: “Deception is dishonesty about intentions, likelihood of further commitment, or personal characteristics such as those sought by members of the opposite sex—a phenomenon well documented in human mating”
but see this:
“Deception in seeking commitment and/or investment is dishonesty about (1) intentions to reciprocate with sexual involvement, (2) level of sexual attraction, or (3) likelihood of sexual congress — a phenomenon well documented by the androsphere/gamesphere”
Clearly, there is such a thing as investment/commitment exploitation.
@ deti: Uh, no; a lie is deliberate spreading of a falsehood, not unwitting. If one believes something to be true, and shares that information with others, one isn’t lying, even if the information turns out to be false.
Deti, start your own blog already.
WillS+Deti, yeah, a lie is when you know what you’re saying is not true. I suspect Deti’s example was really about guilt / shame though.
If I give you wrong information, or if I tell you lies that I find myself not to be true 10 years after, Im going to feel bad, remorse, shame, guilt, or sorry that I misled you, depending on the repercussions of it.
If I feel nothing but I give myself a pass – that says it all about how much I care about the repercussions of my actions and my relationships.
Careful, Dalrock. Five will get you eight that Typhoon Susan is heading your way for improperly hijacking her post–expect a DCMA copyright infringement takedown letter with your name on it–soon! 😉
What HUS has become in only a few short months is truly pathetic.
Feminist comes up with condemnation of men and excuses for women?
I’m shocked, shocked.
Indeed, Yohami.
Pingback: Random Thoughts Sunday « Grit Artisan
Will S.:
I respectfully disagree, particularly when matters of the heart and SMP interactions and exchanges are at issue. The stakes are incredibly high, especially for men.
An assertion either is true or it is not true. Every individual participating in the SMP has an obligation to assess what is true and what is not true, and speak accordingly.
@ deti: “An assertion either is true or it is not true.” Indeed, but one is only lying if one asserts something, and knows it not to be true. My point was more general than SMP matters, of course.
@ will S
That is true. Although, seeing as she didn’t reach her conclusion through reason and logic but through emotions. We will file this under, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
“An exploitative mating strategy is defined as an adaptive strategy to get sex when a cooperative strategy is deemed unreliable.”
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I thought the whole reason today’s Sexual Marketplace exists is that women CHOOSE to give it up, to so many, for so little. Obviously Mrs. Walsh needs to look up the word ‘exploitative’ in the dictionary. Either that or replace it the word ‘Cooperative’ which is what women are really doing with the players they choose to act dumb, drunk, and slutty with.
“An exploitative mating strategy is defined as an adaptive strategy to get sex when a cooperative strategy is deemed unreliable.”
Or perhaps it could say this:
“An exploitative mating strategy is defined as an adaptive strategy to force the extraction of investment and commitment through the deployment of sex, or getting pregnant, or through leading a man on, or through fraud and deceit, when a cooperative strategy is deemed unreliable.”
The best part about this is women will then rationalize all sins regarding their sex lives as not counting. Or pretend the one guy doesn’t exist because she’s with someone she “loves”. I know this because I have been both dudes at one time or another. “Oh him, he’s just a friend.” Nudge nudge wink wink. Bullshit.
I asked her in one of her recent posts why men should offer commitment at all if they don’t need to, what are the women offering in exhange considering that they’ve done nothing to demonstrate any intention or capacity for fidelity. She weaseled out by saying that she wasn’t interested in people who are just looking to have casual sex and that I was an exception and unrealistic in my “desire for a virgin bride”. The point is that withholding commitment from these women is not a personal preference, its the appropriate response for all men. Would you lend money to someone with a history of credit problems and a demonstrated preference for frivolous spending? Noone who wants their money back should.
MG: “Would you lend money to someone with a history of credit problems and a demonstrated preference for frivolous spending? Noone who wants their money back should.”
The analogy is apt, yet the logic is unlikely to penetrate the bright, shiny, and new Shaming Barrier(TM) at HUS.
Dalrock:
another grand slam, out of the park.
In other news… there’s no such thing as ‘no strings attached sex’. Another one of these profound new age lies so common amongst women. No strings attached sex is merely a vetting period for a woman to determine if she wants to attach her claws or not.
Susan is just sugar coating the hook-up culture to make it sound right and to once again lay the blame at the feet of men for not holding up their ‘end of the bargain’. She’s a lying whore. I said that from the first time I read the trash that came from her blog.
A whore teaching other whores how to ensnare a beta and get him to the altar.
modernguy-
“The point is that withholding commitment from these women is not a personal preference, its the appropriate response for all men.”
Not only that, but a fair number of women dump men who become emotionally available and desire commitment.
Feminism in a nutshell: Men have obligations, Women have choices.
Yea, and when those women make choices, the men must pay or else… Man I hate fem cunts!
‘Hooking up smart’ was always an oxymoron. ‘Hooking up well-informed’ would be much more apt.
Then again, I’m pretty sure everyone knows the deal.
….or else cue FRA.
@deti: very good analogy between sex and investment. I’ll push it a little further:
“An exploitative mating strategy is defined as an adaptive strategy to get sex when a cooperative strategy is deemed unreliable.”
Should be rephrased as: “An exploitative mating strategy is defined as an adaptive strategy to get sex and/or resources when a cooperative strategy is deemed unreliable.”
We need to accept “mating strategy” includes the idea of finding a long-term mate, otherwise we preclude women from being possible exploitative. So what’s going on in the dating scene? Women flock to clubs, often with no cover charge for them, and expect guys to buy them drinks. They are supposed to be taken to restaurants, given presents for valentine’s day, and offered emotional support, all of which classify as resources. There is a understanding that it is normal for a guy to offer his girl these things if she is having sex with him. I know a girl who replied to the question “what did you give your boyfriend for valentine’s day?” with “a blowjob”. The sex for investment is deeply rooted and well understood it seems. The problem is that the other way around is supposedly marking the men a rapist: “it’s not because you bought me dinner that I will have sex with you!”
But isn’t that behavior falling under the new “exploitative mating strategy” definition above? Of course, women shouldn’t have sex with the first sign of investment from a man, they can’t be expected to do that. But this also means the reverse expectation cannot be maintained either, that is: it’s not because a girl has sex with a guy that he should buy her dinner, or for that matter, give any sort of investment whatsoever. When this situation happens, it’s not men being exploitive, but rather women failing to understand that “no strings attached” sex works both ways. If HUS is supposed to help women navigate the hookup culture, the first thing it needs to do is clear up this huge misunderstanding.
This was a kill shot aimed directly at Susan Walsh’s hamster.
Hahaha. Nice Dalrock. In the comments of her post before that on ‘filtering for cads’ on HUS I got into it with Susan over this same kind of labeling and definitions – for me between influence vs manipulation.
She stands by the idea that manipulation is influencing someone with selfish intents, where I was arguing that anyone that is influencing others automatically gains from doing so. The more people that subscribe to your world view (such as feminism), the more stable your life is going to be if you practice that world view. To say nothing of the ego boosts, self esteem, and ever increasing personal influence garnered by doing so. The only difference between the two words is that influencing someone means you’re exerting pressure for a ‘socially accepted’ reason, where manipulation is used as a shaming word for socially unaccepted influences.
All that came of it was an attempt on her part to shame me for pulling back the curtain on how social interactions work. Saying I must be miserable for ever thinking like this, that it’d lead to a victim mentality, and must be a self blow out with women. Hurray dodging and reframing while shaming. All to try and keep an upper moral hand through the language she uses.
Well done Dalrock. I expect Susan Walsh will simply ignore this, and will delete anyone trying to post links or excerpts over there.
Aunt Giggles Must protect the HUSie’s hamsters from that dangerous addiction to red pills!
Deti and Will,
May I add – it’s so much easier to admit to having lied, than to admit to having been wrong?
I know of two fathers of women with whom I spoke recently. Both fathers stated that when their daughters were young and at home they counseled them to get their own careers because men are untrustworthy. One of the women has never married and states she never will, the other is married but miserable in her marriage. Both do, however, have successful careers. I wonder if fathers teaching their daughters not to trust any man (oh the irony) are aware of the damage they inflict on the next generation. Teaching hypergamy and feminism early on, from both parents.
Be careful, Dalrock. If you keep doing this, Aunt Sue will eventually go apeshit like Lady Raine and try have you exposed and banned. Remember, she’s a woman, and currently there are zero social controls keeping women from going batshit.
@okrahead:
I have a theory on why fathers are always tell their daughters shit like that. I’m throwing this out there for others to grade/ add to/ take away from/ whatever. When a lot of men get married, they assume they have found true love and all that other romantic BS society has shoved down our throats. then they find out that their wives will divorce, cheat, cuckold, bitch at them, withhold sex and gain weight/ stop being sexy. Their wives stop loving them and they stop loving their wives. But, a daughter’s love is (hopefully) eternal. She’s everything he wanted in a wife, always looking up to him, always being his pretty little girl. Hell, she even looks like the woman he once loved, and at one point was pure and innocent (for a human). For a father trapped in a shitty marriage, a daughter is almost (minus the sex, hopefully) everything he wanted in a mate, similar to what his wife might have been at one point.
Note: I am not a father, nor have I known anyone who took an old school style of parenting towards raising daughters. All fathers i have known spoiled their little girls or had been thrown out/ divorced by their wives. This is solely based on my awesome observational skills.
zykos:
This is why men are doing two things: (1) limiting investment and commitment to the absolute bare minimum; and (2) pushing hard for sex as early as possible and as much as possible. This is to men’s advantage because it measures the woman’s interest level. If she is sexually attracted to him, she’ll respond to his advances. If she rebuffs him, he will know she is not interested and he will be able to direct his efforts elsewhere. His time and money are limited, and he needs to conserve them, preserve them, and direct them to where they will be most effective and advantageous to him.
The searching costs are being pushed onto women. This means the SMP will become far more unpleasant for women.
Considering this is an olympic year, I nominate this post for a medal.
Rollo’s elaboration on the ‘feminine imperative’ and his psych background has thrown the cat amongst the pigeons, it’s a powerful tool that seems to cover all the bases.
I can’t think of anything that expresses the abdication principle more succinctly than divorce, where a man must continue to provision a female even though she is in another relationship.
If marriage was so palatable to women then why is the legal framework so discriminative to the point the female has no obligations whatsoever, to the effect only one party is contracted creating an unrequited service arrangement.
Good post on the sad direction Hooking Up Smart has taken over the past few months.
Oh well, for awhile she was fighting the hamsters. It was an interesting experiment that had to be tried; and Susan won’t be able to say she wasn’t warned in the future as the futility of trying to give women everything they want in the Hook Up Culture becomes apparent.
Under contract only a person that does not have capacity (mental or otherwise) can be deemed to have been manipulated, voiding the contract. So any person arguing manipulation by definition ascribes a lack of capacity.
Fantastic post, D.
Awesome post Dalrock. There are very specific reasons why women were not allowed to vote, hold office, jury duty, own land etc…. The medical term is “hysteria” of which is a short excerpt:
“Female hysteria was a once-common medical diagnosis, made exclusively in women, which is today no longer recognized by modern medical authorities as a medical disorder. Its diagnosis and treatment were routine for many hundreds of years in Western Europe. Hysteria was widely discussed in the medical literature of the 19th century. Women considered to be suffering from it exhibited a wide array of symptoms including faintness, nervousness, sexual desire, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in abdomen, muscle spasm, shortness of breath, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, and “a tendency to cause trouble”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_hysteria
Insight – THIS is the curse placed on Eve in the Garden of Eden
Scriptures REALLY make sense regarding “your desire shall be for your husband” and a women shall be saved through child birth (which requires intercourse of which requires of submitting to her hubby) In addition, Adam because he disobeyed God has to work(sweat) to provide and put up with a hysterical mate.
AWESOME POST D !!!
Sadly, abdication is not always a matter of hypergamy.
One of the advantages of being what you call “beta” is that women don’t always hold their tongues when I am around. I personally heard at least two women tell friends that she left (or rather, expelled) her husband because she simply didn’t want to be with a man. As soon as she had completed her family, a man was no longer needed, as long as she could keep the house, the kids, and a slice of hubby’s income and pension.
If the man becomes irate (as one of these husbands did), this becomes a retrospective justification for his expulsion from the family.
James K, being invisible does as you point out have advantages. What is also interesting is entering a public place in the invisible mode, and then through Game becoming visible – note how the female conversation may change away from some topics.
As to the other point, listen to some military wives some time. 10 years of marriage guarantees them access to half of the man’s retirement up to that point, if I recall correctly. Some are bold enough to refer to it as “their retirement”, if they think that only other women are listening.
Usual NAWALT disclaimers apply: I specifically know some loyal mil-wives,some married to Desert Storm vets, others married to Gulf War II vets. But there are bad apples out in the barrel, no sense shying away from that fact, and Uncle Same subsidizes their disloyalty.
Anonymous Reader-
“listen to some military wives some time. 10 years of marriage guarantees them access to half of the man’s retirement up to that point, if I recall correctly. Some are bold enough to refer to it as “their retirement”, if they think that only other women are listening.”
Recently I talked to a friend in the Navy who I have not talked to in about eight years. I merely mentioned the word “dating” and the first thing out of his mouth was all the manipulative women looking to bag soldiers and sailors for the benefits.
Women are really doing themselves a lot of damage. They are creating enemies everywhere.
Dalrock %100
Deti-%101
I have to add I’m aware of high school girls doing random hook-ups via cell phone and house were parents are absent.
They are beginning very young with this business.
And it is a business,designed
to extract the most from the male whilst no commitment from the females.
This pattern continues life-long.
“He would make a great first husband to divorce as he had lots of money.”
The promise and hope of commitment
from the male has been subverted into instant gratification and mockery of the old standard.
(universal harlotry)
Also those facial
piercings seem to say: I am not myself, you cannot hold me to my word-
I am merely a transient non-agent and therefore not responsible for any outcome.Same goes for the tramp stamp.
Screams lack of accountability or self agency.
“let the good times roll, as long as I have the upper hand.
(legally)
Really the misandrist laws prop up this abomination.
Successfully destroying the family unit by fiat.
Time to take the fight to the source:The social engineers at the top: IE: the 8 white house councils for women and the VAWA laws.
No one should have that kind of unrighteous power. It is Satanic in nature.
God Damn America
We need a stronger opponent to argue with.
Poking holes in Susan Walsh’s fallacies is like beating up your little red-headed cousin.
@ Greenlander
As a redhead, I take offense to that. NARHALT (not all red heads are like that?)
Or like Mike Tyson’s Punchout got for me after I figured out how to beat the early guys. It got so easy until the second Piston Honda came along that I just usually punched in the key code to get there. Almost the same way dealing with what Walsh writes anymore.
Good stuff, D.
Both sexes have their ideal mating strategy, SW just feels the need to demonize the preferred male strategy.
“How dare he gets what he wants without giving the girl what she wants first, he is obviously lying/exploiting/sleazy”
Deep down all women are afraid of a man who knows his value and worth and can get what he wants without conforming to the feminine imperative. Usually unaware in the forebrain, it manifests in garbage like this. But make no mistake, the message is loud and clear once you decipher out.
It*
“how dare he! He must play by our rules!”
@Leap of a Beta… sorry man, I agree that NARALT.
I suspect Mrs Walsh will simply lose readers over time. Lack of real men’s voices will be the death knell of her site. Young women can talk among themselves as much as they like, but they still have to do the reality check with actual live men.
this post rocks, and the comments are off the charts.
Outstanding.
This is one of your best!
Aunt Susan’s mental gymnastics are a sight to behold: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/06/03/relationshipstrategies/how-women-really-feel-about-male-dominance
They usually call this moving the goalposts, but there must be another word for this painful abuse of the english language.
@ David
“I suspect Mrs Walsh will simply lose readers over time. Lack of real men’s voices will be the death knell of her site.”
Yuuuuuup. For instance, I just got put in moderation at her site, though I’m a regular commenter that tries to ‘politely’ tell reality the way I see it and experience it. No idea what I’m in moderation for – it could be her policing the comments here or a comment at her site. Though the comment here was just explaining everything that happened there. And nothing that happened there violated any of her exalted ‘code of ethics’ or anything.
Leap. You know what you did.
You made an older woman cry. How dare you.
I’m sorry. I was lying the whole time. I’m a soulless ginger who is powered by eating the souls of hipsters and drinking the tears of older women. If I ever claim the virginity of a woman the universe will end.
PS – all gingers are like that, NARALT was a lie. A filthy, dirty lie. And you bought it.
Note the title of this post: the Ubiquitous Frame of Hypergamy.
I’ve made this point at HUS before, to Susan’s occasional disagreement.
I don’t agree that hypergamy only operates in young single women, and thus is fortuitously sated when she finds a man willing to marry her. To the contrary, hypergamy operates in all women, all the time, everywhere.
Hypergamy is an ever present, always running subroutine in every woman’s brain. It starts running when she reaches around age 11 or 12, and does not stop until she is dead. When it’s satisfied, it runs at a low hum. But if it is not, it shouts louder and louder. This subroutine actually serves a good purpose when controlled. It helps her select the best man she can get for reproduction and provisioning.
All women are hypergamous, all the time. Single women, engaged women, widows. Women who have been married for decades. Every woman wants to know she is with the best man she can get. If things get bad enough in a marriage, her hypergamous subroutine runs louder and faster. Her subroutine is kicking into high gear to search for a replacement husband. She can’t control this, but she can control her response to it. What controls it are her internal morals and external, family and social pressures (if any).
If it were true that married women aren’t hypergamous, we wouldn’t have a 50% divorce rate. We wouldn’t have “I’m not haaaaaappy” divorces. We wouldn’t have sexless marriages. What we’re seeing is the hypergamy subroutine kicking in, and prodding the woman to trade up.
@Leap of a Beta
Yes, South Park was right; you are planning our eventual demise with your scary, soulless gaze.
On the bright side, Glenn Stanton will still want you. He’ll even introduce you to his daughter….
@Leap of a Beta
PS…..She’s a “born again” virgin, so the Universe will still be safe….
deti, the hypergamy thing runs in married women, but some of them do seem to tamp it down fairly well. But it is always there.
@ Pirran
“She’s a “born again” virgin, so the Universe will still be safe….”
Damn. Taking all my fun.
It’s kind of depressing to think that we as a species, all 7 billion or so of us, have not evolved past this hypergamous programming. Though, I guess that is due to there being no discernible consequences for said hypergamy, so why bother getting rid of it?
It feels to me like modern feminism is simply the right to act like a two-faced child. Angelic whenever the parents are watching, an unholy terror whenever they aren’t. And yet it’s still somehow all men’s fault when something goes wrong.
It just feels so futile to even bother trying to play by the same rules.
“An exploitative [committment] strategy is defined as an adaptive strategy to get [committment] when a cooperative strategy is deemed [too inhibiting/too hard work].”
I agree with this but would also state that, as a man, I have a very true fear of commitment. It’s a fear based on the typical outlook of life that comes from today’s modern feral women. I would say that for a man to have a fear for commitment to one woman is an entirely rational fear to have right now. It’s based on statistical fact and not emotion. A woman today can, without a doubt, destroy a man, his family, his children and his livelihood. If that ain’t a reason to fear commitment, then nothing is.
Women have earned this fear of commitment from men, most of them are nothing but trouble, ruled by their vajayjays and hypergamic instincts. The facts are in, Susan “Slut” Walsh has proven her feminist whoring credentials, no need to worry about whether she bats for team ‘women’ anymore.
This so called ‘exploitative’ mating strategy of PUAs and game players is adaptive and merely makes lemonade from lemons, the strategy uses the least amount of effort to gain the biggest reward. It might not be Biblical or Christ like; but the hook-up culture is not for Christians anyway. A whore deserves no less than to be used and discarded, like a used tampon, by the very men they want commitment from.
This should serve as a warning to women, enter the hook-up culture and ride that cock carousel at their own peril. You deserve no protection, no sympathy and no husband. Really, time for people to state what everyone knows to be true. If you engage the hook-up scene, you’re a whore.
Excellent post once again Dalrock.
I see this similar to the customer who goes to the car dealership lot to test drive all of the different model of cars without any intention of buying them. The car dealer is offering the cars to be test driven for free with no strings attached. It is two people coming together in the free market willingly. The customer is not morally obligated to buy the car any more than the car dealer is morally obligated to offer the free test drives. Both parties are free to exit the deal at anytime. The dealer can say to the customer to never come back and the customer is free to go to any other dealer. All of this “men must commit” is just as ridiculous as “women must put out”. If you don’t like it then get out of the relationship. The hamsters over at HUS never cease to amuse me.
@deti
That hypergamy runs in the background, like resident programs on the PC (and hypergamy cannot be disabled via msconfig, its one of those pesky ones that keeps restarting anyway) is very true. If every married man stops and thinks with an open mind he will see it in his wife, oh lets allow there may be a creature or two out there that its not present, its insignificant.
I can attest to it across my 22 years of marriage. Some women learn to battle it into submission, as men do the sex drive that nags us to look and or lust. Its this exact thing that makes romance novels into porn, and that tingles her when she watches movies, even violent ones, with virtuous heros (think Gladiator).
Once during a bad period 10 years ago or so my wife explained hers to me saying something about having this image of a man in mind that would occasionally compete for her mental attention. And basically he was in flux, always he was strong in an area where I was weak at that time. Some of this gets tempered with age, doesnt go away, but definitely gets tempered. Maybe its the part in -the best man SHE CAN GET…the CAN GET part changes as she ages.
There are so very many reasons for men to fear commitment now, even beyond the easy and likely divorce culture is the subjugation to a life as a so called “servant leader” where this is the ONLY image of his marriage that is reality
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=man+washing+womans+feet&um=1&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=661&tbm=isch&tbnid=jfJeYIqP-UGhXM:&imgrefurl=http://www.clipartof.com/portfolio/pamela/illustration/white-lily-over-a-foot-97067.html&docid=GkVo1ak2yjIQlM&imgurl=http://images.clipartof.com/small/100326-Royalty-Free-RF-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Man-Washing-A-Womans-Legs.jpg&w=450&h=429&ei=75_MT5HaH4z2gAfS843CBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=455&vpy=238&dur=667&hovh=219&hovw=230&tx=113&ty=245&sig=117500036603103510529&page=1&tbnh=136&tbnw=143&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:0,i:103
From what I’ve seen on that site, I’m not even sure what her objective is. It’s clear they do not want to settle down in a traditional manner, but rather investigate approaches to ‘hookups’ and an appreciation of cultural decay. And of course constant articles about the shortcomings, and signals that characterize cads and how to avoid them while never caring to check women’s urges.
There are two ways of investigating issues, 1) you begin with a conclusion and look for facts that support your view, or 2) start by identifying facts and try to find a conclusion with them. This is where HUS fundamentally takes the first route, which is essentially the mindset that is driving feminists. Where their position is not to pass any judgement on women, despite the looming prospect of societal collapse, one which is detriment to marriage. Instead their motivation lies with forcing men to both provide materially for children (frankly, whether it is theirs or not), while wanting to have sex with a lot of other men.
What they really want is essentially a dream-world where women are considerably favoured, this leads to marriages which can be formed and made ineffective at the whim of any woman. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?
@leap of a beta
Either that or its gonna just be an echo chamber like the website of sheila gregoire. “To love honor and vacuum” as it is called
Part of women’s problem is they are driven by two competing motivations. On the one hand, they want to have the best man available to them – “available” meaning within their line of sight. On the other hand, they want to mate with a guy who is of slightly lower status, in order to ensure he doesn’t stray. The two are incompatible unless the woman decides to place a premium on security over tinglies. While individual women may be okay as wives, there is no way this larger situation works out for men as a group. Game principles are nice to employ because they help exaggerate the value of the man a woman has… but there is necessarily a certain cruelty to it because employing game principles works against her drive to have security. This leads them to some insane patterns of behavior.
As for inability to commit… why commit when there’s all this Alpha Male stuff floating around? Later on, when the drive for security becomes a lot stronger we see the baby rabies and women “settling” for a good provider – but all the time spent on the carousel makes it a tougher get for them and the pickings aren’t so good. I’ve thought about this hard over a long period of time and realized that I married the woman I did, a reasonably attractive, good moral woman, in my mid-20’s, because she had a lot of character traits I liked and was really strongly in that looking-for-a-provider/family mindset. I was an Alpha pump & dumper up to that time, would have loved to settle down with one of the long succession of smoking hot women I was banging, but they were all looking for the next ride on the carousel, explained as, “I want to focus on my career, I’ll never have kids, I’m having too much fun, etc.” It’s funny because some of them have stayed on the periphery of my large circle of friends, I see or hear about one of them or catch a facebook comment from time to time, and most of them didn’t age well, are 40, single, and openly on the prowl for a husband and complaining about how all the good men are married or gay (considering less than 3% of the male population is gay you have to wonder what their definition of “good” is). I guess I’m classed as one of the good ones – married near 20 years, very successful career, aging well. Had any of them been a reasonable approximation of a traditionally moral woman or looking to establish a family, I’d have gone after one of them in a heartbeat. Nothing is nicer than a good woman who is also a real physical beauty. Absent the traditional social expectations to have a family, however, they missed their window. I don’t regret my marriage, i’m happy where I am, but yeah, I wouldn’t have minded being married to one of the 9s I used to hook up with rather than the solid 7 who was the best available woman on the market at that time and who has been a very good wife. But these f***ed up bitches weren’t going to marry anybody, not even Superman, and by the time their looks fell completely off the cliff in their mid-30’s, they’d squandered their (formerly) awesome prospects.
I knew two really attractive women who just fiddle-faddled for years. Both had a go at the religious life, wasting years of their own and men’s too. Even really attractive women of good character have to take a decision eventually. One of them had a man interested in her, even quite late, but he was a funny chap. After a few years, the male pickings get very poor.
Feminine beauty is like financial stock. You have to sell at just the right time.
Another girl, quite attractive, very bright, good character, but spent a long time building a career in science. She did marry, but he was a funny bloke, not as smart as her and I think he embarrassed her a bit.
Big D, excellent, as usual.
“the cultural mechanisms put in place by women in an attempt to deal with their profound fear of commitment:”
I think a big one is what I would call the war on reason, which is endemic, especially in schools, oddly enough. One of the biggest public manifestations of this is the demonization of judging others, unless the judge is a “Wise Latina” or something.
My 12-year old daughter is constantly telling me nonsense and then saying “but you can’t judge me on that!” I say that not can I judge, but I do, constantly, because judging is nothing more than using the brain God gave you to analyze, hypothesize and draw conclusions.
That is why our hypergamous culture loathes reason and logic, hamsters are allergic to them as they make the hamsters break out in an uncomfortable itchy rash, with occasional bouts of diarrhea (especially the verbal kind).
HUSies for the win,…agh,..and it’s been right in front of my face this whole time. How did I not see that? And I thought I was so clever with ‘Hooking Up Betas’. You win Dal. lmao
Not to gloss you too much, but this is some excellent insight. To quote Roissy, “The closer you get to the truth the louder the feminine will screech.” The internal struggle women have to resolve is exactly the self-doubt that hypergamy prompts. Thus women evolved the pluralistic mating strategies that Aunt Giggles is so loathe to address. It’s easy to dismiss women’s mating dynamics as long and short term prospects in a cultural environment that casually excuses their use, but the problem is that the short term strategy influences the long and vice versa.
Since the feminine imperative socially reinforces woman-as-victim her plight in resolving this hypergamiy vs. monogamy internal conflict is met with sympathy and mutual acceptance of the struggle with doubt. However men are vilified as less-than-men for even acknowledging their conflict of sexual response vs. monogamy. I covered this in my Appreciation post:
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/appreciation/
“The degree of denial here is so great that outside of the manosphere few would be able to accept that it is in fact women who naturally are terrified of (true) commitment. ”
No one who has observed or read about chimpanzee mating will be in denial. Those gals are all over the place. Almost as soon as they find an older alpha consort, they go for an up-and-coming young alpha as insurance — all the while having secret “love” trysts the moment they’re out of view of the troop.
“I have to add I’m aware of high school girls doing random hook-ups via cell phone and house were parents are absent.”
Digits plz.
Miss Walsh does not seem to approve of the following techniques: seduction; verbal/non-verbal persuasion; spin. What is a man to do? I am thus reminded of that wonderful scene from the movie Tootsie where Jessica Lange has previously told Dustin Hoffman (in drag) how wonderful it would be if men just came out and said exactly what they wanted from a woman rather than the endless pantomime of seduction. You will all recall, that dressed as a man, Hoffman takes Lange at her word, and is slapped round the face for his pains.
May I also say, having looked at her essay, I really do not care for the tone in which she writes, beginning by describing men as manwhores (an absurd expression equivalent to girlcads or married bachelor) and concluding (the opening) by including in seduction technique as No. 4 Rape, (equally absurd as if carpet-bombing Dresden were Diplomatic Negotiations) and along the way recasts persuasion as pressure and spin as deception – that is really quite outrageous. If men are really so bad as she fantasises and women dislike sex (though obviously enjoying the preparatory prick-tease) then my advice to young women is to 1. stay away from men, 2, in the alternative acquire a chaperone, and 3 wear a chastity device. Given the fact that it is men who are constantly at risk from morning after regret, and false allegations of harrassement the essay is doubly duplicitous. Even more so from a blog that encourages women to slut it up.
A damning essay from Dalrock by the way.
“deti, the hypergamy thing runs in married women, but some of them do seem to tamp it down fairly well. But it is always there.”
-What he said. Tamping down hypergamy is NOT difficult, but first a woman must acknowledge it as natural. *inserts tongue in cheek* Apparently we can’t bring ourselves to admit we may have tendencies that are potentially destructive. When I encounter a man who appears to have it all, I could compare my husband unfavorably to what I ASSUME is his superiority, or I could wallow in the good qualities I KNOW my husband has (and end up blushing like a schoolgirl…). Am I deluding myself by reminding myself that I have it pretty good? Am I a fool for not constantly striving to “improve” my status? Am I a wimp for not being willing to risk it all for an unproven fantasy? By today’s standards, probably, but I’m more than cool with that.
FH,
You’d be reckless to NOT fear commitment in this social climate, just like you’d be reckless to not fear the approach of an F5 tornado while standing in an open field. Fear of what can destroy you is just plain smart.
@ Johnycomelately: If marriage was so palatable to women then why is the legal framework so discriminative to the point the female has no obligations whatsoever, to the effect only one party is contracted creating an unrequited service arrangement.
@deti: If it were true that married women aren’t hypergamous, we wouldn’t have a 50% divorce rate. We wouldn’t have “I’m not haaaaaappy” divorces. We wouldn’t have sexless marriages. What we’re seeing is the hypergamy subroutine kicking in, and prodding the woman to trade up.
Wanted to place these two bits of wisdom together.
If marriage is really what women want and what they’re really “all about,” why do they fight so hard for the tools to destroy it?
Dalrock,
Wow. You need to contrast this your post with the most recent offering from Albert Mohler, a conservative Baptist theologian who is probably one of the top spokesmen for conservative Christians: http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/06/01/the-seduction-of-pornography-and-the-integrity-of-christian-marriage-part-two-2/
Here is a sample:
“Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed…
By contrast, consider another man. This man lives alone, or at least in a context other than holy marriage. Directed inwardly rather than outwardly, his sex drive has become an engine for lust and self-gratification….”
[D: I shortened the long quote. See the linked article for the full segment.]
I think Mohler, though a perceptive fellow, is falling down here in a big way.
But I wonder if you are missing some points to. Here’s my perspective: I read your article, and find myself agreeing with much of it. At the same time, when you say “Implicit in the definition is the belief that women have the right to have men standing by at the ready to offer commitment following no strings attached sex” – is this something most of them see as a “right” or a hope? Further, when you say: “Straighten out young man, and offer those HUSies the commitment their gift of no strings sex entitles them to. But remember, you don’t own her, so don’t try to constrain her sexuality by assuming she should offer you commitment after she blows you in the back room”, isn’t it safe to assume that a woman who does this is *hoping* that this man is someone who will appreciate what she does, and desire to have a relationship with her. How many girls really would think its their “right” to expect this? It seems this is more often the viewpoint men have – which I suppose should not surprise us so much, as perhaps this naturally goes with having more strength/power.
And further: is not what the unmarried woman is seeking in the “hookup” (I’ll agree this is not the way to do it!) really a better thing (for her, children and society at least!) than what most of the men are seeking? I’ll agree with you that the hypergamous impulse is wrong, wrong, wrong, but if we are talking about women who are hoping to get into a monogamous relationship in the first place, why is that not more noble than the guy who strictly has the pump and dump frame? I am not saying that I have the full picture here: I am hoping that you will continue to go deep and flesh this out more. That both men and women in these situations are both going for the most alpha person they can find is not in doubt. And it seems to me that if both persons feel like they get a great catch, they both may be likely to consider the possibility of a long term relationship – which seems to indicate again that this is the better thing than the desire for “genital pleasure” that Mohler talks about (usually more the focus of men)
I look forward to seeing more on this. Thanks for your thoughts.
RTP, you need to throw more rocks, seriously! That’s golden.
@Suz
Problem is, Christianity today has imbibed the idea that women are born without original sin, and are therefore without flaw or spot by nature.
Case in point: I have two Christian guys who have been posting on my blog about difficulties with their wives/ex-wives. One of them was trying to lead spiritually by having family devotions from the Bible, and his wife was being disruptive during devotion time (thankfully, things have improved for him). The other has a wife who is literally right out of the nightmare files of the Spearhead: false DV claim, frivolous divorce, taking him to the cleaners, etc. etc.
The other evening I was at a prayer group with some Christian guy friends. We all were going to pray for each other, so we asked if any of us had any requests in that regard. I mentioned these two men. The chap to my right who prayed for me, immediately went into the whole, “Please God make these men love their wives as Christ loves the church. Break these men and humble them. Blah Blah Blah.”
It literally never occurred to this guy that maybe, just maybe, the wives might be in the wrong.
Aunt Susan’s mental gymnastics are a sight to behold: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/06/03/relationshipstrategies/how-women-really-feel-about-male-dominance
They usually call this moving the goalposts, but there must be another word for this painful abuse of the english language.
It’s just the wrong conclusion, really, the same one that the underlying article made.
While it appears to be true that human sexual dimporhism reduced, and that this *may* suggest reduced sexual competition among men due to greater monogamy in human mating (there are skeptics about that, but it seems a reasonable, if as yet unproven, hypothesis), to construe this as resulting from “female choice” is nothing but ahistorical anachronistic feminist-influenced non-analysis. In that timeframe (hundreds of millions of years ago) human females had *no* real choice when it comes to mating, certainly nothing that could be construed as a “choice” today. The use of male physical power was not restricted as it is today, and so, frankly, it ruled the day. Women were relatively powerless (you have to regulate and outlaw most exercise of male physical power in order to set the groundwork for women to be empowered, because there is no “level playing field” when it comes to physical power — you have to take it off the table in order to level the playing field).
This is no less the case in sexual areas, because of the competition among men for mates. If anything, this change is far more likely to have been due to a modus vivendi having been reached among the males than it is to any aspect of female “mate choice”, because females were not empowered to choose in any meaningful sense. If anything, it seems far more likely that this arrangement — which was more male egalitarian than a more “winners take all” arrangement of polygyny — was instituted by some groups of humans who then proceeded to outcompete the other groups precisely due to the increased level of male cooperation in the group, which freed up energies to better the group and to focus on conquering other groups who were more divided due to polygyny and the greater in-group competition involved with that. The idea that “women just started choosing beta males” is an anachronistic projection of modern feminism backwards in time — human females almost certainly had no real choice in the matter at all at the time, in terms of “official bonds” — the cheating, of course, which is certainly as old as the switch to monogamy, would have involved female choice — and that makes sense, as it is a way to “cheat” the more male-egalitarian model of universal monogamy in favor of the female-preferred model of serial monogamy and provisioning from the best males available for mating, whether “married” to other females or not.
@deti
Hypergamy is an ever present, always running subroutine in every woman’s brain. It starts running when she reaches around age 11 or 12, and does not stop until she is dead. When it’s satisfied, it runs at a low hum. But if it is not, it shouts louder and louder. This subroutine actually serves a good purpose when controlled. It helps her select the best man she can get for reproduction and provisioning.
I’ve been thinking about this. The hypergamy subroutine kicks in when it sees a natural leader, the kind of man who will be able to protect and provide for her and her children. A natural leader is the kind of man other men will follow (a true Alpha). If a bunch of people are lost in the woods pointing in different directions most will follow the Alpha as he heads out in the direction he believes is correct. Alphas exude confidence and independence.
However, other men exude confidence and an aloof detachment, maybe because they have too high of an opinion of themselves (their confidence in themselves isn’t backed up by their capableness – pseudo Alphas). Unfortunately for women, this also turns on the hypergamy subroutine. I suspect that there are some of these among PUAs (I’m not following some these guys anywhere, except maybe into a club to pick up women 😉
Further, sociopaths may also seem to have this confident independence, mainly because of their lack of conscience. Unfortunately again for women, this also can turn on the hypergamy subroutine. If the hypergamy subroutine is stronger than the fear subroutine, women may find themselves attracted to these men.
So why do women like jerks/douchebags/losers/bad boys/thugs? Because their biology mistakes them for true leaders.
rockthrowingpeasant
“Wanted to place these two bits of wisdom together.
If marriage is really what women want and what they’re really “all about,” why do they fight so hard for the tools to destroy it?”
This article and discussion sailed right over your head. Or you are intentionally playing dumb which is a female tactic used to buy time for the hamster to come up with a “Female Logical” reason to deny her own lying eyes.
@Deti
You and Dalrock have a knack for explaining and saying clearly what others have an idea about but can’t get their finger on it. Very good ability really makes you look smart.
I haven’t read the male dominance article by Susan Walsh. Life is too short, and painful enough. But humans are about average for presumed male-male sexual competition, somewhere between gorillas and bonobos. Our large erections, penis shape, testes size, and male physical development imply quite a lot of sexual competition. We also do mate-guarding and sexual jealousy.
I had a run-in with Mrs Walsh because she objected to some of my language about taking a wife and my reference to spanking my wife as foreplay. Imagine my surprise when I found her naughty reminiscences of sexual hijinks with men before her husband. Quite the lass.
@greyghost: perhaps the WNBA is a good analogy for female-specific reasoning here.
It’s cast as an expression of Grrrrrlll Power but it’s completely subsidized by the men’s league, they’re just as good as the men (they say) but play with a smaller ball, they can’t say anything good about the NBA that isn’t voiced in terms of an implicit criticism, but any criticism of their league is met with shrill howls, complaints about the relative lack of athleticism are written off as sexism that will be remedied when men’s attitude changes (because my attitude keeps women from dunking), and when somebody finally does dunk it’s hailed as a harbinger of female superiority and is a SportCenter Top 10 play of the week.
Meanwhile the real story in pro basketball is the Yankees-like dynasty in San Antonio, built around a stereotypical male teamwork structure, men sacrificing ego for team success, a coaching job that should be studied by business leaders.
Brendan: exactly, precisely so. Call it the “ancient beta revolt”; kill the alpha and divvy up his harem, one to each beta. Enclose the monogamy in ritual. See more sons survive to mating age, and then go raid the next tribe to get wives for those sons. Enforce monogamy strongly, in order that cuckolding is unlikely. Watch this tribe grow. See other tribes either shrink, or also adapt this new social ordering.
If “women’s choice” was a factor in this, then the sexual response of women would be different than it is; “50 shades of grey” would not be a best seller, for example. This should be obvious to any half-way serious observer of human sexual response..
If “women’s choice” was a factor in this, then the sexual response of women would be different than it is; “50 shades of grey” would not be a best seller, for example. This should be obvious to any half-way serious observer of human sexual response..
Right. The proof is in the pudding. Lifetime monogamy certainly doesn’t serve “feral” female interests any more than it serves “feral” male interests (assuming powerful males), but it does serve the interests of relatively less powerful males by preventing the most powerful males from monopolizing the women. Hence it is also no surprise that the contemporary manifestation of feminism was also a collaboration of the alpha males in power and the females over and against the interests of the rank and file males — this is the very recent yet extremely disruptive upending of a human social ordering that took place long ago and worked in favor of most men at the expense, in sexual/mating terms, of the most powerful men and of most women as well (in terms of their “feral” interests).
Brendan,
I think you are spot on right. On the face of it, the notion that the human specied evolved tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago based on “female choice” is ludicrous. The physical power differential between men and women is enormous. The fact of the matter is the average adult male could easily overpower and kill any adult female. Its highly doubtful that ancient hunter-gatherer societies had much formal restrictions on the exercise of male physical power vis a vis women.
I think what we are seeing here is an inability to confront and accept the ugly truth which is that women do in fact sexually prefer highly dominant, alpha men, but that SOCIETY evolved to put very strict boundaries on women through societal rules, religion, shaming, etc. to not indulge their hypergamous drive but make more pragmatic and sensible choices.
Brendan
You and anonymous reader have just discribed the essence of civilization. It all makes sense beta males built civilized society. Any policy or social custom that recognizes and understands that will be very successful for society in every way. For men and especially for women wether they tingle for it or not.
Like I said Dalrock a cultural leader man.
@greyghost: This article and discussion sailed right over your head. Or you are intentionally playing dumb which is a female tactic used to buy time for the hamster to come up with a “Female Logical” reason to deny her own lying eyes.
Huh? Maybe you misread what I wrote (or couldn’t grasp my tone). What have I missed?
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/23/health/living-well/demise-of-guys/index.html
Whoop!!!
Great post, Dalrock! It’s a shame Susan gave in to the Dark Side, but s#@t happens. When I learned to lower my expectations of women, and they stopped disappointing me.
It’s just like Aunt Giggles to quote the research of Ogas and then completely twist it into her feminine primary narrative,..
So essentially hypergamy is an evolutionarily selected-for survival instinct. An inborn sensitivity and physical arousal to audible cues, pheromonal cues, visual cues, all viscerally evolved into the very neurology of a female brain implies the critical importance of breeding with the most dominant male. So important in fact that hypergamy needed to be hard-coded into women’s firmware, yet Susan eels her way into redefining dominance in a social context as proof that women selected for the ‘good behaving men’. The manifestation of dominant men, as provided by her quoted reference, are all physical, not social. The olfactory receptors in a woman’s nose can’t tell if he’s a CEO or a drug dealing gang leader, but they do know if he smells like someone they need to bang. That sensitivity didn’t evolve because dominant men played well with others.
@David Collard
If it is any consolation, I, too, in my only comment at HUSys blog managed to cause her to be so outraged she could not believe I meant what I had said.
“Hooking Up Smart” has always been an oxymoron. Indeed, the head HUSsie said a while back in one of her posts that she doesn’t see “hooking up” as an immoral act, which pretty much invalidates her opinions full stop.
An excellent post.
OK, I’ve thought this through more and refined my thinking.
First of all, in what follows, we need to distinguish between college girls who hook up and married women who try to look to move up (hypergamy)
With that out of the way, the more I think about Dalrock’s argument here, it strikes me as wrong. In general, do girls who hook up really think that its their *right* to be able to get a commitment from the man? Or do they, in general, *hope* to get it? It seems to me it is clearly the latter Whereas it seems that for many alphas males they see it as their right to have sex with the girls they want without consequences (which is, admittedly, part of the reason why women might find them attractive).
Maybe we are thinking about the past: when the girl who got pregnant by a guy could pretty much count on the guy being shamed into marrying her. That doesn’t happen so much any more, but perhaps it should in cases where the girl is impregnated – at least if the guy wants to have some connection with the fruit of his action – the offspring that he has helped create and is therefore in part responsible for. Its not her child only when you don’t want it. Or do some argue this (much like with abortion: choice [power] trumps child). Are we talking simple biological facts, or simply what we think we are potentially able to overcome via our will?
Finally, in general, what the girls who hook up desire – a committed relationship – is infinitely better for society (the children) than what the players, in general, desire. What they want is “better” from a practical point of view – not to mention “right” from a moral point of view. Saying that women will later regret their hookups while men will not does not change *this* situation (in any case, Susan had a post a while back that showed that very promiscuous men’s attitudes towards their partners were affected by past partner count) None of this is to lend any validity to hooking up, which is idiotic – there is no such thing as Hooking Up Smart.
@AnonymousGuy
See the article I linked to from Susan Walsh. She is accusing men who hookup on their own terms of being predatory, of exploiting instead of cooperating. She (via quotes from the paper) lumps them in with rapists. Can you seriously not see this?
As for alpha males, I’m not sure what your point is. If you start with the assumption that women have the right to choose who they have sex with by consent, then you will see that they are choosing who they want to have sex with and under what terms. They want alphas, so that is what they get. The women also aren’t demanding commitment prior to sex. This vestige of civilization is restraining and ruins their feral fun. They want to be seduced by a mysterious stranger; marrying him first ruins the effect. Plus they would have to promise commitment as well, something they aren’t looking to do. The best way to understand this is they want a realistic roller coaster. They want the excitement of feeling like they are out of control while knowing grownups are keeping them safe. This is why the mixed messages. The seduction must be from a mysterious stranger, a verifiable bad boy. But they want to assuage their fear given the great risk involved with submitting to such men. So they demand that society make it safe for them to be seduced by bad men. I introduce Mrs. Susan Walsh, of HUS, here to make sure bad men are cowed into offering commitment following no strings sex.
@AnonGuy
I’ll start by pointing out that I’m perhaps the only man blogging in the manosphere who doesn’t claim to be alpha. I have no interest in creating an alpha playground. From a biological perspective, I’m a K strategy reproducer and alphas are r strategy reproducers.
The problem is your line of thinking is exactly what brought us from near zero percent out of wedlock birthrates to 40% (and climbing) in the US. So I ask you, what is more important to you: The wellbeing of innocent children, or “fairness” revoking the dreaded double standard? How many millions of children do we need to feed to the fairness machine to decide that maybe fighting the double standard isn’t worth the terrible toll of broken families and fatherless children? If we aren’t there now, when? Will 50% be enough? 60%? 70%?
Yes, anon guy, men are merely pawns for society. What’s best for women, what women want is infinitely better for society than what players want, never mind what normal men want LOL. They don’t even get a say. It’s Alphas and women that get all the say. Yet players are the ones being created by slutty, pathetic wenches like Susan and these players will not commit to woman, as they don’t need or want to. There’s the conundrum for Susan and yourself. The men who engage in the hook-up scene, most are aware of the actions of women and have no intention, nor will to commit to them.
You’re missing the entire point. If a woman enters into a ‘no strings attached’ relationship, i.e. the hook-up culture, she has no RIGHT to seek commitment, nor does society. Both are merely seeing men as slaves, and so do you. Any society that values men as slaves, not fathers or providers, inventors or builders or even valuable members of society, deserves to die. This society is dead.
Women getting into hook-up relationships, stating that they are free sexually, deserve no commitment, they are not morally right or upstanding, they merely moved the goal posts to fit their desire. They’re the worst type of human being, selfish and conniving, nothing moral there I’m afraid. You’re a SoCon, wrapping misandry up as Chivalry, not realising that a real Knight would rebuke these women with force. He would not marry them and would not expect men to upkeep them.
You can’t have it both ways, either you have a society that values patriarchal enforcement, i.e. man at the head of the family, or you have matriarchal enforcement, where the men ain’t interested in what society wants; since society simply sees them as slaves and screws them over and over and over again. Right in the arse! Hence they simply leave society to ruin and chaos.
However, you can marry these hook-up queens and support them in an legal arrangement that is stacked against you from the start. Have fun!
I really don’t care about this society, nor its feral women. I only care about my people and those that stick to the true word of the Lord. Far too much energy has been wasted on liberal hodgepodge schemes. I look forward to its utter collapse, its rebirth and finally, its revival.
Dalrock,
Well, do you think that some of them are exploiting women or not? (let’s leave rape out of this – I am not siding with this view… not sure Susan means this either…) It seems to me that if a guy tries to hook up with *no interest in a relationship* possibly forming he is being exploitive. You disagree? No, these are the kinds of guys any sensible father of a daughter would aim to scare the hell out of. Still, the women who hook up hope to change even these crass exploiters (many of whom are indeed alpha males) into someone who truly loves and cares for them – and the children that are the natural fruit of this union, if that occurs.
“The women also aren’t demanding commitment prior to sex. This vestige of civilization is restraining and ruins their feral fun. They want to be seduced by a mysterious stranger; marrying him first ruins the effect. Plus they would have to promise commitment as well, something they aren’t looking to do….etc, etc.”
I agree with what you are writing here, but you miss my point.
My point about alpha males is that, as regards the hookup culture, they are the ones who are, in general, seeing things in terms of rights. Sex is their right. The women are, in general, seeing things in terms of hopes. Their *hope* is conversion. You’d expect that from the weaker sex.
Dalrock, you have beta sensibilities. You co-operate with these Alphas and Alpha-imitators who you’d never let near your daughter because, politically speaking, a broad manosphere tent makes sense (right now). The fact of the matter, however, is that men are strong and need to realize they are under the dominion of a Stronger man, One who crushes false “lovers” who, in the name of love, lovelessly use others for their own hollow, empty, and perishing purposes. There is only one true Lover: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/a-husband-and-father-like-no-other/
I think you know this.
Sensible persons who don’t buy the above story realize that either another story (which will only be a pale imitation and not have the power of the one above) or raw power (strong man) need to be in place in order to have any hope of keeping Western civ going south permanently. Of course, I’d prefer people be ruled internally by the Alpha of the universe, instead of the alternative.
Cheers,
Ladies and Gentleman our newest socon white knight.
AnonymousGuy.
Man they just cant help themselves.
And anon guy. If women desire a ‘committed’ relationship. Maybe that’s what they should actually start looking for. From a young age, whilst they’re still attractive, worthwhile and not bitter, slutty harpies hell bent on masculine destruction.
It just is what it is. Dalrock is exactly right. There is nothing wrong with his article. A woman in the hook-up culture, expecting commitment from the man she freely supplied with sex, who previously gave free sex to a long line of alphas, should not have commitment, she disregarded the courtship rules and deserves no less than consecutive short-term pumps and dumps, followed by loneliness, childlessness and then cats. It’s a logical progression.
You want marriage as a woman, make it worthwhile for a man. Be mindful and respectful to men who interact with you and choose at a young age, the right man for a lifelong commitment. Keep that commitment, love and respect that man for as long as you live and breath and you will have the reward of lifelong marriage. Don’t do it, follow the career path and sexmeup culture instead and your chances dwindle to almost negligible amounts and you will find yourself having to listen to Susan to scrape a smidgen of attractiveness together to get a mate and you won’t have a lifelong marriage but instead it will be followed up by a divorce, the destruction of your children’s lives and living alone with cats. At least you will have ‘earned’ your cash and prizes though. Well, at least the courts will award you with them.
@AnonGuy
Of course. How can he possibly know the desires of the woman? She is entering into an arrangement where the sole rule is there are no expectations. See Susan’s definition. By the same token, if you pick up a woman at a bar and have sex with her, you have no right to be shocked if she doesn’t offer to be your dutiful wife the next morning.
“The problem is your line of thinking is exactly what brought us from near zero percent out of wedlock birthrates to 40% (and climbing) in the US. So I ask you, what is more important to you: The wellbeing of innocent children, or “fairness” revoking the dreaded double standard? How many millions of children do we need to feed to the fairness machine to decide that maybe fighting the double standard isn’t worth the terrible toll of broken families and fatherless children? If we aren’t there now, when? Will 50% be enough? 60%? 70%?”
Sorry – Ill admit my brain isn’t as informed and able to make all the logical connections that I know you can. Not sure what you are getting at here – why I must choose (I’ll try to read the article you linked to). As a father, if my son got a girl pregnant, I would expect him to marry her. And I’d expect my Church to help out with that (i.e. back this up). In society that is obviously not going to happen anymore, I know. Likewise with the girl – if she gets pregnant by a guy, that’s the guy she should be marrying. It might not happen, but that’s the general way it should go.
@anonguy
“My point about alpha males is that, as regards the hookup culture, they are the ones who are, in general, seeing things in terms of rights. Sex is their right. The women are, in general, seeing things in terms of hopes. Their *hope* is conversion. You’d expect that from the weaker sex. ”
I’ve never seen any of these alphas say nasty things about women who choose to remain chaste and not have casual sex with them. So, I don’t see where you get that they feel they have a “right” to no strings sex. They may have an expectation of it based on past experience, but they don’t see it as a “right”.
On the other hand, the women will say nasty things about men who sleep with them but then don’t commit. That sounds more like someone who thinks she has a “right” to something.
“She is entering into an arrangement where the sole rule is there are no expectations. See Susan’s definition.”
Right – and I am saying that almost all the girls who hook up know that it is not their “right” to expect anything. All I am saying is that it is there hope.
Can you seriously not see this? If you can’t, I’d say it is you who are denying reality.
Anon,
“do you think that some of them are exploiting women or not?”
Define exploitation. With examples.
The shortcut is that no matter how you define it, someone will be doing it. But define it. I guess you dont mean that non strings sex equals exploitation per se, even when you make it sound like it.
Here in reality anonguy, men say what they mean and mean what they say. And in that vain, when a man says ‘no strings attached sex’ that’s exactly what he means. A woman relying on hope in the above situation is delusional. Does a delusional woman, who has had multiple cocks up her vajayjay, sound like a good marriage deal for your son?
Didn’t think so. Take care now.
Crank beat me to it
FH:
“Yet players are the ones being created by slutty, pathetic wenches like Susan and these players will not commit to woman, as they don’t need or want to. There’s the conundrum for Susan and yourself.”
And you. Call them out. Beat them up. Kick ass. They are losers.
“If a woman enters into a ‘no strings attached’ relationship, i.e. the hook-up culture, she has no RIGHT to seek commitment, nor does society.”
I agree. What is your point? I am talking about what women hope for.
“You’re a SoCon, wrapping misandry up as Chivalry, not realising that a real Knight would rebuke these women with force. He would not marry them and would not expect men to upkeep them.”
Um, no. I rebuke these women as well. Thought I made that clear. Rush should never have backed down. I also don’t expect Christian men to “man up” and marry women who’ve got kids from someone else.
Really – you aren’t talking to me. I like conversations, but this isn’t one.
FH:
“And anon guy. If women desire a ‘committed’ relationship. Maybe that’s what they should actually start looking for. From a young age, whilst they’re still attractive, worthwhile and not bitter, slutty harpies hell bent on masculine destruction.”
Agree.
“It just is what it is. Dalrock is exactly right. There is nothing wrong with his article. A woman in the hook-up culture, expecting commitment from the man she freely supplied with sex, who previously gave free sex to a long line of alphas, should not have commitment, she disregarded the courtship rules and deserves no less than consecutive short-term pumps and dumps, followed by loneliness, childlessness and then cats. It’s a logical progression.”
“expecting” should be hoping for..
“long line of alphas” [who she hoped might love her]…
As for the rest, I tend to agree, but maybe have an ounce more pity. : )
@ Anon
“Right – and I am saying that almost all the girls who hook up know that it is not their “right” to expect anything. All I am saying is that it is there hope.”
So a guy is supposed to ‘man up’ and commit to a woman that he doesn’t know simply because she hopes to hook him in with a night of amazing sex? Sounds pretty….. well… entitled thinking and exploitative
” As a father, if my son got a girl pregnant, I would expect him to marry her. And I’d expect my Church to help out with that (i.e. back this up).”
Would you still feel this way if any or all of the following were true: the girl was a slut and it was a one night stand, the girl has drug issues, the girl has mental issues, the girl has a past of bad relationships, she demonstrates that she is poor mother material, demonstrates she’s poor wife material, she has to be thoroughly persuaded into the marriage, or (seeing as you’re religious as well) she says she refuses to raise the child Christian?
Which of those would you start to see your expectation of marriage between your son and the girl as ruining your sons life with a future divorce or unhappy marriage? Any? All? His financial future, career, and happiness are on the line.
Crank,
“I’ve never seen any of these alphas say nasty things about women who choose to remain chaste and not have casual sex with them. So, I don’t see where you get that they feel they have a “right” to no strings sex. They may have an expectation of it based on past experience, but they don’t see it as a “right”.
On the other hand, the women will say nasty things about men who sleep with them but then don’t commit. That sounds more like someone who thinks she has a “right” to something.”
Thanks for saying something that gets me thinking. I think you are right. So let’s reformulate: Alphas expect sex and women hope for commitment. “The women” – would you say, women, in general, do this (say nasty things about guys who don’t commit)? Maybe you are right, in which case I am a naive white knight. : )
But, I would guess, in general, they just feel more worthless and unloved and un-relationship-worthy than anything – and many aren’t sure what to do to change things.
Sure some guys feel like that to. But they aren’t the Alphas.
Are you talking about the wenches here or the players? I’ll take it as the wenches as that’s far more fun.
Anyway, I take offense to that, I call these hook-up sluts out, but I don’t beat them up or kick their arses. I really actually don’t want much at all to do with them. I don’t want to mete out punishment, nor teach them discipline. They have their own consequences to deal with. Life made right once more.
You previously stated that this ‘hope’ of women for committed relationships out of hook-ups is better for society and more moral than the actions of players. That’s the point of the statement. It’s not better for society and it certainly ain’t moral. Rather a biggy with me to point that out.
No, you expect players and alphas to stop ‘exploiting’ these loose women and give them what they crave, which is commitment. Ain’t going to happen, not anytime soon. Bring back the old courtship rules, remove the hook-up scene entirely and shame sluts, cads too if you like, and then perhaps expecting men to care about the needs of society and women in general might be received, by normal beta men, a bit more favourably.
YOHAMI:
“Define exploitation. With examples.”
Don’t need to. Already did:
“It seems to me that if a guy tries to hook up with *no interest in a relationship* possibly forming he is being exploitive.”
@Anon: You’re drawing a distinction without a difference between the thought processes of alpha men and hypergamous women when you say that the former think they have a right to promiscuous sex and the latter merely hope for alpha commitment. The alphas hope to get laid, and will do what they can, honestly or deceitfully, towards that end. But one of the main points of this blog is that women, or a large subset of them, hope to get commitment – or, at any rate, the practical fruits thereof – and will do what they can, honestly or deceitfully, towards that end. Neither is putting together grand metaphysical cases why they’re right to do what they do; neither is above a bit of quick and dirty rationalization, either.
You are, further, wholly incorrect when you say that the girls who hook up ‘desire a committed relationship’. They do not. They desire commitment from men; they do not have any desire to reciprocate that commitment. Hence the rest of your post fails for want of relevancy.
“Here in reality anonguy, men say what they mean and mean what they say. And in that vain, when a man says ‘no strings attached sex’ that’s exactly what he means. A woman relying on hope in the above situation is delusional.”
Yep – the weaker sex. Mentally to?
Leap of Beta,
“So a guy is supposed to ‘man up’ and commit to a woman that he doesn’t know simply because she hopes to hook him in with a night of amazing sex? Sounds pretty….. well… entitled thinking and exploitative”
Why is that specifically?
Any if you were relating to the players, that I should call out, beat up and kick their arses, because they are well… losers. I really don’t have the time, nor the energy. I truly believe that a woman has moral accountability, and if she chooses to use that accountability to pursue hook-ups with a long line of unsuitable partners, that’s her decision, not my place to interfere.
If she tries to ensnare a beta afterwards and isn’t truthful about her past, then and only then would I actually care what she does with her life.
LOB:
“Would you still feel this way if any or all of the following were true: the girl was a slut and it was a one night stand, the girl has drug issues, the girl has mental issues, the girl has a past of bad relationships, she demonstrates that she is poor mother material, demonstrates she’s poor wife material, she has to be thoroughly persuaded into the marriage, or (seeing as you’re religious as well) she says she refuses to raise the child Christian?
Which of those would you start to see your expectation of marriage between your son and the girl as ruining your sons life with a future divorce or unhappy marriage? Any? All? His financial future, career, and happiness are on the line.”
All good points. I plan on never having to wrestle with them. If she has to be thoroughly persuaded into the marriage, it might be better to not marry but still be there for the kid.
@AnonGuy
This is where you are going wrong. The woman pushes for commitment/investment from the man she wants to have sex with. She isn’t looking for a comitted relationship, misguidedly offering sex in hope that an altruistic badboy will do the right thing. She wants sex from alphas. Full Stop. She also wants resources/investment from men, ideally the same man she gets sex from (but that isn’t a dealbreaker). What she doesn’t want, what she is terrified of (much more than men), is truly committing to one man.
I have to head out, but on the topic of the double standard you might also check out my post: We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan. It is lighter reading than the OP or the other one I linked to.
FH:
“Are you talking about the wenches here or the players? I’ll take it as the wenches as that’s far more fun.”
I meant the players.
“You previously stated that this ‘hope’ of women for committed relationships out of hook-ups is better for society and more moral than the actions of players. That’s the point of the statement. It’s not better for society and it certainly ain’t moral. ”
What they hope for is not ideal, as the context sucks, but it is still better than what the players want. Wanting a committed relationship is the right thing all the time (better for society and the kids) The means to get there should be right too.
@anonguy
“The women” – would you say, women, in general, do this (say nasty things about guys who don’t commit)? Maybe you are right, in which case I am a naive white knight. : ) ”
No, just the women who characterize all men who don’t offer commitment after sex as “exploitative”, in the perjoritive sense of the word. So, in the sense you are not a naive white knight. 🙂
However, the reason you may be a naive white knight is that you are not able (at least not at this point) to supress the natural male compulsion to protect women at all costs (even from themselves), even when it means throwing other men under the bus. So, when a woman seduces a guy in a hope of gaining commitment, and then doesn’t get it, your first impulse was hold him accountable rather than her. I think Dalrock’s point, in part, is that when society took the approach of holding the woman accountable, we had almost zero OOW births. Now that society tends to follow your approach (by giving women all the choices and never judging them while attempting to shame males who don’t offer commitment after sex when desired), we get close to 50% OOW births. Obviously, there is more involved in the OOW birth rate than just that, but you get the point.
…
“No, you expect players and alphas to stop ‘exploiting’ these loose women and give them what they crave, which is commitment. Ain’t going to happen, not anytime soon.”
I agree. The men don’t deserve the sex and the women don’t deserve the commitment. Only the women get what they deserve though. : )
OK all – I need to slow down now as need to go and won’t have internet access. I will read the rest of the comments. Thanks for your thoughts. I love debates and I think this is the best way to learn. I’m not convinced I’ll be more on your side after all this – I just saw one of Dalrock’s most recent comments and it looked very interesting…
Maybe more from me in the A.M.
Cheers!
@ AnonGuy
“Why is that specifically?”
It’s entitled and exploitative because she MADE HER OWN CHOICE to have no strings attached sex with a man that….wait for it…. wanted no strings attached sex.
If she failed to clarify her hopes or actually get commitment before having sex, she was stupid, made poor choices, and shouldn’t have slept with the guy. To participate in the Hook up scene is to participate in short term mating strategies – all of which will favor men who will never commit.
So. To take a situation where it is understood that there is no strings attached and then try to attach them afterwards – and I really don’t care what means she uses – is exploitative and entitled in its behavior. If the man chooses to do so because he finds he likes her after that, then great. But to say he has to is to take the responsibility for her choices away from the woman while taking the freedom of his choices away from the man.
“I plan on never having to wrestle with them. If she has to be thoroughly persuaded into the marriage, it might be better to not marry but still be there for the kid.”
Show me a woman in the hook up scene that has none of those issues. I’ll take her and start a relationship with her, screw your son having her.
Otherwise, if your son gets a girl pregnant with someone through a hookup, plan on having to deal with those. Take those thoughts into account before you go and preach to men who know the risks of dating ANY woman, let alone one in hook up culture, simply because she decides she ‘hopes’ to have him commit after the sex.
Anon,
YOHAMI: “Define exploitation. With examples.” Don’t need to. Already did: “It seems to me that if a guy tries to hook up with *no interest in a relationship* possibly forming he is being exploitive.”
No you didnt, you said that a guy who tries to hook up with no interest in a relationship is possibly being exploitative.
You didnt define exploitation. Do so, please. With examples.
@ AnonGuy
“Wanting a committed relationship is the right thing all the time (better for society and the kids) The means to get there should be right too.”
Then they shouldn’t be involved in hookup culture and partake in one night stands. Big shocker.
You might be surprised, but there still ARE other ways to meet people. Just don’t expect a reformed slut to be anything but laughed and avoided at if they attempt them.
Anon sounds a lot like Escoffier?
[D: I was thinking the same thing.]
AnonymousGuy
See the 80/20 rule, even Voxday who is affiliated with HUS validated this principle with an extensive online survey.
You are arguing from a fem centric point of view, where her feminine imperative (to maximize personal utility) to bag the biggest alpha and carousel her way to her goals are ‘noble’, yet if the alpha does the same and persues the masculine imperative (to maximize personal utility) his goals are ignoble. You are holding on to a double standard.
Either they are both wrong and traditional relationship formation is right (virginity, masculine authority, no divorce) or they are both right.
I have yet to read a woman in the relationship-osphere who is prepared to argue that aspiring wives should remain virgins, or at least only give it up for the man they are on the way to marrying. That seems to be unthinkable, certainly at places like Hooking Up Sluts.
We, the culture, need to valorise female virginity again. Yes, I said specifically female virginity. (The usual hamster move now is to start demanding male virginity too).
I should have been clearer. By woman in the relationship-osphere, I mean an influential woman who runs a blog. Some female commentators do promote female virginity as a prerequisite for wanting to be a wife.
Maybe I’m being silly here, but I’m okay with women not being virgins. Though maybe it’s not silly, but more me having come to terms that if I do want to find someone to be with, I’m going to accept that it’s 90% likely that they’ve had a previous relationship before.
I don’t think we can really valorise female virginity again though, not while male virginity is still seen as something shameful. It’s just exchanging one double standard for another which to me is kind of pointless. And even if it was attempted, I think it would get shouted down with the same old boring, predictable cry of the femnazi, “The patriarchy is trying to keep us down! Let’s show em, grrrrrrrrrls!”
AnonymousGuy, what the women in question want is “fried ice”. They want something that is impossible to provide in the context of a functioning civilization. To claim that their mutually contradictory desires are “good”, while ignoring the actual, real world outcomes of those desires – 40% bastardy rate – is in no way a serious, rational position.
You have to give up the “men bad, women good” mindset just for a start. That is the first step to realizing that bending an entire civilization into a pretzel in the vain attempt to provide heaping helpings of fried ice to women is not only not working, it is jackhammering at the very foundations of the civilization you so blithely take for granted.
“Give ever woman every thing she wants, when she wants it” is not a workable philosophy. Although it clearly makes men who espouse it popular, in some senses.
There is no harm in trying, Phantasmagoria.
As you have admitted, comparing male virginity to female virginity is an invalid comparison.
There is no male equivalent of the carousel. Almost any young women that is not physically repulsive can get a sexual partner. Men at that same age do not have the same issue.
The church is quick to pillory men for not marrying the single moms. When i was single, the girls attitude made all the difference. Many of the carousel riders would readily trash their last alpha partners, showing in their ‘used and put away wet’ behaviours. Now, i understand they were just pining for more dominance from the man who had spurned them.
But like poorly trained animals, many could not resist seeking another five minutes with any alpha they could seduce. Reminded me of hosea and gomer, but without the wedding. These gals just wanted the moral affirmation that they were loved, special and they’d be off again, chasing the next ride.
In such circumstances, no man in his right mind should entertain a carousel rider.
I wouldn’t say there is no harm in trying. Though firstly, I’ll admit that I have a fairly negative view of the whole situation but I’m open to being proved wrong.
Okay, from my perspective it seems that we want to make female virginity a good thing to have. The problem being that it isn’t really seen that way anymore because of the ease in which an average woman can get single or multiple hook-ups.
Now, using logical arguements to suggest why having as many sexual adventures with as many partners as possible before trying to settle down tends to get shot down fairly often because men as a whole are big and mean and scary and just trying to keep the poor delicate women under the heel of their boot. So instead, men turn to simply not giving women what they want, i.e. commitment after 10 years or so of sexual adventures, which in turn leads to the whole “where have all the good men gone!” outcry. Admittedly, I think this tactic will work in the end as long as it’s stuck to, but in the mean time it makes things hard for the decent, unpromiscuous men and women out there.
In my opinion, a lot of the problems are due to the ratio of players/people who want serious relationships. Let’s say that the percentage for men is 30%/70% and 70%/30% for women. If you’re automatically discarding 70% of women as unmarriageable due to their choices, utlimately it means that many good men will miss out on finding that special someone. As will many of the women who made that choice to sleep around.
I’m not saying that everyone should man up and marry those ‘sluts’, far from it. I just think that if the current trend continues, there will be many lonely people out there and I think that is one of the worst things tht could happen to a person.
Apologies if I don’t really make sense or I ramble. I’m honestly still really trying to sort through my thoughts on all these topics and I sometimes don’t articulate my opinions very well.
Right – and I am saying that almost all the girls who hook up know that it is not their “right” to expect anything. All I am saying is that it is there hope.
And that “hope” is stupid, naive, self-serving and pointless and needs to be smashed, obliterated into millions of pieces so that women can understand how destructive this behavior really is.
Phantasmagoria, may I suggest a couple of useful memes? (I must say I am having trouble following your argument.)
“No rings for sluts”
“White weddings are for virgins”.
Well, I guess the main point of my arguement is that female hypergamy without consequence is bad and that you shouldn’t give them the benefit of a long term relationship/marriage if they chose to spend their early years slutting it up. But by the same token, if there are many cat crazy spinsters who used to be former sluts, that means there are also many decent men out there who got overlooked and who will also be lonely.
I guess I dislike the idea of all those people having to be lonely. While it’s unfair that good men should be expected to man up and marry those sluts and work forever to keep them happy, it’s also unfair that many people should have to be lonely in order to try and fight it.
OK, Phantasmagoria, still not getting it. Let’s go to a poem:
http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/first-draft/
Finally, in general, what the girls who hook up desire – a committed relationship – is infinitely better for society (the children) than what the players, in general, desire. What they want is “better” from a practical point of view – not to mention “right” from a moral point of view.
No, because generally what women “want” is serial monogamy, not a real commitment from *themselves*. Sure, they want the man to commit, but they never really want to commit themselves, so that they can keep their options open, even when married, if/when an “appropriate upgrade” becomes available. The desire for serial monogamy — which manifests in the short term as a desire for commitment on the part of a male partner — is no more moral than the desire men may have for promiscuity opportunities — in fact, it is simply the preferred female form of promiscuity, just on a more delayed timeline. Contemporary society (perhaps you as well) has internalized this female prerogative as being the “good” way to “do relationships” , even though it results in massive levels of divorce and fatherlessness due to the fundamentally mercurial nature of female hypergamy, which is more or less completely enabled by endorsing this perspective as “better” and “moral”. This is a sickness in our society, and a profound moral shortcoming of almost all so-called “Christian” churches today.
This is one of the key messages of this blog, to be honest, and Dalrock has made the case well in many other posts, in my opinion.
Okay, I’ll try again. Marrying sluts is bad. If we assume a 1:1 ratio on men to women where 70% of women are sluts and 30% of men are players or mansluts or whatever and therefore ineligible for marriage.
That leaves you with 30% of women who aren’t sluts and 70% of men who aren’t players. No matter how hard you try, the 30% of women cannot marry and have fufilling relationships with the 70% of eligible guys left. This means that 40% of men will be left alone and lonely (mostly) through no fault of their own.
People are saying that in order to try and stop hypergamy, or at least reduce it as much as possible, you should not marry sluts. This still basically dooms people to being alone because there simply aren’t enough good women to go around.
Being alone and lonely = bad.
Thanks, Phantasmagoria, that makes more sense to me. I shall have to think about your argument. I should say that I am an older guy living in Australia, born in 1955, so I approach this whole thing a bit like an anthropologist … ever heard of the Nacirema? … look them up for fun.
@ Phantasmagoria
“Being alone and lonely = bad.”
Well. Its either find one of the rare good women, do the MGTOW thing, or risk the slutty woman that takes you to divorce rape or simply isn’t a good wife even if she stays with you.
We can’t control women and keep them from poor choices and bad behavior, but we don’t have to reward that with our time, money, energy, and devotion.
Make your choice.
@ David: I’m just glad I managed to make sense of it in the end, haha. I guess I’m at the other end of the spectrum though, being a young guy living in Australia. I’m still not very confident in my opinions about a lot of things yet so I do tend to ramble on.
@ Leap: But that’s the thing, the rare good woman is just that; rare. There won’t be one good woman for every good man. I’m not willing to let myself be, well, violated by a slutty women who doesn’t respect me and would divorce me the instant she’s unhappy, but neither do I like the idea that the only option is to be alone and try and find fufillment in other ways.
It just seems ridiculously unfair that girls can be brought up being told that if they wait, their Prince Charming will come and find them and make them happy forever. While as a man, I’m just told to work hard and accept whatever crust I get given. I’m a human being with emotions too, why should I not have the same right to a fairytale life as anyone else?
A bitter draught may be better for survival than nothing at all, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it.
Oh, Phantasmagoria – may I call you Phanta? – you are in Oz too. I wondered why you were posting at this hour.
I got one of the good ones, but you do have to look hard. I wish you luck. Just remember what Schopenhauer said: “nature has gifted women with great powers of dissimulation to make up for their mental and physical weakness”, or something like that.
@ Phantasmagoria
“It just seems ridiculously unfair that girls can be brought up being told that if they wait, their Prince Charming will come and find them and make them happy forever. ”
Yep. World’s unfair. Its bitter, it sucks, but you have to move on.
And while you’re being told to accept what you’re given, you reject that idea, and strive for better…. They’re realizing that they won’t get all their dreams because we won’t put up with their shit. So it’s not like they live in a fairy tale either.
Still, don’t worry. You won’t see me feeling sorry for them. They made their choice, so now I’ll show them mine – and it won’t be marriage to a slut, a career girl, or a hippo.
Phanta,
That women are largely treacherous and deceptive, makes game essential. Treat them like the lying children they are. And get a prenup. Marriage is not a joining of equals. Sinners, yes. But not equal before the law.
Ask any divorcee.
Dalrock,
First of all sir, a pleasure. Thanks for your hospitality and engagement. I’ve been reading you for a year. I am not Gilligan (good post by the way!) I say shame the sluts and the players – not just in theory, but for real. It’s not impossible. That’s the way it used to be done prior to feminism. Child-support laws also should be changed. Men get screwed all the time here. I’m with you on all this.
I said:
Thanks for saying something that gets me thinking. I think you are right. So let’s reformulate: Alphas expect sex and women hope for commitment.
You responded to me:
“This is where you are going wrong. The woman pushes for commitment/investment from the man she wants to have sex with. She isn’t looking for a comitted relationship, misguidedly offering sex in hope that an altruistic badboy will do the right thing. She wants sex from alphas. Full Stop. She also wants resources/investment from men, ideally the same man she gets sex from (but that isn’t a dealbreaker). What she doesn’t want, what she is terrified of (much more than men), is truly committing to one man.”
I disagree. It seems clear to me that it comes down to this: insofar as we are talking about hooking up (which are casual sexual encounters that take place ***apart from any steps towards a possible long term committed relationships*** – forms of cohabitation [also wrong according to Christianity] are not in view here because in this case, generally speaking, there is an assumption on the part of both persons that their living together could continually lead to increased levels of commitment [although the opposite usually happens in real life]) alpha males and their imitators, in general, expect sex and women, in general, hope for commitment (some may expect it, although it seems to me that this is more rare). Of course I think you are right to some degree with what you say above, but I’d reformulate it like this: the attractive man a woman wants to have sex with (as I said earlier, the most alpha man she can find [and vice versa for the man]) – remember the study you just cited about how women fool themselves into thinking the alpha bad boy would be good for them?) is the man she hopes for commitment from – she wants provision, protection, affection, kindness, and of course sex as well – because this is part of the package of a male-female committed relationship. In other words, in general, they want MMSL.
I think it is pretty clear this is the case, but in all honesty, I think I am more than open to being convinced otherwise – i.e. this is a matter of evidence and reasoning, not some immovable ideology. Actually, I’d prefer it if women lusted for alphas, full stop (as you say), in a way similar to how men lust for alpha women. I’m just not convinced it is so. Their desire for alphas is sexual, but It’s more complex than that… They want the strong sexy man (and the sex) *with the romance, love, affection, provision, protection, etc. etc.* – and they want to live “happily ever after* (even as the evidence shows that many don’t feel they get this and so go looking elsewhere…) Fickle creatures they are….
Again, my point: committed male-female relationships, which involve sex and other kinds of sharing between two persons who are attracted to one another, are objectively a greater good overall (for society, children, etc.) than a man using the woman as his disposable sperm receptacle. The fact that women wrongly pursue this committed relationship via hookups cannot eliminate this fact.
Leap of a Beta: “It’s entitled and exploitative because she MADE HER OWN CHOICE to have no strings attached sex with a man that….wait for it…. wanted no strings attached sex.”
We are all complex creatures – especially women. So a woman can’t participate in a hookup fully realizing that it really is no strings attached while simultaneously hoping that the man, of their own free will, will find her interesting and enjoyable enough to think about spending more time with her… and then more time… and then…. ? I’m not saying that this is smart (though I would also say it’s not illogical given certain premises), I am just saying that I think that this is what many women who hookup think. Sure some men will never commit – but they hold on to the hope that they may be the one who will change them. (as you say: “If the man chooses to do so because he finds he likes her after that, then great”). So no – not really an exploitative or “entitlement” attitude I’d say. What evidence can you offer me that this is the wrong way of looking at it?
“But to say he has to [commit]…”
Again, not my argument. I’m saying that most girls who hookup don’t think he *has to* commit. They are hoping to “convert” him. They want to save him so that he will be a good husband and daddy. In general, it’s their hope – not their demand.
“Show me a woman in the hook up scene that has none of those issues. I’ll take her and start a relationship with her, screw your son having her.”
Actually, I’d look for girls who aren’t interested in the hookup scene. They are out there. Those are the kinds of girls I want my sons to meet.
YOHAMI:
“No you didnt, you said that a guy who tries to hook up with no interest in a relationship is possibly being exploitative.”
Actually, no. I said the guy who tries to hook up with no interest in the possibility of a relationship *is* being exploitive.
FH: “that a woman has moral accountability, and if she chooses to use that accountability to pursue hook-ups with a long line of unsuitable partners, that’s her decision, not my place to interfere.”
Well – I suppose it depends on the nature of your relationship with them. If it were your sister, I assume you’d think about it differently though.
Crank: “So, when a woman seduces a guy in a hope of gaining commitment, and then doesn’t get it, your first impulse was hold him accountable rather than her.”
Actually, no. In this case, as the woman seduces the man, she’s the guilty one. Still, though, the objective good that she hopes for (committed relationship) is better than the one the male seducer generally expects (his solitary genital pleasure).
“I think Dalrock’s point, in part, is that when society took the approach of holding the woman accountable, we had almost zero OOW births. Now that society tends to follow your approach (by giving women all the choices and never judging them while attempting to shame males who don’t offer commitment after sex when desired), we get close to 50% OOW births. Obviously, there is more involved in the OOW birth rate than just that, but you get the point.”
Back then the woman was held accountable (shamed), but so was the man. That might be part of why we had so many OOW births. You talk about my “approach” but then you go on to attribute a position to me that I do not hold. My point is, again, the objective good that she hopes for (committed relationship) is better than the one the male seducer generally expects (his solitary genital pleasure). Her way of trying to get there is wrong and stupid, but what she seeks is the best thing for all of us. Or maybe you’d like to convince me of the great societal benefits of what the alpha male expects?
Johnnycomelately: “You are arguing from a fem centric point of view, where her feminine imperative (to maximize personal utility) to bag the biggest alpha and carousel her way to her goals are ‘noble’, yet if the alpha does the same and persues the masculine imperative (to maximize personal utility) his goals are ignoble. You are holding on to a double standard.”
The guys also try to bag the best looking alpha female, but what they objectively seek (genital pleasure, status is a nice side-benefit) is inferior to what the female hoping to “bag” an alpha (and actually keep him) seeks. In general, committed female-male relationships that produce offspring are a benefit to civil society. It seems to me that the main sins of the woman here are foolishness and fear (of not being loved, protected, provided for). Certainly there is lust to, but that gets mixed in with the other sins (whereas with the male it is quite straightforward: lust) Also, I have already pointed out that the hypergamous impulses to trade up are wrong.
Anonymous Reader: ““Give ever woman every thing she wants, when she wants it” is not a workable philosophy. Although it clearly makes men who espouse it popular, in some senses.”
You need to read more carefully.
An observer: “The church is quick to pillory men for not marrying the single moms. When i was single, the girls attitude made all the difference.”
I won’t do this. Its ridiculous to do so. They are indeed, “damaged goods”. Some men may be able to, but most won’t – and even if they can – if God gives them the grace – it clearly may not be wise.
“These gals just wanted the moral affirmation that they were loved, special and they’d be off again, chasing the next ride.”
Exactly. It is immoral. But my point is that they, in general, are hoping for a stable and committed relationship, which is a greater good than the alternative.
“That women are largely treacherous and deceptive, makes game essential. Treat them like the lying children they are. And get a prenup. Marriage is not a joining of equals. Sinners, yes. But not equal before the law.”
This may not be necessary. My wife was a virgin, a catch, and a prenup would have killed something in our relationship. And yes, we are both awful sinners who by the grace of God get some real satisfaction out of the life He gives.
Brendan:
“And that “hope” is stupid, naive, self-serving and pointless and needs to be smashed, obliterated into millions of pieces so that women can understand how destructive this behavior really is.”
Yes. Call them sluts and don’t back down. But recognize that the same is true of the players and have the courage to call them out to, not succumbing to Dalrock’s notion that society is incapable of doing both. Also, again the self-serving goal the woman has is a greater good for society than the self-serving goal the man has. How can this be denied?
“… generally what women “want” is serial monogamy, not a real commitment from *themselves*. Sure, they want the man to commit, but they never really want to commit themselves, so that they can keep their options open, even when married, if/when an “appropriate upgrade” becomes available. The desire for serial monogamy — which manifests in the short term as a desire for commitment on the part of a male partner — is no more moral than the desire men may have for promiscuity opportunities — in fact, it is simply the preferred female form of promiscuity, just on a more delayed timeline. Contemporary society (perhaps you as well) has internalized this female prerogative as being the “good” way to “do relationships” , even though it results in massive levels of divorce and fatherlessness due to the fundamentally mercurial nature of female hypergamy, which is more or less completely enabled by endorsing this perspective as “better” and “moral”. This is a sickness in our society, and a profound moral shortcoming of almost all so-called “Christian” churches today.”
Brendan, this is the best attempt I’ve seen yet to counter my argument. Problem is though, women don’t know what they want. I don’t think any of us should get a Savior-mentality with anyone, but they really do need help. The fact is that the woman does want a commitment from the alpha guy they seek – *and* they want to commit to him as well – they really do want to be “happy ever after” – women in the hookup scene generally do not consciously seek “serial monogamy” – they want to be in a committed relationship where they freely give their heart to someone, period. Just because later on, they give into their primal nature does not negate this important truth. Again, I am *not* saying this is the “good” way to “do relationships”. You need to read more carefully to. I agree with the negative effects of hypergamy and do not endorse this as better. I agree the churches are responsible for a lot of this. When the moral pagans take over, they will have a field day.
Phantasmagoria,
Thank you for your voice. You have put the hopeless-sounding situation in a nice nutshell. That said, this:
“It just seems ridiculously unfair that girls can be brought up being told that if they wait, their Prince Charming will come and find them and make them happy forever. While as a man, I’m just told to work hard and accept whatever crust I get given. I’m a human being with emotions too, why should I not have the same right to a fairytale life as anyone else?”
…strikes me as whiny. How about those virgin girls who wait for Prince Charming? Hopefully, I’ll get a daughter who will be able to make one good man happy.
David Collard: “I have yet to read a woman in the relationship-osphere who is prepared to argue that aspiring wives should remain virgins, or at least only give it up for the man they are on the way to marrying. That seems to be unthinkable, certainly at places like Hooking Up Sluts.
We, the culture, need to valorise female virginity again. Yes, I said specifically female virginity. (The usual hamster move now is to start demanding male virginity too)”
Here, here! Although it may not be wise politically speaking, a person may actually show love to a woman by calling her a slut.
And we also don’t need satisfied dicks who don’t see beyond their satisfied dicks.
Now… I will listen. You can all have the last word. I will only reply again if I feel like I need to clarify something I have said that was misrepresented.
One more comment:
if anyone thinks that what I’ve written here is somewhat sensible, why not start a blog called “The AntiRoissy” – “because we don’t need satisfied dicks who don’t see beyond their satisfied dicks” (tagline). Just do one post a week holding the manosphere accountable and offering tough critiques and questions. I’d like to do something like it, but don’t have the time to do so.
“Back then the woman was held accountable (shamed), but so was the man. That might be part of why we had so many OOW births. You talk about my “approach” but then you go on to attribute a position to me that I do not hold.”
should say “few”, not “many”
Also: will not have time to comment today (if I think that is necessary)
Fair point, I’ll cop to coming across as whiny. Fairy tales do generally tend to favour women though. Maybe we need to look into a series of politically correct, equal opportunity modern fairy tales?
[D: The original Brothers Grimm tales are not pro woman. They are starkly different than the disneyfied versions. See Cinderella as an example.]
Nah, I prefer reality.
AnonymousGuy, your snarky reply did not answer any point I made. I read carefully. Probably more carefully than you wrote., in fact.
You still clearly assume that women want to be monogamous to one man. If that were true, then divorce would be rare, and the majority of them filed by men. However, divorce is common (40% or more of marriages in the first 10 years) and the majority are filed by women (60% and up). Therefore, your premise is not true. It is not true, because reality contradicts it.
As I said before, women want fried ice. You even admit this: women want an Alpha, a womanizing man who can have any woman he wants, but who will be true only to her. That is the nature of hypergamy. And as with so many female-centric posters, you are oh so concerned with women, while clearly regarding men as mere tools, animals, vending machines. You fail to realize that your position truly does boil down to this: giving every woman every thing that she wants, when she wants it.
In her 20’s, she wants an Alpha who will commit to her. You want her to have that. Later on, she will want a beta to provide resources to support the baby/babies she made with her Alpha. You want her to have that, too. Then when she gets bored with her beta man, restless, and wanting more Alpha sex, you want her to have that, too. Women are serial monogamists – they wish to use and discard men in a sequential fashion. You obviously do not have a problem with that – if women want it, it must be good. Reading your text, it is clearly your gynocentric perspective at work leading you to this position.
Look around you. 40% of babies are bastards. Women want it this way, because 5 minutes of Alpha is preferable to 5 years of Beta. That is the nature of uncontrolled hypergamy.
You do not understand women. Your romantic, idealized vision of women is not born out by reality. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Therefore, the current Sexual Market Place is what many, if not most, women want. And yes, All Women Are Like That (AWALT), but they can be trained to control their hypergamous nature. If they are not trained to control themselves, then various forms of serial monogamy are the most natural outcome. You say, “Shame the sluts, but shame the players, too”, a line that we have seen a few times. Here is the problem you have:
All women have the potential to be sluts. AWALT.
Serial, slutty, “monogamy” is the natural preference of women. They have to be trained to avoid or reject that. You obviously do not understand this, and so your premise is false. Therefore, none of your reasoning based on that premise has any meaning.
I believe that you have been told these things before, too. More than once, in fact.
Anon Guy:
“The fact is that the woman does want a commitment from the alpha guy they seek – *and* they want to commit to him as well – they really do want to be “happy ever after” – women in the hookup scene generally do not consciously seek “serial monogamy” – they want to be in a committed relationship where they freely give their heart to someone, period. Just because later on, they give into their primal nature does not negate this important truth.”
This is horseshit, plain and simple. Men reading this blog, please don’t accept anything Anonguy says. This is exactly the kind of thinking that pedestalizes women and causes untold pain for young men everywhere. It is the kind of thinking that causes men to mindlessly offer commitment on a silver platter to sluts, thus penalizing the man’s good faith conduct and rewarding the slut’s bad faith conduct.
Let’s review some basic history.
Up until about 60 years ago, we lived in an assortative mating society, marriage 1.0. It was a world of slut shaming and where hypergamy was tightly controlled. Oh, we still had sluts, and we still had alphas who sexed the sluts (and occasionally a “good girl”). Sometimes greater and classic betas blasted once or twice in a slut before they settled down for marriage. There were outlier sluts, outlier confirmed bachelors, but most married within a point or two of their own SMV.
In the name of fairness and justice, and “women’s liberation”, our society enacted sweeping legal, social and cultural reforms. These are driving up the divorce rates, age of men and women at first marriage, rate of birth of bastard children. They are driving down the rates of childbirth. Women drove this so they can have whatever they want. Increasingly, women en masse are showing over and over again that what they want in the sexual realm is this:
(1) hot sex with alpha men
(2) commitment from a series of men able to provide (for as long as the woman finds that commitment useful or advantageous to her)
What we now have is an SMP in which women have been given, and feel entitled to, whatever they want. They want sex, or commitment, or both, whenever they want, for as long as they want, with whomever they want, in any forms and combinations they want. They expect men to provide what they want, when they want.
Women do not “hope for commitment” from men they sex up in the hookup scene or on the carousel. Women get on the carousel because they want sex from dominant alpha men. They don’t hope for commitment. They want the sex.
I’m going to go out on a limb here: Women en masse want to ride the carousel. They want hot sex from alpha men, as much as they can get, for as long as they can get it. One of three things gets her off the carousel: (1) she is kicked off because she can’t pull the hot men anymore; (2) she steps off because she tires of it and can’t do it anymore; (3) baby rabies and desperate searches for marriage to the first available man. But make no mistake about it — she does not want off the carousel.
Those who don’t get to ride the carousel are carousel watchers. These women don’t slut it up like the full fledged sluts. They stand around, watching the alphas and the sluts. Occasionally, carousel watchers hook up with a greater beta or classic beta, and then shut him down when he offers commitment. The watcher doesn’t want commitment — she wants sex from a hot alpha. And occasionally, when business on the carousel is slow, an alpha horse invites a watcher to ride, and she gets a few rides. Sometimes she becomes a rider; most times she steps off or is kicked off.
What women really want is to ride the carousel for as long as she wants, then step off when she wants into the arms of an alpha offering commitment for as long as she wants.
Anon Guy:
You are wrong about shaming players. Shaming players does not work to create a viable, workable SMP. Controlling men’s sexual conduct does not create a good SMP. But reining in women’s natural urges does work. Reining in hypergamy, and training a woman to recognize it, control it, harness it and not indulge it, does work.
All this has been covered in Dalrock’s post on Slut Island/Gilligan. Slut shaming was employed in the prior SMP and in Marriage 1.0 because it works. A man does not damage his SMV through sex with multiple partners. On the contrary — he improves his SMV that way. But a woman does damage her SMV by slutting it up. In fact she can completely destroy her SMV and her MMV that way. Shaming alphas from promiscuity does not work, for two reasons: (1) alphas simply don’t respond to societal pressures and don’t care about conformity to convention; and (2) women will sex the alphas, regardless of how many there are.
For example: we have 100 men, 10 of whom are alphas. If there are 100 women, 10 of whom are sluts, the 10 sluts will sex the 10 alphas. Shaming alphas maybe gets rid of 1 or 2 alphas. Better for the 8 remaining alphas, because those 10 sluts are still sexing those 8 remaining alphas. This is bad for the men, because a few unlucky men won’t get a partner at all, or have to settle for marrying a slut who doesn’t want them. The alphas don’t care, because they aren’t getting married anyway.
Even if you get rid of all but one alpha, those 10 sluts will still sex that one alpha. Anon Guy and men like him erroneously assume that the sluts will stop being sluts and will settle down with a good provider beta. No. As long as a slut can sleep with an alpha, she will — even if she has to share him with other sluts.
Now let’s shame the sluts, which eliminates 3 or 4 sluts. Now 10 alphas have to share 6 sluts. That’s not good for the alphas because it cuts down their variety. Further shaming sluts also means those women will never marry. The alphas don’t care about marriage, nor about whether the women are good marriage material. But what alphas do care about is quick and easy access to sex. Fewer sluts means less easy sex. If the supply of sluts dries up, the only way for an alpha to get sex is to marry. Men being the rational creatures they are, they eventually conform as much as they have to in order to get what they want. So in this scenario in which we reduce sluts, even the bull alphas marry so they can get regular, easy sex.
And that’s how you create a functional, working SMP.
AnonymousGuy
if anyone thinks that what I’ve written here is somewhat sensible, why not start a blog called “The AntiRoissy” – “because we don’t need satisfied dicks who don’t see beyond their satisfied dicks” (tagline). Just do one post a week holding the manosphere accountable and offering tough critiques and questions. I’d like to do something like it, but don’t have the time to do so.
You don’t need to do so. What you describe is already in existence on the Oxygen network, on Lifetime, on OWN, in the pages of many magazines and newspapers, and in fact all around us. Your gynocentric desires are already being met – there is an abundance of shaming of men for their failures to cater to women’s whims, and plenty of attacks upon male sexuality. So no need to worry. Your job is being done by others.
You might note, however, that the social conditions you claim to disliker are a direct result of the gynocentric platform that you are pushing on us. Giving women every thing they want hasn’t been working out. If you are capable of actually learning, you might come to realize that. If all you are is yet another cheerleader, “Yay, Women! Go Team Women!” then I doubt any of the things written here make any sense to you at all.
You may now return to your grass hut…
AnonGuy:
“they really do want to be “happy ever after” – women in the hookup scene generally do not consciously seek “serial monogamy” – they want to be in a committed relationship where they freely give their heart to someone, period.”
This is the biggest pile of horseshit Anonguy dumped here. I don’t believe women in the hookup scene want to “freely give their heart to someone”. What she wants is hot sex from alphas, and provisioning from whomever will give it to her, for as long as it serves her interests and purposes.
A woman in the hookup culture does not offer her heart. If she stays in it long enough, she learns how not to do so and how to make it appear as if she is offering long term commitment while constructing elaborate defenses and stone walls around her heart. In fact she eventually can render herself incapable of giving her heart to anyone. She withholds her heart and withholds commitment. If/when a better deal comes along, she will need to take what’s left of her heart with her.
@AnonymousGuy
Thank you. We aren’t likely to change each other’s minds, it is just the nature of things. Short of something truly extraordinary, the best we can hope for is to truly understand why we disagree. I think we are getting at that, so that is a good thing no matter what.
On the Gilligan post, I don’t think you really got my intent though. Shaming players, while extremely tempting, is detrimental from a practical perspective. The women you are trying to save will rationalize this as an excuse for doing what they want to do. They will see it as a built in excuse, that they were taken advantage of. This is the problem with Susan’s post (and many others). Forget about the players for a minute. Do you care enough about young women not to be cruel to them? If so, don’t offer them a rationalization to do what they desperately want to do. Instead, why not go to an AA meeting and preach about how alcohol companies routinely trick people into drinking?
The problem is you hold this view not only without offering evidence for it, but contrary to what we actually are seeing. Women are the ones who typically push hardest both for marriage and divorce. Both theories (yours and mine) predict that women would be the ones pushing for marriage. But only mine predicts that they would also be the ones to push for divorce. You are like the proponents of the Ptolemaic model, adding more and more complexity to explain away the stubborn data.
Another thing to consider is why are the PUAs telling us what they are about this? They are motivated not by ideology but by practicality. They want to have sex with hot young women, as much sex with hot young women as possible. If hot young women wanted to commit to them, it would be insane for them to assume that the opposite was true. This would be something they could use to their advantage. But it isn’t, because it isn’t true. What they have found is the hot young women will stick around so long as their game is on target and the hot young woman keeps feeling the tingle.
The problem is what Roissy is teaching is generally speaking accurate. It isn’t pretty, and it can be downright painful to swallow. This has nothing to do with the morality of his own lifestyle. He can be sexually immoral and factually correct at the same time. That you are so quick to dismiss game suggests to me that you really haven’t studied it. This is the standard response from almost anyone to game on first exposure. But over time it gets harder to keep explaining reality away. I truly wish your view of female sexuality were correct. But pretending it is so is cruel to the innocent, both young women who are confused as well as the fatherless children it leads to.
The fact is that the woman does want a commitment from the alpha guy they seek – *and* they want to commit to him as well – they really do want to be “happy ever after” – women in the hookup scene generally do not consciously seek “serial monogamy” – they want to be in a committed relationship where they freely give their heart to someone, period. Just because later on, they give into their primal nature does not negate this important truth.
No, this is not correct.
Women who are in the hookup scene are seeking sex. These women like sex with alphas on its own merits — at least many/most of the women who are dishing out said uncommitted, no-strings sex to alphas in the context of the carousel certainly do. Sure, most of them would like him to be their “personal alpha male” for a time (the iconic female fantasy is “flipping the cad” to be their own personal, *loyal* cad, because he is so head over heels for them that he gives up his womanizing ways — it’s a kind of narcissistic fantasy which is the female equivalent of porn’s male narcissism, really), but if not, they will take the sex from the alpha anyway. The very nature of hooking up is that there is no commitment involved, and the women are offering up sex on a silver platter with that understanding — that’s because they actually are *hot* for the alpha and want to have sex with him, whether he commits to her later or not. The notion that the women in the hookup carousel market are all seeking committed relationships is well beyond absurd. They are seeking sex. They would probably take commitment from one of these hot guys if it happens, of course, and many of them would welcome that — but if it doesn’t, they’ll still take the sex. The women in the carousel market are there for the sex as much as the men are — it’s just that when they are in the market for “just sex”, they are much pickier than the men are about whom they will sex that way, and it is generally limited to the alphas. Claiming that this behavior is fundamentally commitment-seeking behavior is fundamentally wrong. Exhibit A (among many, but one which comes to mind to me just now): Karen Owens (the Duke Sex List girl).
Yes. Call them sluts and don’t back down. But recognize that the same is true of the players and have the courage to call them out to, not succumbing to Dalrock’s notion that society is incapable of doing both.
The notion of “shaming male players” for moral egalitarian reasons is one that is a low to no-impact concept. Churches *do* shame male players, by the way. It doesn’t have an impact. Why? Because as long as the ladies are dishing out the goods to said players, no degree of shame is going to get them to stop lapping up the sex that is on offer. They’re getting what they want, after all. Shaming them has no significant impact on their behavior — and it’s not like it isn’t taking place anyway (Tucker Max is roundly shamed in the mass media, for example). This is a typically feminist throwaway canard, because it’s really “just for show”. The men who have sex available “on demand” are generally not going to be shamed out of turning said sex down — they are going to either indulge because they want to (and they know most men would also do the same if they had the same pull with the ladies) or they are going to refrain because of their own moral compass, but in neither case does shaming them have any impact at all. It’s really just about making a show of moral egalitarianism, really.
Also, again the self-serving goal the woman has is a greater good for society than the self-serving goal the man has. How can this be denied?
In no way is serial monogamy superior to promiscuity. It is simply serial sexual encounters on a woman’s timetable, rather than on a man’s timetable. Neither is a good basis for ordering society sexually. Serial monogamy is what we have now, and it generally involves rampant divorce, high rates of fatherlessness and bastardy, and all the social ills that come from following the preferred female model. It is *not* a greater good for society. And it matters not one whit whether the woman/women enter into relationships with a serial monogamist mindset — the reality is that they demand institutions, laws, attitudes and acceptances that all support the exercise of serial monogamy by reserving her right to pull the trigger on an exit from a relationship on terms favorable to her at any time. That is the essence of serial monogamy after all — “…I commit to be with you for as long as … well, until I don’t want to be with you any more, which may never happen, but which may very well happen..” That kind of “commitment” isn’t a real one — it is one that lasts as long as one wants it to last, and that is the core nature of serial monogamy. Most marriage today is likewise simply licensed serial monogamy. This is in no way superior morally or socially to the male preferred model of promiscuity, because the end results are mostly the same: fatherlessness, bastardy, social dysfunction.The only difference is the question of timing/speed — it’s otherwise basically the same thing.
AnonymousGuy (or perhaps Gal)
if anyone thinks that what I’ve written here is somewhat sensible, why not start a blog called “The AntiRoissy” – “because we don’t need satisfied dicks who don’t see beyond their satisfied
dicks” (tagline).
Here is your problem in a nutshell: you do not understand that the current SMP is not driven by men “thinking with their dick”, it is driven by women who think with their clit. They have a short-term outlook that boils down to this: “My vagina tingles do the thinking for me”.
You clearly do not understand basic human sexual response. I suggest you jettison all that Victorian “women are pure creatures of inherent goodness” garbage, and start learning something about the reality of women, and their natural mating strategies.
“Most marriage today is likewise simply licensed serial monogamy. ”
Exactly. Why would any man invest emotionally (much less the money involved in properly courting) in a woman when she always has one foot out the door? Marriage up’s the ante for men, but not for women. Women never have to commit right now, marriage or not.
@Brendan
One of the first posts I saw of Susan’s was offering that specific form of crack to the hamster: How to Flip a Player
What is so troubling is that two years later Susan still doesn’t have a meaningful plan to offer young women hooking up to stop feeding their animal side and actually commit. Instead she continues to pass out pipes, lighters, and crack, all the while bemoaning the disastrous impacts which go along with the addiction. It is flat out cruel.
I wish I knew how to quit this blog!
“One of the first posts I saw of Susan’s was offering that specific form of crack to the hamster: How to Flip a Player
What is so troubling is that two years later Susan still doesn’t have a meaningful plan to offer young women hooking up to stop feeding their animal side and actually commit. Instead she continues to pass out pipes, lighters, and crack, all the while bemoaning the disastrous impacts which go along with the addiction. It is flat out cruel.”
The gist of “How to Flip a Player” is that a woman should find a “pretend” player, a man who is playing around at a**hole game, who goes from nice guy to jerk and back again. This strategy says she should identify such a man, then try to “girl game” commitment from him. Susan titillates the reader with her knowledge that some of her readers pine away for the hot, good looking, dominant Jerk players who pumped and dumped them. Susan even makes a comment about “playing with fire” and that trying to flip a faux-player isn’t recommended, (comment 6), though it’s not clear if she’s referring to another comment or her own OP.
What this advocates is that women spend time trying to sort “fake” players and men putting on an inauthentic display; from confirmed “real” players. It’s doomed to failure. First, it’s a risky strategy. A woman using this tactic will many times get it wrong, possibly with life-altering results, not to mention the unintended (by her) pump & dump and the opportunity costs.
Second, what of the “relationship” once the “fake” player drops character and shows his real beta self? Everybody gets hurt when she breaks up with him, and the commitment he offered is tossed back into his face. She doesn’t get the hot player she wanted; he doesn’t get the girlfriend he wanted.
Third, it is more Game 2.0. This view holds that men, and game, exist to serve the feminine imperative. It is all about what the woman wants and needs. The man is relegated to supporting actor status in the grand drama the woman scripts for her life.
“Crank: “So, when a woman seduces a guy in a hope of gaining commitment, and then doesn’t get it, your first impulse was hold him accountable rather than her.”
Actually, no. In this case, as the woman seduces the man, she’s the guilty one. Still, though, the objective good that she hopes for (committed relationship) is better than the one the male seducer generally expects (his solitary genital pleasure).”
{{Still, though, the objective good that she hopes for (committed relationship) is better than the one the male seducer generally expects (his solitary genital pleasure).”}}
This is blue pill frame of mind staring reality in the face and saying it aint so. The double highlighted line is classic and what it means is a woman seeking to have a man enslaved to her at force of laws of misandry is much better than an alpha types she chose to fuck actually enjoying the time fucking her as his goal. This is the delusion of the so-con and has done more to destroy the church and civil society than anything else
Allow me to add some adenda to Brendan and Dalrock and indeed the excellent Deti above:
1. There are far more would-be Alpha males out there, than there are, easy to sleep with females, and given the males’ higher testosterone-driven sex drive and social-success-ranking, this means that a male finds it very hard to turn down any woman. If all males could obtain sex as easily as any average woman can, female prostitution would go the way of the Dodo. It is thus easy for a woman to have sex and much harder for a man. Indeed the terms of the sex are always set by the woman, and the male falls into line. How easy therefore, for a woman to fall into the belief that the man she is with wants her for more than the night – and remember men in their nature find it very easy to sleep with a woman and fifteen minutes later to forget that it had ever happened, whereas for women sex always seems to involve that bit more, that bit of romance or wooing or post-coitus cuddling (which men hate) – thus women are not by nature so well set up for casual sex as men, and neither are women (I would say) used to being on the end of being dumped.
2. By reason of 1. it does not follow that the male has any lasting interest in the woman; indeed her ease of seduction will persuade him that she is pump-and-dump material (once he has sexually sobered up) – there was never any suggestion on his part that he had any particular interest in her and he made no real effort; as she has not tested him at all she really has no reason to suppose he has any interest, and of course no man wants a slut for his wife and mother of his children, so that the woman he has just slept with is most unlikely to become anything other than a short term fling. The woman who therefore realises that the latest Alpha male is ‘the one’ is therefore likely to be in for a rude awakening unless she has by chance actually slepped with an omega or lesa beta.
3. A player cannot be shamed; shaming only adds to his reputation – and why should he care anyway: men will envy and admire him; women desire him. Such an idea is in the outer reaches of delusion.
4. The woman who picks up an Alpha may well be in the market for a long-term mate, but many will find the opportunity to sleep with an Alpha too much to resist. She is thus able to rationalise that she is looking for a mate and that the Alpha let her down and thus all men are bastards, when in reality it is the reverse, namely: she became diverted from her search for ‘The One’; and being hurt, now sees all men as cads (not that she ever gives 90% of the men a second glance). This misery can only be solved by finding a new and even nastier Alpha, who… and so on.
5. By reason of the ease with which women can have sex, some women assume that it is as easy for a man, and thus believe that their promiscuity is normal by reason of the fact that (as they see it) all men are doing it too. They aren’t, and it isn’t.
6. Some women boast of their sexual conquests to their female friends (but not to men), and this seems to impress their female friends, who see their friend as popular and desirable. I find this strange and can only put it down to insecurity (on both parts). Women are competing for men too and so (I suppose) boasting of conquests is a way amongst women to rasie their intra-woman SMV. This is delusional as it is the view of the men that count and promiscuity leads to a lowered SMV.
I speak from experience, not, I think, as an Alpha, but as someone sometimes mistaken for one.
I wrote this at about the time I realized what Aunt Giggles M.O. really was:
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/build-a-better-beta/
@ AnonGuy
“We are all complex creatures – especially women. So a woman can’t participate in a hookup fully realizing that it really is no strings attached while simultaneously hoping that the man, of their own free will, will find her interesting and enjoyable enough to think about spending more time with her… and then more time… and then…. ? I’m not saying that this is smart (though I would also say it’s not illogical given certain premises), I am just saying that I think that this is what many women who hookup think.”
Sorry. While I might not take women at their word, because they’re great at lying to others and even better at lying to themselves, I certainly am not going to give them MORE than what they asked for. They already ask for enough as it is.
Also, your ‘women are complex creatures and more so than men’ line is bullshit. Women and men are just as complex as each other, just in different ways. Women are the ones that try and sell that line though, because it suites their desires of being able to have everything they want while still having a way to deny accountability. Most men and women may not know that consciously, but trying to sell that here isn’t going to have any buyers.
And everyone else already jumped on you for the women wanting commitment. Maybe if you actually read it and think about the words infront of you you’ll learn something.
Rollo, that’s a great posting, distinctly recall when you wrote it I had been working on something similar to post as a comment somewhere or other. You made the points more concisely and probably in a less inflammatory manner; I got extremely angry at SW because of what I saw as a deliberate, willful pattern of deception. Nowadays I accept that some times she will listen to reason – for a while – but that later on she’ll abandon that for a hamster Go-Kart ride. Probably there’s some cycle or other at work…
Eh, Susan’s original posts were never crazy illuminating – it was the discussions that occurred there before she felt the need to purge anyone that didn’t hold the party line. The posts served as a decent jumping off point to make those happen.
Now, instead of focusing on good discussions or changing the minds of readers, she focuses on numbers. How many page hits she gets a day. How many comments a post has. She’s outright said as much.
To each their own. I personally like actual success of inspiring thought, conversation, and debate rather than numbers. Thinking the number of people that viewed a page or the amount of comments you have automatically indicate you have changed people’s minds, influenced their thoughts to the desired outcome, and generated discussion is a fallacy. One does not indicate the other.
Leap, it’s been nearly a year since I last looked at HUS, if SW truly is all about page hits then it could be she’s thinking about a book option of some sort – high traffic would create a built-in sales floor. There’s a bit of ‘cult of personality’ at work at HUS, in my opinion, and actively seeking higher hit counts / comment counts merely reinforces that opinion.
Remember, women tend to be more group oriented than men. It makes sense that hits/comments would feed the ego and reassure the hamster. A while back I was exposed to a female executive in a high level decision-making position at a billion-dollar budgeted, erm, operation. (sorry, no names, might want a contract there again some time). This executive had started as an academic – professorial type. Her style of decision making consisted entirely of two things: finding out what “everyone else does”, i.e. the policies & procedures of similar outfits, and listening to the flattery of a couple of her subordinates (some female, some male). That’s “leadership” according to some people. It would be trivial to write software, or even a script, to “lead” in that manner…
Groupthink is leadership, to many women. NAWALT, but many are that way. Looks like HUS is in that mode.
I find it interesting how blue pillers are so keenly concerned in making women’s sex with alphas fair and yet show complete disregard for the poor blue balled betas waiting in line (sometimes for decades) to get someone’s sloppy seconds, with additional benefit of getting financially raped down the track.
@Johnycomelately
Part of the reason is women don’t want acknowledge that their are two classes of men. Beta’s get shamed for the sins of the alphas, mainly because women don’t know or don’t want to admit they are all sleeping with a small percentage of men.
The White Knight Returns!
: )
OK, I promised everyone the last word and will try to keep that promise, attempting to only correct where people are misunderstanding my position (and in the process, making it as clear as possible). Thanks, everyone for the input (some challenging thoughts – Dalrock especially raises good points to consider) – I read it all carefully (it is *not* new to me – I’ve been regularly reading manosphere blogs for a long time (1 year), and have adopted MMSL [with qualifications], with much success)
-“That you are so quick to dismiss game suggests to me that you really haven’t studied it. This is the standard response from almost anyone to game on first exposure. But over time it gets harder to keep explaining reality away.” No. See above.
-I was here arguing that in general, women in the hook up scene hope that man they see as an Alpha will want to keep wanting them and commit (i.e. so they can be monogamous to one man – this is what they want initially). They want MMSL and “happily ever after” (i.e. every romance novel [revolting female porn] ever written, and ““How to Flip a Player”, [Susan’s post] as misled as it is) – not their “their ‘personal alpha male’ for a time” (Karen Owens, the “Duke Sex List girl” was trying to prove a point – nothing more). I am *not* arguing regarding those who have experienced marriage and its trials (and there are many, to be sure – it is a tough school, but one many of us see as well worth it) and are discontent. I know women initiate most divorces (but I say these want more alpha *period*, *not just more alpha sex*) Obviously, I am not arguing serial monogamy is “a greater good for society”.
-I do have a problem with serial monogamy and do not see how my position necessarily must “boil down” to giving every woman everything she wants (including serial monogamy). I argue that, in general, what women in the hook-up scene want sex with commitment which objectively, is a general societal good, *even if the chances of them getting it is are basically zero* (still, why do people play the lottery?)
-I do not disagree that all women have the potential to be sluts (slutty – we need to define “slut”). Of course they do, particularly during ovulation. I do think women need to be trained to reject that (so, no, its not “obvious[] that I do not understand this”). I have a wife who was like that (remained a virgin). My argument is that, in general, women in the hook up scene want sex but more than that. The guys, in general, just want sex.
-I do think we need to do slut shaming (slut very narrowly defined). My position is that we need to do what we did 60 years ago – which is shame sluts and players (without letting either one talk about the sin of the other person: “my fault, my fault, my *own* most grievous fault”). If this worked 60 years ago, *this* is what you should be articulating and fighting for (the other view – only shame sluts [“detrimental from a practical perspective”—Dalrock] – is not proven, so to speak) The “sweeping legal, social and cultural reforms” in favor of feminism do need to go. Full stop. I consider myself your ally in this.
-“the current SMP is not driven by men ‘thinking with their dick’, it is driven by women who think with their clit. They have a short-term outlook that boils down to this: ‘My vagina tingles do the thinking for me.” I really don’t have a problem with this statement – I think that is likely true. What starts in their vagina however goes right to the heart (especially when the “ovulation goggles” are on – “he’d make a great husband… dad…” ; “The woman who picks up an Alpha may well be in the market for a long-term mate, but many will find the opportunity to sleep with an Alpha too much to resist. She is thus able to rationalise that she is looking for a mate and that the Alpha let her down…”–Opus) “It is thus easy for a woman to have sex and much harder for a man. Indeed the terms of the sex are always set by the woman, and the male falls into line.” I agree.
-“Anon Guy and men like him erroneously assume that the sluts will stop being sluts and will settle down with a good provider beta.” No I don’t. “Reining in hypergamy, and training a woman to recognize it, control it, harness it and not indulge it, does work [to create a workable SMP]”. I think that there is much, much truth to this. *The difference is that I see you as more ideological* (like Marxism, where there is one cause that explains everything – in your case, and in the manosphere, hypergamy is it)
-“alphas simply don’t respond to societal pressures and don’t care about conformity to convention” and “What women really want is to ride the carousel for as long as she wants, then step off when she wants into the arms of an alpha offering commitment for as long as she wants.” – just had to put this in here – the latter struck me as a really good analogy for the position that is being argued against me. I am not convinced it is right of course.
-“Giving women every thing they want hasn’t been working out. If you are capable of actually learning, you might come to realize that.” I have. Thank you. Kudos to the manosphere for making lots of stuff explicit that needs to be more widely seen (as we are all a bit ideological, but some of us are more open to evidence than others)
-“A woman in the hookup culture does not offer her heart. If she stays in it long enough, she learns how not to do so and how to make it appear as if she is offering long term commitment while constructing elaborate defenses and stone walls around her heart. In fact she eventually can render herself incapable of giving her heart to anyone. She withholds her heart and withholds commitment. If/when a better deal comes along, she will need to take what’s left of her heart with her.” I think this may be true (for those who’ve been in it for a while) but that is probably because she really wants someone more alpha that will commit (even if her heart is so damaged she has trouble committing, as she naturally would like to)
Dalrock: “Another thing to consider is why are the PUAs telling us what they are about this? They are motivated not by ideology but by practicality. They want to have sex with hot young women, as much sex with hot young women as possible. If hot young women wanted to commit to them, it would be insane for them to assume that the opposite was true. This would be something they could use to their advantage. But it isn’t, because it isn’t true. What they have found is the hot young women will stick around so long as their game is on target and the hot young woman keeps feeling the tingle.”
First of all, the women wants to commit to a alpha man who wants to be with her all the time, for the rest of her life (i.e. it is *responsive*). Again, I think you are not getting what I am saying. Of course they don’t want to commit to the alpha male who has them and thinks nothing about discarding them (“Damn – well, I hoped it would be different”). Second, when you way “as long as their game is on target” “they will stick around”, this means that they are giving the woman hope because they are sticking around. Third, this quote raises so many questions it seems to me.
OK, I don’t know if I violate my statement about having the last word by asking the questions (as opposed to making assertions, or putting forth hypotheses) I have left or not, but I really do want to know the truth here. Please indulge me.
I am not aware of any reasons I have for not wanting this to be true (maybe you could tell me what these might be – “I truly wish your view of female sexuality were correct”—Dalrock [Why?]). Clearly, the Bible talks about the lusts of women. Still, what kinds of hard evidence can you cite for the argument that women desire sex with alphas full-stop (as the men do) apart from the desires for commitment? (ie that the stud they’ve betted would, of his own will, freely commit and become a good husband and daddy [ovulation goggles]). Are we going on the word of players here, based on their experiences? What – are they asking the women they bang this *or trying to figure this out*? (that’s not related to their goal, is it?) If women do indeed experience lust coupled with the desire for commitment is this something players would *want* to know, if it were true? (don’t they have everything to gain by it not being true?) Or, is this just something that the players *know* (and if you asked a woman, she probably would not know what she wanted anyway!) – even though women who had lots of sex earlier in life often regret this behavior and are sad about what they did (“How easy therefore, for a woman to fall into the belief that the man she is with wants her for more than the night – and remember men in their nature find it very easy to sleep with a woman and fifteen minutes later to forget that it had ever happened, whereas for women sex always seems to involve that bit more, that bit of romance or wooing or post-coitus cuddling (which men hate) – thus women are not by nature so well set up for casual sex as men, and neither are women (I would say) used to being on the end of being dumped”…. “The woman who therefore realises that the latest Alpha male is ‘the one’ is therefore likely to be in for a rude awakening unless she has by chance actually slepped with an omega or lesa beta”—Opus [thank you sir])? ***Besides, don’t posts on game sites talk specifically about how to use the woman’s desire for commitment in ways to secure more sex?*** (I seem to recall reading quite a few of these). Also – players freely lie to get women in bed – why should I trust them here? (and isn’t their confidence, regardless of facts, sexy and arousing? – and more likely to help them get more sex?) Are you sure they have nothing to gain by believing that it is not true that lust and desire for commitment go hand in hand for women? How can you be so sure? The five-minutes-of-alpha-effect that some women fondly remember and they don’t make Hallmark cards for (but how does this necessarily prove they also did not hope that maybe….?) Studies? If so, which? Maybe I don’t have evidence, but do you? (I’ve been regularly reading some of the top 10 or so manosphere blogs for over a year now – I can’t recall anything….)
And by the way, Rollo’s recent post he linked to seems to be pretty ideological. I don’t doubt that in many respects, I have things to learn from him (i.e. the practical knowledge he has about human nature , “what works”, etc).
OK, I’m done. Show me the money (no more questions – I only ask for permission [it is your blog] to clarify my position again if necessary)
“[“detrimental from a practical perspective”—Dalrock”
should be
[“detrimental from a practical perspective [to shame players]”—Dalrock
Anonymous guy:
Your latest comment again posits that women seek alpha men for sex and commitment. You asked for evidence that women riding the carousel are in it for the sex, as most of the commenters argue.
I don’t have scientific studies. I suspect that the reasons women engage in sex are difficult to measure empirically or scientifically. The only way to assess it would be to ask women why they engage in casual sex. But women’s statements and self-assessments of why they do what they do are notoriously unreliable. We in the manosphere often say “Don’t listen to what she says. Watch what she does.”
First, simply observing the carousel and women in the hookup culture leads to a conclusion that sex, and sex with dominant, hot alpha men, is the motivation. Many women flit from partner to partner seeking only sex. If these wanted sex *and* commitment, they would gravitate to the men most willing and able to provide both of those things simultaneously: stable, gainfully employed beta men. What women are repeatedly demonstrating that they want are sex from hot alpha men until they can’t get that anymore. Many want no-commitment sex so their options are open and can accept better offers if and when they come along. After that, she wants a golden parachute in the form of marriage to a beta whom she can later divorce for cash and prizes.
If she wants sex and commitment from a worthy man, she has to make hard decisions. The root word of commitment is commit. “Commit” is derived from Latin, and literally translated is “send with”. She is sending herself down a path with one man. She will have to commit to one, and only one, course of action, and she will have to live with whatever consequences flow from it. She will have to forego and forsake other opportunities, other career choices, other “fun” things, other travel opportunities, and all other men. She will be unable to revoke that commitment except in the most dire of circumstances. My dad presented it to me this way when I was a 27 year old man: “You have to go down this road. Once you go down that road, you can’t go back, you can’t change it, and you don’t get a “do-over”. Even if it doesn’t work out, you don’t get to go back to the original starting place. You have to keep going.”
Men are trained from an early age to understand all this. They are trained to understand that they must make hard decisions, that decisions lead to consequences that must be accepted, that commitments once made must be honored, that sometimes you don’t get everything you expected from your commitments, and that sometimes commitments don’t work out the way you thought they would. Men are also trained that life can be hard and unfair.
I think young women simply don’t want to make those hard decisions. All their lives they have heard that they can “have it all”, and that they have all the time in the world to decide on marriage, husbands, family and children. Young women are not trained to make and keep commitments, nor are they trained that commitments lead to consequences, and sometimes there are adverse and unintended consequences. Young women are shielded from the brutishness and unfairness of much of life.
Second, there are biological and evolutionary explanations for it. Some in the manosphere don’t accept these. Much has been written about this in the manosphere. I think they make sense, even if I think that the most logical and sensible explanation is the lack of restraint on hypergamy. These evo-bio explanations are that alpha sex satisfies the woman’s directives. Every woman’s prime directive is to have babies. Alpha sperm means alpha genes to make strong, healthy children who are more likely to survive to adulthood and propagate the species. The woman’s secondary directive is securing provisioning and protection for herself and children. A woman’s hindbrain sees an alpha as more dominant, and therefore more able to protect her and her children from harm. From an evo bio perspective, the stronger alpha is better able to ward off or kill (if necessary) anyone or anything that might harm her or her children, and is better able to kill the big animal and bring it back for food.
And in addition, what many women is for men to commit to them without the women providing reciprocal commitment. She wants his commitment, but she does not want to be obligated to anything in return for it. She wants the escape hatch, the loophole, the way out, just in case things don’t work out the way she thought they would. The evidence for this is all around us:
1. women engaging in hot sex with alphas with no strings. At the same time such women demand that betas provide and pay for expensive dates, meals, drinks and entertainment. Women demand courtship and conventional “dating” from betas, while holding out the “carrot” of possible future sex. At the same time, women demand nothing but sex from the alpha.
2. Liberalization of divorce laws. No fault divorce. The woman’s ability to secure confiscatory alimony and child support, enriching her and impoverishing him. She is released from her commitment to provide sex and companionship. His commitment for provisioning continues ad infinitum. She is rewarded for breaking her commitment. He is penalized for honoring his commitment.
“Or, is this just something that the players *know*”
sorry – i.e. that women want sex without corresponding desire for commitment
AnonGuy
You want us to prove that women don’t have motives which are contrary to how they actually behave. Why do you assume the motives are there, contrary to the observable data? As I said before, your model is hopelessly complex because it generally doesn’t predict reality. You are asking us to prove the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth. Our model is much more simple and predicts reality better than yours, but you want us to offer you proof. You are the one asking us to accept a much more complex, less predictive model. The bar is higher for this, as it should be. There are an infinite number of such models. I could make three up before breakfast.
If women do indeed experience lust coupled with the desire for commitment is this something players would *want* to know, if it were true? (don’t they have everything to gain by it not being true?)
and
***Besides, don’t posts on game sites talk specifically about how to use the woman’s desire for commitment in ways to secure more sex?*** (I seem to recall reading quite a few of these).
One more clarification here. These might seem to contradict. Actually, I don’t think they do. The first one would be true for the player who has not totally seared his conscience. The second would seem to be true for persons who basically have killed their conscience entirely. I see them, quite frankly, as evil.
She wants the escape hatch,
——————————————
Ignite a discussion among mixed company of church folks. The general pro versus can about divorce lines perfectly along gender lines. Even women married 30 years and saying they are happy will fight any and all reforms to divorce laws. It makes no sense logically that the so called relational sex is the one wanting divorce to be easy, until it does make sense when you figure them out. Its not that complicated
Dalrock,
Let me clarify again:
My position is not ideological, unlike yours. You are assuming that everything (in life?) should be able to be reduced to simple models, and offer predictive power. While it is certainly true that there are some things in life we can do this for, I am not assuming that we can do this here. Why should I assume this instead of assuming that life is more complex than what our air-tight models can capture? Further, in my observations I genuinely believe I am trying my level best to take into account all of the data (and you and others are refusing to see it) – when you talk about how women “actually behave” (your “observable data”), you fail to note that in my postings above (particularly the most recent post) I have embedded all kinds of observations about how women behave that could very well indicate that they desire commitment with sex.
AnonymousGuy – “My argument is that, in general, women in the hook up scene want sex but more than that. The guys, in general, just want sex.”
I’m afraid that the only real point that I can find you trying to make within your extensive posts is the one I’ve quoted.
So, let me ask you if I’m getting that what you are trying to say is that because women who are engaged in hooking-up (might) have some desire for converting a hook-up (with the right alpha) into something more long-term, then you believe that you can spin that one possibility into a greater argument that women are behaving (marginally) less immorally than are the men that they are hooking-up with?
Did I get that straight? Was that your real point here?
Anonymous Guy:
1. What evidence do you have for your theory that women want sex and commitment from the hot alpha males they have sex with?
2. There are some who say women act wholly on emotions and not rationally. I don’t agree with this entirely. The hookup culture, and the way women behave within it, are rational responses to the prevailing cultural and legal environments, in my view. Women are simply responding to incentives. To wit: there are no incentives for early marriage or commitment. For women, casual sex is easy to get and has no immediate adverse consequences. She does it simply because she can, it’s fun and it feels good.
Did I get that straight? Was that your real point here?
The main point of attack seems to be that, in his view, serial monogamy is more moral than male promiscuity.
What he is saying is that women want sex and commitment from alphas in the hookup market. If we take that as a premise (which I do not, as I explain above, but leave that aside for now), his conclusion is that therefore they are acting more morally, or more in line with a “social good” than men, who are seeking sex-qua-sex, are. He then further resists the characterization of this as “serial monogamy seeking”, because he insists that on the “front end”, the commitment sought is not necessarily of a limited duration in nature. So, he concludes that men are being shits here by seeking out sex-qua-sex from women, while women are seeking sex+”commitment” from men, which is a higher social good (and presumably he would argue more moral as well).
I believe this is the essence of his belief in this area. Obviously, most of us disagree rather vigorously with virtually every sentence I wrote in the preceding paragraph, which is what the discussion is about.
slwerner:
There are some women who want “commitment” from the man, so they can put a respectable veneer and a moral sheen over the top of the steaming turd that is their hookup.
Commitment, even if it flows one way, makes her hookup more “moral”. Thus some modicum of “commitment” makes her feel better about it, helps her rationalize it, and most importantly, makes her look better to her friends and other men she might want later. After all, she’s not one of those skanky bar sluts. No, not her. She only sleeps with guys she “dates” for a month or two.
But I think Brendan had it yesterday: women want the sex from the hot alpha men. If she can get some commitment, she’ll take it, but if she can’t, she’ll still take the sex.
AnonymousGuy, you may believe that you are not ideological. However, “men bad, women good” is an ideology, and so far as I can tell, that is a foundational premise of your thinking.
What evidence do you have to support your claim that carousel riding sluts want anything more than sex from the alphas they ride? What actions by those women support that claim?
You say on the one hand that you don’t really want to give women everything they want when they want it, but then you turn around and essentially argue that, well, gee, women really want commitment from the alphas they serially fornicate with, so there oughta be a way to make those alphas commit. In other words, you contradict the previous position: women who have spread their legs for 5, 10, 20 men are entitled to a faithful, alpha husband (whom they can later divorce for money and prizes, but that’s not your problem, it’s teh menz problem…).
Fried ice. You want desperately to serve women the fried ice they crave.
Why?
@deti
Based on all we have seen, I strongly suspect that the implausible nature of the hookup resulting in alpha commitment is part of the fundamental appeal. Securing commitment from the alpha first and then having sex is so pedestrian. You could never write a romance novel about that. Where is the drama, the excitement?
The experience the HUSy wants is to walk through a casino and randomly pull the handle of the one slot machine she finds most shiny and appealing. For reasons she doesn’t understand, she is drawn to this one machine and feels irresistibly compelled to pull the handle. By some stroke of luck, someone already placed their coins in this (and only this) machine and forgot to pull the handle. Then by some even greater stroke of luck, it pays off, complete with ringing bells and much celebration! Suddenly she is under the spotlight, looking ravishing in her pure white wedding dress while the entire casino cheers her on and throws rice at her congratulating her on winning the undying love of her very own Mr. Big! All of her female relatives and girlfriends weep with envy, and her male relatives and friends are struck with approval and admiration for her man.
Isn’t it romantic!
Brendan
The main point of attack seems to be that, in his view, serial monogamy is more moral than male promiscuity.
Yes, that seems to sum things up well. AnonymousGuy/Gal desperately wants to enable women to have their cake and eat it, too. The feminist attitude towards male sexual response vs. female sexual response is quite clear and obvious: “Men’s sexuality bad, women’s sexuality good”.
PS: AnonymousGuy, there is no way to turn back the clock to 1952. Unilateral, mens-fault divorce, anti-family court, debtors prison for father who fall behind on child support, one-call husband removal by armed men courtesy of VAWA all make such a thing impossible.
Women like sex. They like sex with men who dominate them. They like it so much in their early 20’s they’ll do rather a lot of things to get it. You don’t seem to understand this simple biological fact, yet. Shall we buy a boxed set of “Sex and the City” on DVD for you?
Dalrock, that casino image is excellent. So what the carousel riders want is “loose slots”.
Spot the irony…
Hello all,
I can’t respond today, but I’ll try again tomorrow. I appreciate the efforts to engage in real conversation here.
Cheers
It is really difficult to read things like this, grapple with concepts like this that directly contravene everything men have been taught for the last 40 years.
Women want sex from men who dominate them. That contradicts the lie that women ride the carousel because they’re looking for love. They’re not looking for love. They’re looking to get jackhammered and raw-dogged by the hottest guys they can find. Then to assuage their guilt, they try to extract some small measure of commitment — a night out, a meal at a nice place where he spent some money; a daytrip; he takes her to meet his friends. Maybe if she’s lucky, he likes her enough to continue sexing her and then spend a little money and time on her when he feels like it.
I’m increasingly realizing that what I just described is how it really works. And if this is how it really works, why should any man offer investment or commitment? Why should any man do anything other than what PUAs do?
AnonymousGuy
I was here arguing that in general, women in the hook up scene hope that man they see as an Alpha will want to keep wanting them and commit (i.e. so they can be monogamous to one man – this is what they want initially).
What evidence do you offer to support this claim?
I do have a problem with serial monogamy and do not see how my position necessarily must “boil down” to giving every woman everything she wants (including serial monogamy).
Eh? Your entire position is that what women want is good. It’s in the very next sentence:
I argue that, in general, what women in the hook-up scene want sex with commitment which objectively, is a general societal good,
But what we see in the real world is women want sex with commitment for a while, and then they want sex with a different man (with commitment). This is serial monogamy. Since you have already stated that what women want in the hookup scene is “objectively …a general societal good” then your position clearly must mean that serial monogamy is a “general societal good”.
In other words, women’s preferred promiscuity is “a general societal good” to you: divorce for no reason other than “she’s not haaapy” is a general societal good to you, too. All the damage done to children in the process of divorce is, what, just a necessary price to pay for making women haaaapy by enabling them to try the casino slot machine one more time, eh?
In order to serve up the fried ice that women want, you have to endorse the entire divorce industry, and the 40% bastardy rate that goes along with it.The free lunch is not on the menu. Women cannot have their preferred form of promiscuity without profound effects on society. Your desire to make the hookup scene “safe” for women comes with a big price tag, and if you look around with the right glasses on, you’d see that.
I happen to be of the opinion that a 40% divorce rate and a 40% bastardy rate are social disasters, not “general societal goods”. But then again, I don’t play for “team woman”, I play for “team civilization”.
Deti, that’s how it works. However add a bunch of emotion into it. It’s not the cock carousel, but the emotional cock carousel. Also. A lot of that is painful and a lot of that damages them, but, women do NOT SHY away from negative emotions. They go to emotive movies to cry, remember? and they watch that same movie once and again and keep crying. Yes, there’s pain in life, and for women, it means they also want to experience it. Women are hungry for emotions and drama, and the lust, chasing and getting fucked and fucking and breaking and splitting and oh no my friend got him Im gonna get him back is PERFECT.
This thing was rigged so women LOVE the the drama of chasing the top guy. And guys detach their emotions easier so they can bang a ton of different women. Great for evolution.
PUA is crap because it’s fake though.
What I kept telling to Susan (and wouldnt listen). Yes, girls go fuck and they want relationships. However “relationship” doesnt mean lifelong commitment and monogamy. Relationship doesnt even mean love. Relationship only means theres enough time and space to vert a lot of emotions into it, from the shiny ones to the darker ones, whatever applies. Pure sex is insipid. Emotional (drama) sex is yummy. Put dramatic sex on hands of a vigorous confident man who can take her to dramatic places and she’s on fire. No drama, no vigorous sex? she’s outta here towards brighter or darker places.
OK, real quickly, I can clear up a lot here. First of all, we both seem to think the other has no evidence. : )
Second, let me just say Dalrock hit a homerun with that analogy. The thing is, she doesn’t play th casino just for her friends (social approval and elevation), she does it for her – the prize is what she, at her core, wants (don’t you want the best looking woman you can get?). Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with wanting this prize (like Tim Tebow). That said, there is nothing about a hookup – if the guy “commits” or not – that makes it more “moral”. If you believe in God (Bible), its a sin from both sides. Likewise there is definitely nothing more moral about serial monogamy vs male promiscuity – both sinful before God. If you don’t believe in God, I’d say both serial monogamy and promiscuity (of any type, male or female) have harmful effects. That said, what a woman seeks in a hookup (sex *and* commitment, *irrationally*, not from a stable, gainfully employed beta men, but someone they see as an Alpha) is not more moral (her motives are still selfish, not to mention greedy, to be sure), but is nevertheless something that benefits society – that is, a male (an alpha even – wow!) bound to a female.
Hope this helps bring clarity.
I promise I’ll address all of you tomorrow as best I can….
For now….
deti:
“Women want sex from men who dominate them. That contradicts the lie that women ride the carousel because they’re looking for love. They’re not looking for love. They’re looking to get jackhammered and raw-dogged by the hottest guys they can find. Then to assuage their guilt, they try to extract some small measure of commitment — a night out, a meal at a nice place where he spent some money; a daytrip; he takes her to meet his friends. Maybe if she’s lucky, he likes her enough to continue sexing her and then spend a little money and time on her when he feels like it.”
Another brilliant summary of the position I am opposing. Maybe you are right. Honestly. I am open to it.
“I’m increasingly realizing that what I just described is how it really works. And if this is how it really works, why should any man offer investment or commitment? Why should any man do anything other than what PUAs do?”
There is no reason other than God, forgiveness, and mercy, I think.
Welcome to the end times.
@Anon Guy
No, it isn’t. If you replace alpha with beta, then you would be right about the benefits to society. Alpha personality types make terrible husbands, and there is a reason they are relatively rare in the male population.
AnonymousGuy
OK, real quickly, I can clear up a lot here. First of all, we both seem to think the other has no evidence. : )
Incorrect. I know we have evidence, and I do not see any from you. You may think a lot of things. But you don’t know much.
Second, let me just say Dalrock hit a homerun with that analogy. The thing is, she doesn’t play th casino just for her friends (social approval and elevation), she does it for her – the prize is what she, at her core, wants (don’t you want the best looking woman you can get?).
What she wants is social approval, elevation, prizes. “She does it for her” is redundant: she does it for social elevation and approval. She wants a big 3-ring circus of a wedding to impress her friends, and to make herself feel gooood. So you are once again arguing that whatever women want, that makes them feel good, is good for society. Do you hand out free bottles of vodka to women alcoholics? It makes them feel good, at least for a while. Is there any thing that women want that you would not force the rest of us to give to them?
That said, what a woman seeks in a hookup (sex *and* commitment, *irrationally*, not from a stable, gainfully employed beta men, but someone they see as an Alpha) is not more moral (her motives are still selfish, not to mention greedy, to be sure), but is nevertheless something that benefits society – that is, a male (an alpha even – wow!) bound to a female.
So men are useless to society, except when they are “bound to a female”, is that correct?
Looks like we are back to the walking ATM / sperm vending machine / mule model of men.
And AnonymousGuy, you are looking more and more like an AnonymousGal.
Yohami:
You’re right – the women on the emotional cock carousel want the sex, and the emotions. They want enough “relationship” so they can feel their emotions. They want the alpha men to supply and feed whatever emotions they feel. If she’s empty, aimless and directionless, she wants the feeling of connection to a man that fills the emptiness (so to speak). Some girls are bored and want adventure and intrigue. Some are caretakers and want to fix up the brooding, emotionally distant and injured, misunderstood man, make him into just the man she wants him to be. Some girls want mystery, a puzzle to be solved and to figure out. Then when they are done feeling those emotions and there is nothing left to do or feel, she wants to either (1) move on; or (2) take it “to the next level”, whatever that is.
It’s official, anonguy truly believes men are nothing but slaves. They must even be bound to the slut because of “no other reason other than God, forgiveness, and mercy.” There’s no reason to commit, other than when you find that woman who is chaste, young, fertile and willingly submits herself to your leadership. In this case, both would be bound to each other, making a proper bound, not one of slave and owner. God does not call men to commit to a whore. Forgiveness and mercy are not equal to a ring on her finger. Take that sort of preaching to Christian Forums please, you would fit right in there.
A woman who engages in, engaged in or wanted to be part of the hook-up scene does not encompass a smidgen of the qualities that make a marriageable bribe that can actually wear white. She is the opposite; a train wreck waiting to happen.
Good derailing of the thread Anonguy. Time to go back to Susan and trade in your newly acquired pussy points.
Yohami, that “sex + drama = ecstasy” equation sums it up very well. And it’s the normal condition of the fertile female human. They can be trained in other directions, but it ain’t natural.
No surprise that the head HUSy (snort! Home run for Dalrock) doesn’t like that. She doesn’t want to see her finishing school girlz in that light, and surely doesn’t want to see that in the mirror at all.
Deti, yep.
That’s what the “girls go into casual sex looking for relationships” means. Relationship = drama. Relationship != lifelong commitment monogamy. And “good for society” is not even in the spectrum. It’s a self serving game, just like male’s diversity sex drive is a self serving game. Which is good.
For stuff to be good or bad for society, a society has to be constructed around it. Our society was built on top of lifelong monogamy – or the attempt, the appearance of one. Both male and female natural drives, unrestrained, are destructive for that society that needs those drives under control. In short, everything women naturally want is destructive for society.
But hey, that’s what feminism is about: destroying society as we knew it, since it was oppressing, read: controlling.
And male’s diversity drive is also destructive for THIS society.
And not that I care about this society, but that’s how it is.
The lie was liberating women, and then pretending that the female drive and instincts, unleashed, was good for society. How can it be good for society, if you’re trying to destroy society with it? 2+2?
Annonguy, process that in silence.
@AnonymousGuy
As much as I would like to believe the ideologies you have stated, and as much as I love the “happily ever after” ending of a love story, I have to say as a woman I would have to disagree with what you are trying to defend. Mainly because I was there, did that and I know what my motives were. I clearly had a thought out plan.
A woman who is out looking to have sex is not looking for commitment. She’s looking for a good time for as long as she can get it. She wants to have fun, just like the music of the eighties told us to do. And for some of us we watched our mothers (the first generation of fem fighters) and we learned from them how it’s done. At least I did.
I hit eighteen and all I could think of was who could I get first. My plan was to party and play and not get married until I was at least 25. I had a lot of living to do.
At my first job I met a man who I thought was much older than I, figured he was experienced, and I viewed him as alpha. He showed some interest in me and I thought I hit the jackpot. We dated a couple of times. I hinted at sex, he brought up commitment and I hit the highway.
This kind of blows what you say out of the water I’m afraid. We are out there and some would laugh at most of what you wrote.
That man came after me though and pursued me. He didn’t let up. He made me all kinds of promises of what life would be like with him. He thought I was ‘the one’. He’d been waiting for marriage and the right girl, but I was the one that finally pushed him into bed. I’d considered his promises and married because they really sounded good and I figured I’d have it made, at least for awhile. After we married I controlled everything. He was my perfect white knight.
Why I ditched my original plan and married him I don’t know. I even sat on the beach the night before our wedding and considered not showing up. I still wanted to live. I had more I wanted to experience, and guys I wanted to experience.
Look at this model. This is a real life model. It’s not some PUAs assumption based on women he’s known. The thing is I knew and probably know today other women who think like this. And we deserve every damn consequence for it. I’m one of the lucky ones though, my story doesn’t end there.
My husband and I will celebrate twenty-six years this summer. I’d like to say that things were good, but we both agree that as we look back we had a pretty mediocre marriage. There was a time during my marriage that some of those old thoughts I had at age 18 came to the surface. I went looking. Why I didn’t follow through is the along the same enigma as why I married in the first place.
About two years ago something changed in me. That is why I’m glad for the post bskillet81 has on his site today for EAPs who want to change. I wasn’t brought up in a Christian setting but became a Christian over two decades ago. My thinking didn’t change though because the attitudes were the same concerning men and marriage, just from different sources with different justifications. Change is possible, but as I saw someone else comment, the change has to be in the thinking and not in the actions; the actions will follow on their own.
I guess I can say I swallowed the red pill, my husband did also. Interesting thing is that most of the change came after we stepped away from our last church. What we learned through reading books and blogs makes me sad, but both my husband and I know that what we are reading is true because we lived it. My struggles with my thoughts continue day to day. I don’t know if I will ever be at a point when I will not struggle, or have to actively tamp down my thoughts and attitudes. Maybe if I’d started at a younger age, but I know that more than forty years of conditioning is not easy to overcome. I’m very thankful for a patient husband who understands. He’s turned in his knight gear and knows when the hamster needs sedation.
I am ashamed about my past, how I treated my husband, and probably other men just because they were men. I am thankful for what I have today and that I didn’t lose so much more that I could have. I have deep respect and love for my husband. I feel sad for the women who don’t get it, they will never be haaaaappy. I feel more for the men who are victimized by women. I watched my dad go through it all when I was a child. I can relate. That’s why I am on the manoshere. That’s why I talk about something I would rather not, my past. But it also gives me credibility when someone comes on and tries to say that the message being put out is not the truth, because it is.
AnonymousGuy/Gal
That said, what a woman seeks in a hookup (sex *and* commitment, *irrationally*, not from a stable, gainfully employed beta men, but someone they see as an Alpha) is not more moral (her motives are still selfish, not to mention greedy, to be sure), but is nevertheless something that benefits society – that is, a male (an alpha even – wow!) bound to a female.
And by the way, if he’s a real deal alpha he is not bound to her in any sense of the word. A player who allows a woman’s hamster to run on isn’t committed. He’s playing.
If you truly want to protect women from PUA/players/Alphas, you have to teach them to control themselves. You have to teach them to ignore ‘gina tingles. You have to teach them to think in the longer term than the next orgasm, or the next mimosa brunch with the girls to compare notes. You have to control their natural sexual nature.
But so far as I can tell, you don’t want to do any of those things. You just want to make alphas commit somehow, for as long as the women want them. You don’t understand what Alpha men are, you don’t understand female sexual response, and you don’t get the fact that you can’t serve fried ice to all the dear girlies.
The circularity of your argumentation reminds me of something….oh, yes, a hamster wheel…
Pingback: What HUSies want. | Dalrock
That’s what the “girls go into casual sex looking for relationships” means. Relationship = drama. Relationship != lifelong commitment monogamy. And “good for society” is not even in the spectrum. It’s a self serving game, just like male’s diversity sex drive is a self serving game. Which is good.
Yohami, you are killing it here. This is 1000% right. You’ve accurately captured what the typical 20-something (and often older as well) woman is looking for in a “relationship”. Reading the posts over on HUS about this Girls show and the women characters absolutely affirms what you are saying.
I have no problem with women pursuing “relationships” in this way, but I think it gets problematic when it gets elevated to a more “moral” arrangement than say a guy simply pursuing a diversity of casual sex.
Alphas by definition don’t want to commit. I did pretty well as a PUA. I could be dating four chicks at the same time, but every time I would start a relationship with one, she would completely flip within 1-2 months. Even if women get the guy they want to commit, once they have them they get bored. Stable=boring to them. They want to be used; they just can’t admit it.
By the way, AnonymousGuy/Gal, might want to learn something about evolutionary biology, unless it would collide with Young Earth 6-day creationism. Every woman alive today is descended from an ancestress who got regular, pounding, sex from a man who was Alpha to some degree.
Every single one. And that is why every woman has the potential to be a slut – because her great-great-to-the-10,000th generation ancestress was, and that’s why she passed her chromosomes down through time, while the shrinking violet didn’t.
Jacquie:
Thanks for that post above at 11:41. It confirms everything I’ve thought and most of what we’ve said here on this thread and elsewhere.
This is also evidence to support what I’ve told my daughter: When you are a young woman, start looking for a good man with whom you’re compatible and you’re head over heels in love with him, When you find him, make yourself available to him and marry him as soon as you both are ready. Give to him, and him only, the very best of yourself emotionally and sexually. Don’t wait until you are 30 and don’t rack up a big sex partner count.
Kudos to you and your husband.
Yes, I’m back. Blogs are like cocaine sometime.
Again, I’ll read it all later. For now though, I skimmed over it, and saw Jacquie’s post. Jacquie has a new reader – and I may be well on my way to seeing things more like the rest of you.
Thank you Jacquie. What is an EAP (Evangelical princess, or something like that?)
Also – you suspect that lots of women were like you?
And before everyone jumps on me for trusting her, but not all of you, just think about the stuff I wrote above about how players use some girls (note I’m writing “some”) desire for commitment into opportunities to get more sex. Also note they freely lie to get laid, so that does make one wonder how much their observations and words can be trusted.
Cheers
ps – by the way, I am a guy – can we just drop the insinuations that I’m not
pps – also, some of you, I can tell, have a bit more sympathy for folks like me who have been blinded by the cultural water that we are swimming in. Thanks to you especially
@Anon Reader
The problem with modern Christians isn’t that they believe Genesis over evolution. The problem is they believe in neither. They reject evolution because it isn’t biblical, and they reject Genesis because it isn’t scientific. Genesis has a powerful message about the nature of women. No need to accept Evo Psych to put on the glasses.
A few months ago it was Escoffier that was arguing the absolute relative morality that female serial monogamy (hypergamy) was higher in morality than the male polygamous behavioral desires. Escoffier’s system of belief was just as complex (convoluted) as is AnonymousGuy’s. It seems like the arguments against the standard Red Pill reality do not change.
The guys that have articulated the Red Pill reality have been writing about this for several years. These are some of the most intelligent men around and have tested their premises against real life. They have observed and self-proved the postulations by their experience. They have challenged each other and refined the body of knowledge. The refinement continues.
But regular as clockwork, there is a newcomer with some old idea (really classic WK beliefs from the land of ShudBee) who tries to tell us that women’s motivations are really more pure than men’s motivations. The newcomer does not grasp that a vast number of recovering Beta’s in the manosphere have personally struggled with such ideas and have come to the Red Pill reality after nothing else made sense. They first began to see and have reflected on past experiences of frustration and relationship destruction, more often than not caused by a woman.
I’m sure Dalrock can find the Escoffier thread where numerous people sequentially took the time to reveal his faulty logic. No matter how many times and different ways he was shown to be spouting nonsense, he never conceded and finally just gave up and took his unchanged beliefs with him as he went silent.
[D: At your service: The quest for a kinder, gentler carousel]
That said, what a woman seeks in a hookup (sex *and* commitment, *irrationally*, not from a stable, gainfully employed beta men, but someone they see as an Alpha) is not more moral (her motives are still selfish, not to mention greedy, to be sure), but is nevertheless something that benefits society – that is, a male (an alpha even – wow!) bound to a female.
Not in the least. There is nothing stable about the kind of commitment sought, so it is of no benefit to society.
Of benefit to society is a system whereby sex outside “hard” commitment (ie, marriage with legal teeth) is shunned, and “relationships” are chaste until marriage, and thereafter stable and fecund.
A system which puts sex before “hard” commitment is not socially beneficial at all, and is, in that respect, the same as pure promiscuity because IT HAS THE SAME RESULTS IN THE END.
That’s what the “girls go into casual sex looking for relationships” means. Relationship = drama. Relationship != lifelong commitment monogamy. And “good for society” is not even in the spectrum. It’s a self serving game, just like male’s diversity sex drive is a self serving game. Which is good.
For stuff to be good or bad for society, a society has to be constructed around it. Our society was built on top of lifelong monogamy – or the attempt, the appearance of one. Both male and female natural drives, unrestrained, are destructive for that society that needs those drives under control. In short, everything women naturally want is destructive for society.
But hey, that’s what feminism is about: destroying society as we knew it, since it was oppressing, read: controlling.
And male’s diversity drive is also destructive for THIS society.
And not that I care about this society, but that’s how it is.
The lie was liberating women, and then pretending that the female drive and instincts, unleashed, was good for society. How can it be good for society, if you’re trying to destroy society with it? 2+2?
+1. Precisely and well stated.
Jacquie:
Thanks for that post above at 11:41. It confirms everything I’ve thought and most of what we’ve said here on this thread and elsewhere.
This is also evidence to support what I’ve told my daughter: When you are a young woman, start looking for a good man with whom you’re compatible and you’re head over heels in love with him, When you find him, make yourself available to him and marry him as soon as you both are ready. Give to him, and him only, the very best of yourself emotionally and sexually. Don’t wait until you are 30 and don’t rack up a big sex partner count.
Kudos to you and your husband.
Doubled.
There are fairly few women who really do unplug from the matrix, and even fewer who are honest about their own struggles with this in the past and present tenses. Thank you, Jacquie.
I wanted to add something to my first comment at 8.34 where I mentioned the movie Tootsie and Dustin Hoffman asking Jessica Lange, straight-out, to sleep with him. He was slapped, demonstrating that although women claim they like directness from men, in reality they don’t.
The reason I return to this is because the following came in to my mind: When I was about fourteen walking back up the hill to my school one afternoon, I got into conversation with a middle-aged woman pushing a bicycle. Did I completely misread her intentions? I doubt it. I, in my naivety and with all my testoterone suggested quite bluntly to her that we should have sex. She looked at me as if I were very strange and left me. I feel sure that had I been more subtle not withstanding or perhaps because of my youth she would have been very happy to sleep with me. I feel pretty sure I am right as on more occasions than I can count since that day I have picked women up in the street and shortly thereafter gone off to have sex with them but being somewhat less coarse in my language. I do not go out looking for it; it just happens, sometimes. Miss Walsh does not approve of seduction, but it is only seduction that seduces and the direct approach will fail.
Jacquie, every time I read your story, I am impressed, but also amazed that it took you so long. Twenty years is a long time to be miserably mediocre.
Before I forget, if we are ever considering the history of effective anti-feminism, we should not forget Professor Michael Levin at CUNY in America, who was writing against feminism, and taking the lumps, in the 1980s:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/levin.html
Opus, the same is true of wives. Far better to seduce, although the direct approach sometimes works. I once told my wife that I expected her to make herself available for sex one night, and she did. But seduction works best. I spent a long time cuddling her yesterday (it was her day off). Eventually she just offered me a fuck and took her panties down.
The older woman thing is a strange one. We had a cleaning lady, not a bad looking redhead as I recall. She used to bring me cups of morning tea in bed. Once I ended up with my hand firmly between her rather large breasts – I can’t remember how – we may have been patting a cat together. It just seemed to happen. It was strange; it led nowhere; but it puzzled me then, and it still does.
David Collard says:
“but also amazed that it took you so long. Twenty years is a long time to be miserably mediocre.”
I have wrestled with this somewhat myself, and believe I have come to the only answer that makes sense, we simply didn’t know that we were mediocre. Yes, we had some really rough patches, but for most of it I probably would have told you that we had a good marriage. It wasn’t until there was something to compare with that we realized how our marriage really was. Compared to other marriages things seemed good, but when we compare our marriage now to what it was for so long is when we saw it.
My husband brings up the analogy of boiling a frog. If you put a frog in luke warm water he has no reason to jump out, and by the time he does realize things are bad for him it’s too late. Thankfully we did realize before things hit full boil.
I was recently in a convo with a commenter on another blog. She was defending her egalitarian marriage to the hilt. She said every word, every phrase I used for most of my marriage. Her main assertion was ‘don’t fix what ain’t broke’. I backed off after awhile because I realized that was what I felt for so long. It didn’t feel broke. We figured that was what our lives were. My husband’s exact words to me were ‘he just figured it was his lot in life’. A person has to be to the point that they are willing to listen; before that point they don’t realize there is a problem or they don’t want to accept the solution.
I was recently in a convo with a commenter on another blog. She was defending her egalitarian marriage to the hilt. She said every word, every phrase I used for most of my marriage. Her main assertion was ‘don’t fix what ain’t broke’. I backed off after awhile because I realized that was what I felt for so long. It didn’t feel broke. We figured that was what our lives were. My husband’s exact words to me were ‘he just figured it was his lot in life’. A person has to be to the point that they are willing to listen; before that point they don’t realize there is a problem or they don’t want to accept the solution.
Yes. She is in denial, and we will have to see what happens there, really.
David,
It’s easy to be blind and miserable for twenty years, and much longer, never knowing what you’re doing wrong. The only reason I’m not just like Jacquie is that I was never driven or motivated enough. I let my husband lead me because I didn’t have any better ideas, and at any give time I was either reluctant or ambivalent about it. Sometimes even embarrassed for not being more independent. Traditional sex roles were pretty much unheard of by the time I was an adult, even in the church. Either the role models weren’t there, or I didn’t recognize them for what they were. Even in my childhood, I now know that my mother was submitted to my father, but it didn’t look like submission to me because she wasn’t passive. She had her roles, he had his, and it never once occurred to me that it wasn’t an equal partnership. (Yet we always knew there was NEVER any pushing his limits. He was in charge.)
Jacquie, I believe I speak for many, many men when I say “Endure and hope it will get better, someday” is not a solution, but it is a way to cope with situations that can make a man miserable.
You wrote:
A person has to be to the point that they are willing to listen; before that point they don’t realize there is a problem or they don’t want to accept the solution.
Many a woman has no doubt asked an angry, frustrated man at the limits of his endurance, “Why didn’t you tell me any of this before?”. Again I will speak for many other men:
There is no point in talking when no one is listening.
AnonGuy said: That said, what a woman seeks in a hookup (sex *and* commitment, *irrationally*, not from a stable, gainfully employed beta men, but someone they see as an Alpha) is not more moral (her motives are still selfish, not to mention greedy, to be sure), but is nevertheless something that benefits society – that is, a male (an alpha even – wow!) bound to a female.
Even assuming the truth of your statement (that the motives of women wanting commitment are purer than the motives of cads wanting sex), you’re missing the point. The motives of a woman who wants commitment and fucks the entire neighborhood trying to find it are as irrelevant as the motives of the serial rapist who assaults women in search for his true love. It isn’t the underlying motivation that is important to the societal impact of an action; it is the action itself that is important. In this regard the cad who wants only sex and the woman who fucks in search of commitment are identical.
The best kept secret is that traditional sex roles are “hot”. Whatever life there is still in our marriage, a lot of it depends on playing and enjoying those roles. I can’t really imagine a more egalitarian relationship – maybe with a different kind of woman – but I think the traditional roles have been a large part of the relative success and happiness of our marriage. We are also “good friends”, but we are more than that.
As for role models, other times and another country, but I suppose my wife and I both came from parents who were fairly traditional in their attitudes. Women who tried to be “good Catholic wives” in the style of the time. But I wish I could convince people that there were plenty of busted and abdicated “patriarchs” even back then. I suppose my wife and I gravitated to each other because we both liked the more traditional approach. But there were plenty of career girls and feminists around when I was on the marriage market, even in the early 1980s.
The Less White Knight Returns!
This has been a very good conversation for me. I hope that all of you will indulge my writing freely here (not clarifying myself anymore) – this makes me a promise breaker, I know…. (committed to my wife though). And I know it takes time to read what I’ve written and respond and that you are helping me see what you are already convinced of. Thank you. For your patience. If anything, I hope that talking with me helps you articulate your positions more powerfully for others (as we learn from disagreement, as Dalrock says – my philosophy to sometimes).
Jacquie’s testimony strikes me as quite powerful. It at least tells me definitively that SWALT (some….). It makes me think that it is may even be true that AWALT (want hot alpha sex, full stop). Understand – I have come from environments where most all my family and friends are happily married (there was one SWALT experience, but this surprised none of us really…) – they are either Christians or have some residual religious convictions about how sex and marriage should go together or are aware that they should conform to expectations around them. If AWALT, I suppose this would mean that the women fight against their internal hypergamous desires and the others at least try to control their external moral behavior. That said, some of you said that women who want alpha sex period might later feel guilty about and then, going by their hamster, convince themselves that they were trying for a relationship. I think in the case of the women I know that many of them may very well fantasize about alpha sex period, but they have a conviction that fights against this desire: namely that sex and commitment (from both parties). So this is the water that I swim in – and I probably project this on to the wider culture.
AWALT… maybe. On the other hand, as alphas say, feminism has been great for alpha men (who again, lie and are immensely selfish – I think all we can really learn from them, in general, is how *many* women can be seduced). And women are eager to please alphas… So one wonders how much of this is culturally conditioned as well. I asked Jacquie personally about what she said her and she said: For most women it is *because they are told that it’s acceptable, and somewhat expected* For others, she notes, it’s a way to rebel against what they were taught growing up. We ask the same for men – i.e., how much is this culturally conditioned – but really, I just don’t have any trouble believing that most young men don’t need anyone to tell them that they should be attracted to women and want to have sex with them. AMALT by nature indeed. How much so with women? SWALT or AWALT? Jacquie did not bring up this in her explanation. Again, if it is AWALT, I am fine with that (I know most everyone here probably does not believe me here). Makes things easier. Men lust period and women lust period. But is it really that clear? I honestly do want to know the truth. I hope all of you will have a bit of patience with me here (maybe Dalrock could do a post on this directed towards all female readers: AWALT or SWALT? People here seem very confident AWALT, so you would have nothing to fear. You’d just get a nice list of confirmations like Jacquie’s that I think would be very powerful to a lot of readers like me.
Again, I honestly would prefer this to be true just because it would make the whole issue much more clear and black and white (I am the kind of person who likes clarity – I just need to be convinced by really good evidence).
More questions I have now: so can an Alpha ever be converted? I knew some promiscuous guys who struck me as pretty alpha (bragged about a high partner count in high school, went into the military and got even more nuts) – and one now is an excellent husband. I’d say his being bound to his very wonderful wife is definitely a benefit to society. He even said at the wedding that she had tamed him in way… made him a better person. Remember it vividly and it made an impression. Sorry if you feel like I’m giving women bad hopes here, but it is really true.
I doubt she did this by hooking up with him though. I’d say if guys like him are to be converted, a women would have more luck by pulling his attention (being very interesting to him) and then being very hard to get sexually, while also subtlely expressing some real interest in him.
Anonymous Reader,
Men who are not bound to a woman and do not have a gift for celibacy are bad for society. Period. Women as well. No favoritism here.
No, I don’t think it is redundant. I think many women would skip their big wedding (elope) and go live on an island (a la Swiss Family Robinson, but with more amenities) if they could with their Alpha catch. Heck, I would be very tempted to do this with an incredibly hot babe.
Also, I see you’ve got the insult thing down. Yes, obviously I know nothing. This, along with the fact that you have consistently attributed positions to me that are not mine (maybe try asking some questions? – yes, obviously I do think we need to teach women to control their natural sexual natures), has been particularly grating. If an apology is forthcoming, I’ll continue to interact with you. Otherwise, I wish you the best.
Deti:
“This is also evidence to support what I’ve told my daughter: When you are a young woman, start looking for a good man with whom you’re compatible and you’re head over heels in love with him, When you find him, make yourself available to him and marry him as soon as you both are ready. Give to him, and him only, the very best of yourself emotionally and sexually. Don’t wait until you are 30 and don’t rack up a big sex partner count.”
I’d do the same thing exactly.
Also, I’d say that women who are “caretakers and want to fix up the brooding, emotionally distant and injured, misunderstood man” according to God’s law (i.e. sex only within a committed relationship) – not just “make him into just the man she wants him to be” – are still performing a societal good if they actually reach that goal (with the example I listed above), notwithstanding whatever corrupt reasons they have for doing this (i.e being too controlling, thinking just about their own needs being me, sexual and otherwise, etc, as opposed to thinking about what is best for their neighbor and the common good and/or what God wants)
Feminist Hater: You misunderstand me. I know many atheists even have moral convictions. In response to deti’s comment about why shouldn’t PUA treat women this way (i.e. an eye for an eye – what many here feel women deserve), many of us, religious or not, realize that sometimes forgiveness (for past affairs, flings, sins) is a highly necessary thing in this world. And I’d say, anyone, if they have those impulses, gets them from God, not human nature in general (though only a Christian, for example, would give all the glory to God for them being able to show mercy). Still, actually marrying one of those women is a huge step – I do not think I would have been capable of it (for just one pre-marriage fling: my wife was a virgin), and even if I were, I think very often it would not be wise (I think she’d really have to regret what she did and maybe only have *1* former partner, or something like that).
In the end for me, on whichever side I end up, its clear to me that women have problems (not to minimize those men have: of course, players are guilty as well): they are very lustful full stop (AWALT) or they are very, very foolish (hoping to win the lottery – particularly by hooking up)
YOHAMI:
That’s what the “girls go into casual sex looking for relationships” means. Relationship = drama. Relationship != lifelong commitment monogamy.
Not sure I get what you are saying here. You are saying that they are not looking for “lifelong commitment monogamy” correct?
“For stuff to be good or bad for society, a society has to be constructed around it. Our society was built on top of lifelong monogamy – or the attempt, the appearance of one. Both male and female natural drives, unrestrained, are destructive for that society that needs those drives under control. In short, everything women naturally want is destructive for society.”
“that society” – So you think a society can exist without drives under control. Operating on faith in human progress?
“The lie was liberating women, and then pretending that the female drive and instincts, unleashed, was good for society. How can it be good for society, if you’re trying to destroy society with it? 2+2?
Annonguy, process that in silence”
I don’t need to. If only SWALT (big qualification, I know, and one again, that I am perfectly ready to drop given good evidence), the hope that many girls getting involved in the hook-up scene have (i.e. catching the big Alpha) is not good for society as a whole (maybe this will help the discussion – and I apologize for not talking about this earlier). It is “good for society” only in the limited sense that committed relationships (on both sides ) are good for society. The reality is that very few of those women will succeed. Overall, things will be made into even more of a mess. Therefore, what these girls are idiotically doing is not good for society at large – their actions in aggregate have a terrible effect (Will Evans: “It isn’t the underlying motivation that is important to the societal impact of an action; it is the action itself that is important” – yes!) Committed relationships – where even Alphas get bound (and are encouraged to stay bound by family, friends, society, and government as a whole) are what is good for society. You are the one who seems to think other healthy societies may be a possibility. Again are you not operating on faith. “It’s a self serving game, just like male’s diversity sex drive is a self serving game. Which is good.” and again, “that society that needs those drives under control”? You really think there could exist a society that does not need those drives under control and you don’t care about society? And why should I listen to you? If I have misrepresented you at all, please tell me where.
I hope that last paragraph helps guys (I’m assuming everyone here save one is a guy). Read it again.
So again, as I said before:
“My position is that we need to do what we did 60 years ago – which is shame sluts and players (without letting either one talk about the sin of the other person: “my fault, my fault, my *own* most grievous fault”). If this worked 60 years ago, *this* is what you should be articulating and fighting for (the other view – only shame sluts [“detrimental from a practical perspective [to shame players]”—Dalrock] – is not proven, so to speak)”
7man:
“A few months ago it was Escoffier that was arguing the absolute relative morality that female serial monogamy (hypergamy) was higher in morality than the male polygamous behavioral desires. Escoffier’s system of belief was just as complex (convoluted) as is AnonymousGuy’s. It seems like the arguments against the standard Red Pill reality do not change.”
Well, I hope the paragraph I mention puts this to rest. Again, I have never said that serial monogamy is higher in morality than male polygamous behavorial desires.
Again: “think about the stuff I wrote above about how players use some girls (note I’m writing “some”) desire for commitment into opportunities to get more sex. Also note they freely lie to get laid, so that does make one wonder how much their observations and words can be trusted.”
And I do appreciate Jacquie’s points again, but I’d like to see more women weigh in.
Again, here is what I thought was possible evidence for my position (or, things that should be explored more), which now can be reformulated as “only SWALT”:
– posts on game sites talk specifically about how to use the woman’s desire for commitment in ways to secure more sex (this, I think, is the most telling one)
– They want MMSL and “happily ever after” (i.e. every romance novel [revolting female porn] ever written, and ““How to Flip a Player”, [Susan’s post] as misled as it is) – not their “their ‘personal alpha male’ for a time” (Karen Owens, the “Duke Sex List girl” was trying to prove a point – nothing more) – the key evidence here is romance novels, some of the most popular books out there.
– What starts in their vagina however goes right to the heart (especially when the “ovulation goggles” are on – “he’d make a great husband… dad…”) – here I cite the Dalrock article on this: were they only thinking about them as husbands and dads because they were asked (and then rationalized), or is this how most women think all the time?
– women who had lots of sex earlier in life often regret this behavior and are sad about what they did (“How easy therefore, for a woman to fall into the belief that the man she is with wants her for more than the night… for women sex always seems to involve that bit more, that bit of romance or wooing or post-coitus cuddling (which men hate) – thus women are not by nature so well set up for casual sex as men, and neither are women (I would say) used to being on the end of being dumped”…. “The woman who therefore realises that the latest Alpha male is ‘the one’ is therefore likely to be in for a rude awakening unless she has by chance actually slepped with an omega or lesa beta”—Opus [thank you sir]) – I admit that this is my weakest point – regrets may tell us nothing about what a woman originally wanted, subconsciously or consciously
Look at it this way – if you are still with me, I think that by addressing realities like this you are only going to be more convincing in the future. I see the whole question of nature and nurture (here, religious convictions especially) really being in the mix here, and probably tough to disentangle.
A sincere thank you to all of you who have been talking with me here.
And again, I would be fine believing that AWALT.
Really.
Also, I can’t comment again until Monday at the earliest. But I certainly will be looking for insight and help from all of you generous people who can provide that
Cheers
“namely that sex and commitment (from both parties).”
should be
namely that sex and commitment (from both parties) go together…
Ugh – typos – sorry.
“We ask the same for men – i.e., how much is this culturally conditioned – but really, I just don’t have any trouble believing that most young men don’t need anyone to tell them that they should be attracted to women and want to have sex with them.”
should be
We CAN ask the same for men – i.e., how much is this culturally conditioned – but really, I just don’t have any trouble believing that most young men don’t need anyone to tell them that they should be attracted to women and want to have sex with them.
think that’s all…
Everyone,
Just wanted to add a quick note. Jacquie was kind enough to email me a really long and thoughtful email. I replied, telling her about my SWALT idea, and the stuff I thought was possible evidence for it. Here is how I ended in my response to her:
“I’m hoping that persons will be able to put those (four) objections to rest. I know this may sound strange to you but I’d be happy to know that AWALT. It makes everything more human [fallen humans]. We are all in this together. Things are more clear cut. Men and women want hot alpha sex period. I can live with that. It really is just a matter of making sure that the assertion can be backed up.”
That said, regardless of what I end up thinking here, I will always be a player-shamer as well. Whatever the great insights of a particular viewpoint, I can’t join a broad movement that refuses to speak out about this. And each person, man and woman, must live with their own guilty conscience when confronted with the consequences of their behavior.
Have a great Friday and weekend all.
AnonGuy,
AWWHAS = All Woment Want Hot Alpha Sex.
Ah, but not “all” women, since some are lesbian, and then some dont like sex. But at a basic level, every woman wants a hot alpha, just like every vagina wants a hard cock – and not a flaccid cock and not another clitoris.
* * *
Men are driven and persistent and are wired to reach higher and become the best, the leader, or to die trying. Women are wired to screen for such guys.
* * *
Men are driven by lust and women are driven by emotional lust. Again, yes, women want “relationships” but relationships have many flavors, and lifelong-monogamy is just a very specific, and demanding, flavor. Lifelong-monogamy is not what women naturally crave, and you can put that to test easily: just look outside.
* * *
Let’s address your questions
* * *
“Not sure I get what you are saying here. You are saying that they are not looking for “lifelong commitment monogamy” correct?”
Some of them are, but “lifelong commitment monogamy” is not what they, generally speaking, are dreaming about all day long. If they were they would need NO education, NO self management, NO self control, NO laws, nothing. They would just do it. Reality would be coherent from that point of view.
* * *
“So you think a society can exist without drives under control. Operating on faith in human progress?”
Society is just a word to describe a bunch of people living together under a set of rules. So yes, a society can exist without [some] drives under control. Look at history.
* * *
“Therefore, what these girls are idiotically doing is not good for society at large ”
You got it.
* * *
“Committed relationships – where even Alphas get bound (and are encouraged to stay bound by family, friends, society, and government as a whole) are what is good for society. ”
Historically, Alphas do get bound, to a harem of women. Even in the bible, right? I mean, what’s an Alpha going to do after reaching the top of the social ladder? He helped build the ladder. Now he sits on top. When people talk peyorative about Alphas they really mean something else: that in THIS society that is broken, the guys that succeed are broken too, and that we have a bunch of unworthy guys profiting from the system that is broken. IF this society worked, then the Alphas would be well functioning guys. Because Alpha only means the top guy in the chain. And women will all gravitate around him. Yes. All of them. All of them are like THAT. Except of lesbians.
So if you hate Alphas, what you’re saying is you dont like the top males of X tribe, because you dont like the rules of X tribe, and therefore you dont like the guys who better represent those set of rules. But all women want Alpha.
* * *
“You are the one who seems to think other healthy societies may be a possibility.”
I dont know man. I dont have ever seen a healthy nothing.
“Again are you not operating on faith.”
Im not a faith person.
“You really think there could exist a society that does not need those drives under control and you don’t care about society?”
Of course. The issue is not if these societies can exist or have existed: they exist, have existed, and will continue to exist. The issue is if we want to live in them, and what kind of society we want to contribute for and build. What Im saying is, again:
– Natural drives, animal drives dont produce THIS society on their own. Unrestrained, female drives dont go and build lifelong monogamies, they produce serial monogamy plus cuckholding. So you cant assume that when feminism liberated women… what women are going to do is any good for society, and, that when girls go and fuck and mess around, what they “really” want is everlasting love and lifelong commitment. It’s just not the case. What they “really” want is what they are really getting. By making it about women wanting the right thing by default, you place them on a pedestal, and then you miss the cue about what’s actually, factually, obserbably, going on.
If you turn off the discourse that women “really” want X, and you see what they are actually doing, all you’re going to see is a bunch of immature brats getting cock.
“And why should I listen to you?”
Because Im talking to you.
AnonGuy,
“you don’t care about society?”
I dont care about this one. This is not the one I want to help build. This is batshit insane, and has been insane for too long. I cant think of returning 50 or 100 or 1600 years because all I see is batshit insane. So fuck society. When people talk about society they are really talking about comfort zones. This isnt going to get fixed by reverting to a set of rules that was already broken.
And the SMP is just a tiny manifestation of how broken it is.
So. I want to build a new society or to strive this one into a better model. But I havent seen “healthy” yet. So wtf do I know. I dont know yet.
Anonymous Guy:
“That said, regardless of what I end up thinking here, I will always be a player-shamer as well. Whatever the great insights of a particular viewpoint, I can’t join a broad movement that refuses to speak out about this. And each person, man and woman, must live with their own guilty conscience when confronted with the consequences of their behavior.”
Believe me, I get what you’re saying. You approach it from a biblical view of morality. You see it in terms of sin and righteousness, vice and virtue, wrong and right. I do too. From a purely moral perspective, ANY sex outside of marriage is sin and is wrong, regardless of whether the slut or the player does it. Period. Full stop.
That is all well and good. But in this fallen, imperfect world, we must consider not only what is sinful, but what works to create and sustain an orderly society. I think it’s been pretty well shown that
1. Betas created western civilization, the most orderly, most advanced and wealthiest society in human history. Betas did this through their penchant for industry, loyalty, respect for the rule of law, and stable natures.
2. To harness the beta’s industry and innovation, incentives had to be provided. One such strong incentive was getting him regular sex. It is extremely frustrating and painful to a young man to have absolutely no church and/or societally sanctioned sexual outlet whatsoever.
3. The only way to secure society and provide the beta with regular sex consistent with conventional Judeo-Christian morality was to get them married at young ages. This was done by controlling hypergamy and shaming sluts. Men were expected to follow the rules for the good of society; so it was only fair that women be required to follow rules as well. Man: Provide and protect. Woman: submit to and make a home for the husband, and do most of the child-rearing.
Controls on hypergamy and slut shaming were employed because, quite simply, they WORK. They helped create a stable society. Alpha and player shaming have been tried to the exclusion of shaming female promiscuity, in other societies. Shaming promiscuous men doesn’t work to reduce promiscuity. Such men don’t care what society thinks, as long as they’re pulling mad tail. And if they don’t care what society thinks, such men tend to care even less about what God thinks. We have always had sluts and players among us but they used to be at society’s margins and the lifestyle was not presented as “normal” or “moral”.
We’re concerned with what’s moral, but also with what works.
YOHAMI,
Again, its like crack. Real briefly (will read and digest more – maybe comment on Monday): thanks for the note and your attention. I’d say *all societies are unhealthy* and always will be (except for when Jesus returns) – just like “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” (Churchill). Still, unless you are an uber Alpha (which you may be) I can’t understand why any regular guy would not prefer something like Western civ’s 1950s America (which was not perfect) to any of the alternatives (like polygamous societies, ancient or modern, for example). I know we can’t go back, but I think shaming both sluts and players is a must.
its like crack – blogs, that is
“Betas created western civilization”
Betas built it. Like ants or workers in a factory or soldiers. And their submissive, cooperative, and conflict-avoiding sheeple nature was key to this.
They didnt create it though. Not an inch of it. They built everything everything under the supervision of a mix of Alphas and Wicked, who did engineer the whole thing, and extracted labor, blood and sweat from beta as needed.
Betas built it. And the system they built was engineered against them. To keep them there. Misinformed lost and low.
When I see the beta praise for the system, I see the same as a slave in a Lousiana farm taking pride for having “created the farm” that keeps them all alive. If only they knew.
AnonGuy, re: crack. I know bro. I have a deadline and all. Today.
deti,
YOHAMI’S right. You need your own blog. Good stuff. Thank you for your patient instruction.
Maybe more later…
“Betas built it. And the system they built was engineered against them. To keep them there. Misinformed lost and low.”
So the alphas were willing to give up their harems to get the builders for their creation?
Boy, am I a promise breaker. And you’ve got a deadline. Good luck. Ignore me for now (if you can : ) ).
I bet alphas never use smiley faces…
AnonGuy, the Alphas still have harems, just that it’s now “illegal” so it goes undercover and it’s called mistresses and affairs, but it’s the same deal as always. And it’s illegal because this side of the world is man-shaming. But it’s an hypocrital facade. I dont even look at it as an attempt to do things right – I dont think the guys who set the rule ever thought of following it. It was a rule for control.
That makes some sense. Yes, why should they care if they get their ladies by polygamy, concubinage, or through mistresses/affairs? (with the latter, you actually were expected to provide for them – in the new arrangement you don’t have to…). Still, I do think some Alphas (or uber-Betas if one says an Alpha can’t be bound or convert?) have been faithful to their wives due to the Greater Alpha. Thanks.
AnonGuy, “I do think some Alphas have been faithful to their wives” when it comes down to specific men, yes. Im 100% sure some Alphas have been faithful. When you totally love as an act of will, that covers all the bases.
Not the most abundant thing around, and the system doesnt require either (it should)
Excellent comment, Deti.
The other problem with player shaming, and this is a huge one, is it is a copout. It is pure self righteous cowardice. Player shaming allows Christians to pretend they haven’t collectively turned their backs on sexual morality. Holding your pastor and fellow congregants accountable for their rampant corruption on Christian sexual morality is hard. If you are doing it remotely correctly it will cost you something; you will be ostracized, called a woman hater, a sexist, an abuser, accused of not showing Christ’s love, etc. Shaming players is free, yet you can still pretend you are one of the ones who actually believes in Christian sexual morality.
It is pretend courage, when what we desperately need is the real thing.
Dalrock,
Good point. I’m all for this as well (this is me): http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/we-are-all-antinomians-now-except-the-babies-part-v-of-v/
Dalrock and Deti
Mind if I hold up a comparison and maybe find a vein of hypocrisy ? (this applies to me as well, Im not lashing)
I saw detis response about shaming PUA’s or whatever, and I liked his thinking. In general I agree that we need not magnify the condemnation of mens sexual proclivities even as we that are Christians subscribe to a set of beliefs that ought to have us not celebrating those things…i think we all agree.
However, women use a very very similar tact to shift the focus off of something when a specific woman sin is raised and it doesnt sit well when they do it either. In general it boild down to “yes that is wrong but this is ALSO wrong”…and that “but” is just a non starter truth be known. Challenge women on frivolous divorce and you may see them say “yes that divorce is wrong BUT so is the sin that led to it”….and off you go, obfuscation successful.
I think shaming the sexual conquistador neednt be done by men here for some other reasons that are strategic. Men are roundly shamed enough that one can say there is a constant murmer of man shame in the church already. Also, men who tend to feel they must add in the “both genders do it” disclaimer [which is one motive for a man to use man shaming as an opener] need to realize, NO AMOUNT of yours or any mans self effacement is worth shit to them. You will not earn but the most fleeting and fake female approval for it, so, the result is you look like an ass, and women use you as a useful idiot.
Re: Player shaming –
I remember the venerable ZenPriest’s words:
“If I have to protect a shipment of gold, will I send two guards to protect the shipment or a hundred thousand guards to deter everyone who may be tempted by it?
If I want to keep my daughter virtuous, do I admonish her about the possible outcomes of sluttish behavior, or do I attempt to warn all of her possible suitors of the outcome of dickish behavior?”
It’s a simple case of the most bang for the buck.
AnonymousGuy
Men who are not bound to a woman and do not have a gift for celibacy are bad for society. Period. Women as well. No favoritism here.
You are evading the question. Does a man have any worth to you aside from serving women, or not?
No, I don’t think it is redundant. I think many women would skip their big wedding (elope) and go live on an island (a la Swiss Family Robinson, but with more amenities) if they could with their Alpha catch.
What evidence do you have to support this claim? Are there any TV shows devoted to elopement? Where can I find a copy of “Elope” magazine? Do you see any support for simple marriage ceremonies anywhere, anywhere at all? What I see is a huge industry devoted to servicing the Disney princess fantasies of brides – what’s the average cost of a wedding in the US now, is it $15,000 or has it gone higher? Do women sit around talking each other into simple elopement, or do they play one-up games on how fancy their weddings were, or are going to be (depending)?
To be charitable, you seem to come from a very small cultural niche. One in which women are universally prudent and demure, having no desire to impress their sisters at all. I admit that I’d like to know more about this community. Obviously it is one where no one watches TV, shops in any large supermarkets, reads any wide circulation magazines or newspapers, and generally is isolated from the larger culture.
Heck, I would be very tempted to do this with an incredibly hot babe.
That’s not relevant. You aren’t a woman, right?
Also, I see you’ve got the insult thing down. Yes, obviously I know nothing.
Certainly you were not willing to admit that anyone on this site might know something you don’t at the start. You’ve gotten a bit better. A bit. But you still seem to be trying to convince me and other men that we should not believe things we have seen with our own eyes, heard with our own ears, experienced in our own lives, but rather should believe what you tell us to believe, because you’re you and we’re not. This disregard for the experience of men, often bitter, personal experience, looks to me a whole lot like contempt. Contempt for men who have seen things you haven’t seen, and lived through ugly things you don’t even know about, because, well, things like that don’t happen to nice men who obey what women tell them. Except, of course, that ain’t so, either. As many men, some on this site, can testify.
The denigrating of ordinary men’s experience when it does not fit the script is one thing churchian conservatives share with feminists. It isn’t the only thing, but it is one of the more grating, obnoxious ones.
This may be a big game to you. Pop up on this site, and tell off all those nasty menz who don’t really know how to properly worship teh wimmenz. Or maybe it’s all a big Socratic dialog / ancien regime Paris salon – we all sit around stroking our chins and nodding in agreement with your Jack Handy imitation. But it’s real life to me, and to some others. In the real world, some of this stuff is life or death. That’s no exaggeration.
Maybe you don’t know of any men who have decided that rather than put up with a wife who won’t stop cheating on them, a pistol bullet in the head ends the pain. I just heard of another case of this the other day; guy followed his wife after work, found out where she went at night, went home to pack a bag and decided to eat his .45 pistol instead. Based on the known suicide rate for men, probably every week somewhere in this country a man kills himself rather than endure the divorce machine induced pain any more. This is a reality. And it directly stems from anti-male laws, anti-male courts, and uncontrolled female “choice”. It’s real life I’m dealing with. Some of those men’s lives could be saved, if they knew the truth about women and the divorce machine. If I tell the truth too harshly, well, don’t read my comments.
This, along with the fact that you have consistently attributed positions to me that are not mine (maybe try asking some questions? – yes, obviously I do think we need to teach women to control their natural sexual natures), has been particularly grating.
You think you are the first “guy” to show up here to set all us heathens straight by peddling the same bilge, the same falsehoods, the same lies, that many of us have had to work long and hard , in some case for years, to get away from?? You think your holier-than-thou attitude isn’t grating?
If an apology is forthcoming, I’ll continue to interact with you. Otherwise, I wish you the best.
The truth never needs any apology. I don’t shade the truth, and when someone tries to peddle bunk about women I don’t put up with that nor suffer it lightly. Too many men have suffered in the last 40 years because of falsehood about women, about men, about reality. More are suffering right now, and will suffer in the future. If I have to choose between offending your delicate feelings, and telling truths bluntly that might keep some guy from blowing his brains out down the road in sheer frustration, guess what? You’ll just have to not read my text, or grow thicker skin.
I urge you to keep on reading. Read much more of this site, then think, then ask questions. I also urge you to stop telling the rest of us what to think. It’s been tried before, and it doesn’t work the way you expect it to.
Finally, stop referring to yourself as a “guy”. If you are a man, then call yourself a man. it’s the first step to being one. There are men, women, and children in the world. Old and young. Not “guys”.
AnonymousGuy, I see from the link you posted that you are churchgoing. So I’ll toss out some situations, and maybe if you wish you can tell me how your church would handle them.
* Women goes to the head pastor, says she wants to divorce her husband. Why? Because he’s been cheating on her – produces evidence including pictures. The husband happens to be part of the church leadership, his parents were among the founders of that church. What happens to this guy in your church?
* Daughter of a church leader is a wild young lady. Stays out late, sneaks out of the house at 3 AM, is all but certainly having sex while in high school. When she’s called on the carpet, admits she’s done wrong, promises to do better – and a month later she’s out with bad boys at midnight again. Winds up pregnant, marries a beta and has a child with him. One night he leaves his work shift early due to sickness, enters the house quietly so as not to wake up the children, and finds her in their bed doing the nasty with another man. What happens to this woman in your church?
* Head pastor’s youngest child is a daughter with a bit of a wild streak. While living at her parents home at the age of 19 and sort of taking some college classes, she gets pregnant by a man who has no intention of marrying her. What happens to her in your church?
* Never-married woman with a child joins your church, saying that she admits a mistake but wants to live the right way now. After a couple of years, she gets pregnant again, by a man who isn’t interested in marrying her. What happens in your church?
I’m not making these up. I’ve either seen them myself, or have a 1st person reliable report from someone in a church where these things happened. I know how they were handled via the same way; either I saw or I have a 1st person report on the outcome. Hypergamy is a factor in 3 of the 4.
Today’s irony moment. I see in re-reading my own posting 2 above this one I managed to refer to a man as a “guy” twice. Clearly I need to go write some sentences on the chalkboard 100 times:
“I shall not refer to men as ‘guys'”.
@Anon Reader
Solomon II’s first proverb.
Anon guy is making the false assumption that the manosphere supports male promiscuity as end in itself so in his pragmatism he is siding with the lesser of two evils (from a total sum benefit to society) but nonetheless he is unwittingly supporting evil.
Roissy churlishly expresses that alphas are ‘doing God’s work’ and that presupposes that he is infact a proponent of lifelong monogamy. Male promiscuity is a means to an end, its proponents intend to make the current system so unworkable for women that it must warrant change for the better.
Pingback: The boyfriend invention | Dalrock
Johnycomelately,
It seems to me if Roissy really cared about God or God’s work of marriage he would have some fear. God used wicked nations in the O.T. to punish his people (who, of course, would then be punished later), to be sure, but had those nations known that this was certainly the case, they would have been very afraid for themselves. If Roissy ever had a conscience, he’s long since killed it. As he’s said, the true alpha thinks only of satisfying his tool.
Anonymous Reader,
Thanks for the more thorough explanation of why your messages to me have been the way they have been. Obviously, we have very different personalities and approaches and grade on one another’s nerves a bit. I think it best to just stop the discussion for a while (in other news: today I swear off commenting on blogs [with a couple exceptions] for a year) : ) Your questions about Church-related issues are good: let me just say I think you’d be happy with my answers (which always involves calling sin sin before calling grace grace) – you can look more at the series I linked to above to get more of a sense of that.
Cheers all – thanks for the attention.
I went to the University of Texas. I took a Sex Roles class at Texas and another sociology class called Social Problems. They might as well have been subtitled “Why men suck and why women are fantastic”. I believe they search for data to find error ranges to skew a thesis in their favor. They have a strong bias against men and organize the classes theatrically to expound that ongoing thesis. Even in reading an analysis of Evolutionary Psychology by UT sociologist, the first statement in the paper was practically a dismissal of the science, that genetics cannot be the determinant of behavior which must be considered in light of cultural and social environment. Most other Ev Psych papers claim the Ev Psych trumps the cultural and social environment. It stipulates that analysis based on cultural and social environment will exactly lead to interpretations that may be construed to support any attempt at social re-engineering that might be desired. For years this cultural and social biology interpretation presented by Margaret Mead and followers has been exactly the basis of the feminist revolution. It is the very philosophical basis for most of the Hamsterbation that exists in the minds of women. And Ev Psych is a threat to those myths and threaten the philosophical basis for social re-engineering by feminists. The University of Texas is a key culprit in the dissemination of these myths and falsehoods. Any critique of Ev Psych by that institution must be suspect and understand that its intention is to skew or damn the findings in favor in the culture of that department.
The claims made by Dept of Sociology at the University of Texas must be taken with a grain of salt and understood that they are written by man haters, possibly the most pernicious group of haters in the United States. That dept has a particular culture such that any professor that doesn’t fall into line will be smashed and driven out. If you ever see Prof X from the University of Texas on any subject involving men or women immediately dismiss it. It pains me as a child that grew up in Austin, that attended that university, and that still lives in Austin to know the head Maginas, most Manginastic Manginas, the veritable high priests of Maginism are at my university, a university that presents such a macho front to world in sports but yet is a haven of the very philosophy that created the AFC/BETA male type. I used to merely despise that department for the mayhem they have caused in institutions: the legislature, the workplace, the courts, and the police. Now that I am unplugged and I see the grief they have inflicted on the personal lives of so many men I am more than outraged. Just the sight of a reference to that department sends me over the top.
I have often fantasized at going into that Sex Roles classroom and shouting that professor down and telling all the boys sitting in that class that that man is their oppressor and if any of them have a set of balls on them that they will get up immediately and leave the classroom and take the penalty of dropping that class in protest for the man hating nonsense that is taught there. I mean just going off in their all Al Pacino style “You’re out of order, this class is out of order, this whole world is out of order”.
I repeat over and over in comments that learning about Hypergamy and the topics discussed on sites like this site is like learning the Law of Gravity in physics class and immediately being to grasp and understand it due to the amount of observation about gravity made in your life prior to learning the law. Men readily take to these topics of hypergamy because it affirms what they have lived and what they have seen. They don’t need to be convinced. They have lived it their whole lives.
The UT sociology classes must use heavy statistics of questionable nature and tailored subject matter to convey and create themes and frames in the minds of students of which they have no immediate experience, that of wife batterer, that of feckless father, bad husband, abusive boss, of societal discrimination toward women and all the other negative stereotypes of men. These young women in that class have known nothing but special treatment in life, preferred status, men that kiss their ass and cater to their every whim. So UT has manufacture outrage in the coeds.
Fuck them. Mother Fuck them. I have been outraged and angry at that department for 20 years and it feels excellent to finally be able to publicly express my outrage. Every university that plays UT in a football or basketball game should start a chant to shame the men of the University of Texas for allowing this nonsense to exist at their school
MANNNGINNNA MAANNNNGINNNA MAANNNGINNNNA .
Every comment in a sports blog should dig at them. All the schools want something to use against them. There it is. Start calling them Manginas when you blog about UT. You want to win this war. That department should be a key and strategic target. Conservatives in Texas want to take on UT. Give them ammunition by making it public knowledge that department is the High Temple of Manginism, the most manginistic manginas in the world. It is fucking Ground Zero of Manginaness.
Pingback: Dr. Phil enforcing the feminine imperative. | Dalrock
Pingback: Some House Keeping « stagedreality
Pingback: The Feminine Imperative Revisited | Dalrock
Pingback: - Sunday Supplications: Entitled attitude, loose morals. | The Woman and the Dragon
Pingback: Approaching the Super-Norm: Identifying Perspectives
Pingback: BD #7 – The Basic Concept Behind The Man-Up Rant. | The Society of Phineas
3. A player cannot be shamed; shaming only adds to his reputation – and why should he care anyway: men will envy and admire him; women desire him. Such an idea is in the outer reaches of delusion.
I am glad someone has said it,
You cannot “player shame”:
What you would do is handing him his bad boy cred on a platter.
Instant social proof and he has not so much as lifted a finger.
Pingback: Financial Frame | The Reinvention of Man
Pingback: Psychological Projection and the Mirror Effect | Σ Frame
Pingback: Women: the cause of, and solution to, all of society's problems • Bnonn Tennant (the B is silent)