I started to reply to this comment from Paige on Supply and demand in the marriage market, but decided to make this a post instead:
I have more respect for a man who Goes His Own Way than a man who pumps-and-dumps. The man-ho’s sexual exploits lowers the SMV of women and creates more bitter feminists. He pollutes the water that all men have to drink from.
I think I understand the emotional reaction this evokes, but logically I don’t see why a pump and dump is less ethical than other forms of uncommitted sex. If a woman wants uncommitted sex, she has to assume the risk that the other party will end the “relationship” before she is ready just like a man does. There seems to be an underlying assumption that women are the only ones with the unilateral right to end an uncommitted relationship at will. If not, why does this create such consternation?
See also:
Mens sexual market value does not decline because women have sex with them, this means that a woman is only really hurting herself with her behavior…not men. A man who sleeps with a ton of women is lowering each of their SMV and in so doing is creating more un-marriageable women. This may work just fine for him but isn’t so good for the men who actually do want to get married.
The fact that women should take personal responsibility for themselves is besides the point. The actual power to change the sexual marketplace lies with the 20% of men sleeping with all the women.
Most women will always be stupid when it comes to understanding the sexual market-place. They are not equal to men in abstract thinking and so long as we keep expecting women to do what they are clearly incapable of doing nothing will ever change.
I hate to say it but if a man really insists on variety it would be better that he sees whores than he pumps-and-dumps. At least with a whore there is no illusion of a possible relationship.
Since comparing the sexual market place to the housing market is all the rage right now, I’ll do it do to better express my point.
Who is most guilty for sub-prime loans? The ones who give them or the ones who stupidly take the loan? Probably the ones who take the loan knowing they can’t afford it are the ones most guilty because they should be smarter and more cautious and less desperate for a big house…
But do we let the people issuing the sub-prime loans off the hook? Not generally, because we acknowledge that 1. they are not desperate 2. they are smarter and it is clear they are taking advantage of less intelligent people for their own gain.
“But what if the person is already in major debt”. Okay…but you are still contributing to the eventual housing crash that ruins more than just the “bad” people with the debt.
@Paige
A man who sleeps with a ton of women is lowering each of their SMV and in so doing is creating more un-marriageable women. This may work just fine for him but isn’t so good for the men who actually do want to get married.
You are assuming a woman who wanted uncommitted sex but couldn’t find it is a better choice for marriage than one who found it. This may be true to a degree, but neither is a good choice for marriage. If men were marrying women, having sex with them, and then dumping them, it would be a different story. Similarly to a lesser degree if they were getting engaged first.
Mens sexual market value does not decline because women have sex with them, this means that a woman is only really hurting herself with her behavior…not men.
I disagree. But it is her right to do so.
Women believe sex will get them a committed relationship. They use it as a bartering tool. I have a hard time believing that men don’t realize that. Most women are not like the Sex and the City girls.
Paige, there is a very old saying “a fool and his money are soon parted.” Saying the banks are at fault for taking advantage of those less intelligent than themselves is denying what our ancestors knew well, namely that that’s what intellegent people do. It is up to you as an indivual to prevent being taken advantage of, and if you are so misguided as to try save people from themselves, you are well on the way to a utopian socialistic ideal which is impossible to acheive.
Paige, you cannot and never will be able to save people from themselves. You cannot prevent fools from throwing their money away – if you make it illegial (either before or after the fact) for banks to take their money in this way, someone else will figure out a way to do it anyway, fools being fools they will throw their money away somehow. Similarly, you cannot save women from prostituting themselves from bounders and cads by scolding the cads. You may (possibly) prevent that cad from taking what’s being offered, but there are others where he came from more than willing to take over once your back is turned.
The only thing a wise person can do is prevent themselves from throwing their money and virtue away, and attempt to make others wise as well, particularly one’s children. Usually, you’re just casting pearls before the swine. The swine won’t value your advice for their rushing to the slops they see before them.
@Page “Women believe sex will get them a committed relationship” – most women are fools.
It may be true that I can’t expect intelligent people to not take advantage of dumb people, but like hell am I going to high-five them and say “way to go!” like so many men do their PUA peers.
Page, most PUAs are cads who don’t care what you think, and amuse themselves by agitating you.
I realize this. What bothers me isn’t the cads themselves, but the praise they get from their less-caddish peers.
@Dan
“…Saying the banks are at fault for
taking advantage of those less intelligent than themselvesfollowing the laws to give loans to people that can’t afford them…”Fixed.
“The actual power to change the sexual marketplace lies with the 20% of men sleeping with all the women. ”
Rationalization hamster alert. The actual power to change the sexual marketplace lies with the women who decide to reward these men with sex. Between this thread and the supply and demand thread I see a huge amount of ignoring the females role in this problem.
If women are so upset and concerned with this state of affairs, then you need to tell your sisters to close their legs as men telling them too is having no effect. Did any of you women even read Badger’s response to Kathy? Any at all? Badger noted that he and Greenlander started off as the kind of man who didn’t like to pump and dump. What happened, society, women (read that once more; WOMEN) penalized them for being that type of guy and rewarded those men who weren’t.
Point set match, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.
This, Paige, is why your statement is so woefully in error, you are taking a page from the Non-Thinking Housewife and telling men to ignore the currently messed up reward\penalty social paradigm and continue on in ways which lead to failure or sometimes disaster for said men. This issue will only be rectified when BOTH genders change. If you are in the mindset that men need to change and they are the only ones who do then you are contributing to the problem, period.
Men have been blamed for everything, women have something to be blamed for and it’s time we all grew up and realized it.
It doesn’t matter if you like it or you don’t, it simply matters that this is what is happening whether you want to see it or not. Pretending to be like Wil. E Coyote and pulling the blinds on the oncoming train doesn’t change the fact that you will become street pizza in short order.
In other words, and I say this to every woman who reads this blog or in life;
LISTEN WHEN MEN TALK ABOUT THEIR PROBLEMS.
Don’t argue, don’t disagree, don’t shame (point), don’t minimize…just listen. If you do, you may learn something. Kathy had made a point about how Greenlander ‘knew’ as opposed to Susan Walsh. This is what I mean…he’s a man, and he’s talking about men’s motivations. He does know, it’s women not listening which is the problem, his point shouldn’t even be in doubt.
He’s a man, sorry, right from the jump he has already has you trumped. Not trying to be mean, just saying that just like a relationship between spouses, issues are never resolved by projecting blame and ignoring problems. If a man is telling you that he is being rewarded for the behavior you abhor by countless women, AND that when he was the sort of man that you would have respect for but got penalized for it, now it’s time to realize what’s wrong with the machine.
FYI, getting to brass tacks, shaming a man who has learned the truth about women and engaging the pump and dump is simply going to become more set in his ways. Understand, I’m not advocating using women in this manner, far from it, but I can easily see why it’s becoming more popular amongst men. However, if you engage in shaming a PUA and then also, putting the blame on him for this current set of affairs, you are showing in plain terms you do not care about what even got him there in the first place.
Rant done, sorry this went long but I’m simply sick and tired of this wonderland that women live in when men plainly tell them what the deal bloody well is and they freaking ignore it because it doesn’t meet with their fluffy worldview.
Umbrellas don’t protect from falling boulders, time to get the point.
Omnipitron:
I certainly do care about the circumstances that leads a person to bad choices, but that isn’t to say I am going to support or encourage behavior the perpetuates a negative.
Many women friends have told me about how unhappy they are in their marriages because of some legitimate complaint about their husband (affairs, drinking, over-spending, verbal harshness, excessive laziness, etc) and while they are desperate for an escape from their misery I tell them that the consequences of divorce or dire and they must try to stick it out. Does this mean I do not sympathize with their pain? I understand that commitment has not proven to be rewarding for them… but right is right.. regardless of how it makes you feel.
Most women I know say men really can’t help themselves…they can’t be held to any standard of morality. I actually have enough respect for men to believe they can.
I don’t let women off the hook for their poor choices, but I can perfectly understand why they would think that having sex with man is the only way to get the love and commitment they want. The media actually tells us that.
I can understand would choose the pump-and-dump route but I am not going to high-five him anymore than I will high-five a divorcing woman.
@ Page: “What bothers me isn’t the cads themselves, but the praise they get from their less-caddish peers.”
Page, what you are seeing is two types of cheering, sometimes coming from the same person, sometimes not.
Type 1 (always coming from cads or caddish wannabies) – “Yeay for you for turning the tables on the evil women who hurt us all so much! Get all you can, and enjoy the decline!!!”
Type 2 (can come from either cads or from serious LTR guys) – “Yeay for you for the scales falling from your eyes and learning the truth about what’s going on in the world!”
Note the LTR guys are not necessarily cheering the decisions that the person has made, but we believe that the more people realize the rubbish fed to us, our brothers and our sons, the better. Since we generally believe in personal accountability, we recognize that sometimes people will use this knowledge to harm others and eventually themselves (as sin always harm the sinner the most), but regardless that’s one less blind fool in the world, and maybe, just maybe, a critical mass of the world will come to their collective senses and reject the crap which has lead this.
In the meantime, Page, stop wasting your breath (well, finger muscles) on scolding these men. As I said, they either don’t care or are actively amused by your antics. Use your time to cultivate wisdom and protect your virtue, and encourage others to do the same.
Isn’t the point of this blog, and related MRA blogs, to get AWAY from fem-BS and misandrist shaming like we see in the comments here?
PnD is a choice, on both sides, like a lot of choices. As a confirmed Old School PUA (ie I was doing it before it was cool, before anyone had heard of Game), I’ve done plenty of PnD – though less of late – and it only increases a man’s status with women. Paging Roissy …
Easy access to women ensures increased access to women … it’s a paradox which the female mind cannot process, but Playas know it’s true (just as we know it seldom behooves women to admit it). It’s a self-licking ice cream cone, if you prefer.
Ladies, deal with it.
Paige – “What bothers me isn’t the cads themselves, but the praise they get from their less-caddish peers.”
I believe you are seriously over-estimating this supposed “praise” for PUA from non-PUA’s.
Having been around the “Manoshpere” for several years, I’ve seen little in the way of actual praise for the PUA’s, and a lot of the sort of suggestion that you are making coming from women.
Men might tend to acknowledge that a guy who manages to be promiscuous has accomplished more than a woman who does so (woman needing to be little more than willing), but this is faint praise, if it is praise at all. It’s more a mere “tip-of-the-hat” – nothing like the “You Go Grrl!” stuff that women get for their (bad) behaviors that are felt to be “empowering”.
The “Praise” a successful PUA is from women who will subsequently find him more desirable based on his success with other women.
This is all part of the underlying reality of that supposed “slut/stud” double standard. It takes nothing for a woman to become a “slut”, and a great deal for a man to become a “stud” (which is why sluts easily outnumber studs); and, it is women who make a stud a stud. If women didn’t value promiscuous men so much, then men would be less likely to become that way.
And really, no guy goes to the trouble and effort of picking up women just to impress other guys.
Biblically, it’s certain that “pump and dump” is no more and no less objectionable than other kinds of fornication, but practically, the “pump and dump” artist (see the PUA websites) also tends to add a fair amount of deception into the mix. In short, the PUA/pump and dump artist is engaging in fornication + fraud, while the run of the mill fornicator is engaging “only” in fornication.
I’d also differ with the idea that, as a whole, promiscuous men don’t lose “sexual market value.” Perhaps in some sub-cultures, they don’t, but I know for sure that I, and people I know, have steered women away from men I knew to be PUA/pump and dump types.
So it may not be that young women quickly see through this, but certainly men and older women do. So being a he-slut can and will get you in trouble–just as “Solomon” found as the doorman to his apartment building started giving him the evil eye as he brought the nth new girl back from wherever. There is a feedback mechanism.
Dan in Philly missed a third type of cheerer: traditionalists who despise the whole crew, but who find the self-inflicted suffering of sluts amusing.
@paige,
I see your point but you don’t get it. You’re blaming men for the choices that women make – full stop.
I’m going to throw something out at you:
No-one can be held responsible for the choices other people make. If women have sex with a man, no matter what the circumstances are, and she did so voluntarily, the full weight of that decision rests entirely with her. Should the man have used game, the full weight of the decision still rests entirely with her.
If a bitchy, conniving woman uses wiles to bed a man and get him to marry her and then turns into a monster, we can feel sorry for the guy but also call him stupid. It’s not her fault he didn’t see what was obvious.
Don’t blame men for what men do and for what women do. Men have NO OBLIGATIONS to protect the honor of women. Women have that obligation. If a woman wishes to keep her legs closed, this is entirely and 100% her choice.
It’s all about responsibility. Too often, women work hard to make sure somewhere, somehow, a man is responsible. Re-read the news, magazines and lifestyle reporting – you can see this everywhere.
You just did it, too.
@Dan
@Page “Women believe sex will get them a committed relationship” – most women are fools.
Exactly.
@Paige
An adult can take responsiblity, a child cannot. Are you implying that most women are children?
A couple of points-
1. I never believe that women are purely victims of men. They always play a role in what happens. On some level they know they are taking the risk of being pumped-and-dumped even if they desperately hope it leads to a relationship. Neither do I believe men are always purely innocent. Many a low-ranking beta men will not date a women who is equally low-ranking as him. Just like women often over-estimate their rank so do men. I can give you a rolladex of women I know who men completely ignore because they are a bit nerdy/aspie/heavy/pimply…whatever. There is a whole lot of finger pointing from feminists and mra’s when the truth is probably in the middle. Lets share some blame and sing Kumbayah.
2. I don’t really take it upon myself to go after men and scold them. Most of my blog posts involve very little scolding or shaming. It was brought up in the previous thread where Kathy got into a bit of trouble so I put in my 2 cents in part as a way to support her. I am quite aware of the fact that a woman saying anything negative about men goes over like a led balloon. It is ALWAYS interpreted as passing blame.
3. It is not fair to bring up rationalization hamsters early in a discussion. A womans point-of-view is informed by her own life experiences. Just because it isn’t the same as yours doesn’t mean she is irrational. Save the insults for when the discussion has progressed and the woman has proven an inability to embrace other points of view.
4. My respect for mens intelligence means that I do hold them up to a little higher standard than I hold women to. It is part of my traditionalists beliefs that men are generally superior to women in morals, self-control, and rationality. That isn’t to say women are blameless (not by a long shot), but it takes a lot more for them to realize the error of their ways (usually really bad life experiences) than it does men.
5. While women may well “deserve” what they get because of their stupidity, it doesn’t actually benefit society that every person be punished to the fullest degree that their behavior warrants. We could chop off the arms of a thief, or maybe we can rehabilitate them into useful members of society.
6. Are women children? Not quite children, more like herd animals. The herd (our modern culture) tells us that sex gets you love. I fell for it once too. Thankfully I adopted a new herd (Catholicism) and realized the Truth.
Here’s a thought to extend the economic analogy of sex and relationships: The man Dalrock describes who, “pollutes the water that all men have to drink from” sounds like a variation on the economic theme of the Tragedy of the Common–albeit extended to the sexual marketplace. The Tragedy of the Common occurs when…
That is, consider that a man-ho seeking sex is simply acting in his own hormonal self-interest. Likewise, marriageable women can be construed as society’s “shared limited resource.” Finally, man-ho style sex with such women depletes that resource. (Since a woman’s partner count makes her less marriageable via a corresponding rise in cuckolding risk, lessened marital stability, and lower marital happiness).
Now granted, the parallel isn’t perfect. The Tragedy of the Common was originally articulated with idea that the exploited “resource” was passive. By contrast, marriageable women are their own agents just as a much as a man-ho. And this agency reveals women’s more able position to exert control over that resource. However, modern feminism has undermined nearly every incentive for women to do so.
I applauded Greenlander for the knowledge and wisdom he has gained, not necessarily his actions. But as a former NiceGuy, I’m not exactly weeping bitter tears for the 30-something women he has seduced and dumped.
I do agree with Paige on one point. The pump and dump cads are poisoning the waters. The sexual partners of these cads are also doing the exact same thing. However, these two groups are not poisoning the waters in the sexual market place, they are poisoning the waters in the relationship market place. I think it’s important to make a distinction between the two.
The prevailing hook up culture amongst the younger crowd is convincing an entire generation that the only way to find relationship satisfaction is to first wallow in the sexual market place, either as a woman of easy virtue or as a man of nefarious intent (slut or cad).
At some point, most of those young people will want to transition from the sexual market place to the relationship market place. That’s increasingly difficult when interpersonal relationships ‘twixt the genders is all about the knowledge of the glands and how to fulfill those glandular needs. Knowledge of emotional intimacy and how to deal with the day to day travails of a long term relationship simply doesn’t exist.
“You go grrl!” for the hyper-sexually active young woman and “high five!” for the shameless player ain’t going to work when “I do” comes up.
@Bike Bubba
Biblically, it’s certain that “pump and dump” is no more and no less objectionable than other kinds of fornication, but practically, the “pump and dump” artist (see the PUA websites) also tends to add a fair amount of deception into the mix. In short, the PUA/pump and dump artist is engaging in fornication + fraud, while the run of the mill fornicator is engaging “only” in fornication.
I’m not sure the two are entirely different. A woman wanting serial monogamy wants commitment from the man without committing herself. It strikes me that a pump-n-dump is the male equivalent to a woman having drive thru boyfriends. Both are using the ambiguity of the relationship to get what they want while allowing the other party to think it will work out to their advantage.
I’d also differ with the idea that, as a whole, promiscuous men don’t lose “sexual market value.” Perhaps in some sub-cultures, they don’t, but I know for sure that I, and people I know, have steered women away from men I knew to be PUA/pump and dump types.
I’ve devoted a number of my posts to steering women away from this type of man. However the response from men and women alike was that women wouldn’t want to hear the message.
“I can understand would choose the pump-and-dump route but I am not going to high-five him anymore than I will high-five a divorcing woman.”
Wonderful, and your post does make a lot of sense, thank you for telling some of the women you know about the consequences of divorce, and I’m sorry that some of these women are married to men who have those problems.
Marriage is supposed to be satisfying to both parties, not just one.
However, the guys here have said it and you haven’t addressed it;
“The fact that women should take personal responsibility for themselves is besides the point. The actual power to change the sexual marketplace lies with the 20% of men sleeping with all the women. ”
No, it IS the point, men and women are incentive based beings. There is no rationalization here, there is no other recourse, there is simply the fact that women need to stop rewarding behavior in men which is destructive, full stop.
You need to take the bull by the horns and realize that this is the core of the issue, that this is the crux of the PUA market, women allowing themselves to be swayed in this manner. This is what our forebears warned their young girls about; the man who would take their sexual offerings and leave them to the wolves. Also,
While it may be good that you stuck up for Kathy, you also did something men have seen in the media, protect a woman when she is wrong. You want a man to shape up, give him reason to, if you shame a man who you don’t consider a ‘real man’ you have simply reinforced his already low opinion of women. Here’s the rub, you have also reinforced the opinion of any men who may have read that diatribe.
Stick the blame where it belongs, the women who love the PUA when young and then cry ‘Where are all the nice guys’ later.
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.
[D: She thinks it will last forever, but she “accidentally” forgets to marry him.]
I know what happened to the nice guys.
When a man pumps and dumps a woman he is debasing her, but he is also debasing himself. Immoral behavior is not good for anyone. I understand the attraction to it, but I think self respect is necessary. We should not bow to this debased counter culture. I reject everything about this foreign way of acting and am better off for it.
There is absolutely zero that I could possibly do to give women the incentive to not sleep with PUA’s. I am their competitor. If I tell them to not sleep with some handsome stud they have major tingles for it is interpreted as jealousy. I could tell her “Hey…he will just dump you later…you will never change him” and she hears “when you get studs I get jealous because I am just a lowly middle-aged married woman with nothing going for me and I can’t stand to see other people happy”.
I agree TPM, I’m really beginning to believe that the shaming and teaching of “The Patriarchy’ went both ways for young people in the past. This was not only to ensure that women didn’t become sluts, but also to make sure that men didn’t become PUAs.
Just my opinion, take it for what it’s worth.
Not a Christian, but I do remember something from Sunday School which seems to be making more sense these days. Years ago I was told of the Carnal Man, and the Spiritual Man. The Carnal man is of course bestial and more animal like. The Spiritual Man (natch) followed God. The point was that humans are imperfect, and will make many mistakes, but so long as we make sure to keep the spiritual man on the forefront and beat back the carnal man, we can keep things somewhat on an even keel.
Civilization IMO, isn’t really a natural thing. It’s made possible by every man having the chance to mate a raise a family. Civilization is what allowed men to teach their young men right from wrong, and allowed women to do the same. Keeping our carnal man in check is what allowed us to rise from the level of beasts, but as we can see, our animal natures have returned in force, is there any wonder why society is falling apart?
Every so often reference is made to our history, where alphas had all the women and betas revolted due to their violent frustration, only getting the ‘leftovers’ once the alpha was done. Question gang, what does everyone thing is happening right now?
This situation is now at the point where it feeds into itself. More damaged men sleep with more damaged women, creating more and more damaged men and women and to be honest, when men say “Hey, there’s a problem here.” he is immediately labeled a misogynist and the discussion is destroyed. When women try to do the same, they are labeled a traitor and shunned.
I really can’t see how anything save a complete collapse can alter this trajectory.
First, I’d like to commend Omnipitron on that EPIC and totally on-point dressing down.
Secondly, I’d like to say that Paige is completely full of shit because she is essentially transferring blame to men for the choices that women make. No matter how you slice it, that’s the essential core of the argument and it’s as laughable as it is wrong.
The common thread here for white knighting social conservatives and people like Paige is this underlying notion that cads are poisoning the waters because they are creating mercenary, cynical women who previously were just good girls looking for love-everlasting from a decent man.
Thing is, the reality is considerably less charitable to the “good girls”. What alphas & PUAs know about women is that there are no “good girls” or bad girls. Just women in hock to their evolutionary psychology to varying degrees (same as men, btw). These “good girls” aren’t searching for good men to love, they’re searching for alphas to love and satisfy their tingles. These “good girls” were always willing to discard men who didn’t fit their ideal in the ceaseless search for something bigger and better, but patriarchal norms put fairly firm constraints around this natural impulse to hypergamy. Those constraints are now gone and women are unleashed…but they want men to continue to play by the old rules. Not a chance.
Once again, this notion that most women out there are looking for decent guys to settle down with is only half-true. They’re looking for alphas to settle down with and they are willing to discard any number of betas in their quest to secure an alpha. But PUAs have caught on to the game. The fact that this causes socons more consternation than untrammeled female hypergamy by the ladies is a clear indication of how deep the misandric rot runs.
A woman cannot be judged for her lack of attraction to betas anymore than a man can be judged for his lack of attraction to fat chicks.
It is not misandry to notice and acknowledge that men are more capable of doing the right thing than women seem to be. If anything that would be misogyny.
“There is absolutely zero that I could possibly do to give women the incentive to not sleep with PUA’s. I am their competitor. If I tell them to not sleep with some handsome stud they have major tingles for it is interpreted as jealousy. I could tell her “Hey…he will just dump you later…you will never change him” and she hears “when you get studs I get jealous because I am just a lowly middle-aged married woman with nothing going for me and I can’t stand to see other people happy”.
Then don’t place the blame on guys. There is one thing you can do as I can promise you one thing, they will listen more to you than to anyone else. Tell them exactly what you have read here. Tell them about the link which Greenlander supplied. Tell them that whenever a woman complains about the lack of nice men that nice guys sadly have gotten the hint that they are no longer wanted or needed in the main by women.
They may (big chance, MAY) tell you that they do want nice guys. Your answer; “Tell them that!”
Understand the true unfortunate issue behind the stories Badger and Green supplied. That they where nice guys who wanted to have only ONE woman and the repeated penalties they faced forced them to protect themselves. This is the truest crime of this society; when a NICE GUY sees staying in this role as a detriment to his future well being, everyone loses.
Everyone, me, you, EVERYONE.
I say this because I too contemplated going to the Dark Side, so I can vouch for everything Badger and Green said to be true. Good men should never be penalized for doing so, this ensures that the amount of them will decrease and this problem is far too widespread to simply be ‘guys fault’.
Hold yourself exactly where you need to be, the pinnacle that these women may not be able to achieve. You didn’t allow some jack@$$ to ‘know you’ and the very thing they may make fun of, they could possibly miss out on. I have a few female friends that missed the boat, and it times it hurts even me to see the loss that they can never achieve.
It isn’t a joke, this isn’t a Sex and The City re-run, this is life. The last place they want to be is looking across a chasm at a life they could have had, but can’t cross, the bridge is out and their ignorance was what blew it up.
Let em laugh if they want, you know the truth and don’t back down. Remember, it was the matriarch of families who taught the women in the day. They won’t listen to us, they may listen to you. I simply say this so at the very least you can say that you tried. If even one woman listens, you have changed their world.
You have no idea the envy some of my female friends have because you are a proud mother with kids. Trust me with that one.
Thanks Dragnet, that means alot. 🙂
“A woman cannot be judged for her lack of attraction to betas anymore than a man can be judged for his lack of attraction to fat chicks.”
And this of course is true, here is the crime of feminism, men teach their kids to be men. This is why Hope states that Feminism is harmful for women too, with all the Misandry in the world, men get penalized for BEING men. On the Spearhead recently Jack Donaven(sp?) posted about his recent experience with a strongman class at his gym. Women ‘raided’ it and he was forced to shut it down instead of feminizing it.
Women have Curves, yet a man can’t even have a club for himself to learn masculinity? Misandry demonizes men at every turn, how is a beta ever supposed to learn how to be a “Greater Beta” and have those Alpha like traits? Any chance a man tries to create something in order to support men, it gets attacked for being misogynist and shut down, ensuring that men have no direction and therefore, that more damaged men will ‘infect’ our communities.
I could tell her “Hey…he will just dump you later…you will never change him” and she hears “when you get studs I get jealous because I am just a lowly middle-aged married woman with nothing going for me and I can’t stand to see other people happy”.
Maybe, but it sticks in their head, and they’ll think of it the next time he acts like an ass. My aunts and cousins used to lecture me on my ex, and I always dismissed it outright, “You don’t really know him. He’s not like that when we’re alone together. I know he loves, deep down.” Etc. etc. etc. But my arguments got more pathetic over time, the hamster wore itself out, and I finally left him. If they hadn’t said anything, I might have ended up quite bad off.
That’s why I try to always talk truth about these kinds of things. They might not believe me today, or tomorrow… but maybe next week, next month, next year. There are definitely young women reading my blog, I talk to them at school, etc. Speak to them plainly, and perhaps they’ll listen.
Even if you only help one of them, just think: You’ve changed a person’s whole life for the better.
I used to get a bit upset by the players and cads. These days I’m just really indifferent. They don’t matter to me one bit unless they plan on hurting our family. It’d be wasting energy to care about promiscuous folks.
I’m more worried about having another child with my husband and making sure our family is staying afloat in all this modern chaos.
Paige, another thing you can do is this: when your friends talk about thinking about divorce, do not simply tell them not to. That is simply providing a negative without a positive alternative, and therefore is weak. No, you must discuss with these women how they can empower and inspire their men to become something other than the betas despised by their wives.
Every man wishes to be admired by the women he loves. Every western man has been told that the way to be admired by a woman is to kiss her ass (aka pedastalizing her). Let these women know that they should not tolerate such behavior.
For example if a man tries to abdicate his responsibility, refuse to take over the house. I know of many women who run their homes and justify it through saying “well, my husband wouldn’t, so I stepped up.” In this way, there was role reversal and the woman became the defacto man of the house. Being a woman, she was then unattracted to the defacto woman of the house, beta-boy. Rather than this, the woman can say flat out “I’m not going to make the decisions” and then abide by the results. The man is likely to not believe you, and when he starts to be the head of the household (since you’re not doing it), he’ll likely make a lot of mistakes, ones that maybe you would not have made, due to inexperience. Abide.
Put your faith in the man you have, and pray for him and love him exactly as he is. Encourage him when he acts like a man, do not belittle his mistakes or his accomplishments. Imagine yourself if you could be married to the perfect man, an Alpha upon whom you can rely. How would you treat him? How would you act around others? How would you greet him when he came home every day? How would you celebrate his accomplishments and console him upon his defeats?
Once you have a good idea of who you would be if your husband was perfect, be that woman, even if he’s not! This is the message you can tell your friends in bad marriages. Love the man in your life with the love you would give to a man who saved your life from drowning. Be submissive to his will, and supportive of him, even if he fails.
No man would ever take for granted such a wife, and all men long to be the leader they think society (and their wife) doesn’t want them to be. Show him you want, need, and desire him to be the man he wants to be. He will respond.
Dan in Philly: Thanks for your insights
Omnipitron: I see your point
Alte: Another valid point.
Dan in Philly
Every man wishes to be admired by the women he loves. Every western man has been told that the way to be admired by a woman is to kiss her ass (aka pedastalizing her). Let these women know that they should not tolerate such behavior.
This. Women should also know that if they want to be loved, they should never, ever ask for or worse yet demand this behavior.
One of my complaints about “traditionalists” is how they clearly endorse, embrace, and practice the pedestalization of women. That mistake, the idea that women are inherently monogamous, more moral than men, etc. is a big part of how we got here in the first place. Repeating the mistakes of 100 years ago is not going to get us out of the mess.
And the other standard line from “traditionalists”, that men just need to “man up”, is equally bad, if not worse. It’s like telling someone “be better”, without giving them the slightest clue how to go about that.
There’s more useful insight in Dan’s short note above than in some entire books on “relationships” that I have read. Seriously.
Being in a cynical mood today, I’ll point out that so far as I can tell, PUA’s are not so much “polluting the well” as pissing in the sewer. I seriously doubt that Greenlander is hanging out near the high school or college, or prowling various church suppers, preying on naive virgins. More likely he’s working the club circuit — you know, the places where women go to get sexed by an Alpha. In that sense, he’s giving those women what they want, and they are giving him what he wants.
Can we argue that both participants wants are not necessarily good? Sure. Can we argue that both would be better off living differently? Yup.
But there’s two points that have already been made in this thread, and I’m going to repeat them because it seems that certain parties don’t want to believe them:
* There are very few born PUA’s, and none of them ever post here, or ever will. Greenlander made it clear that he started off as the “nice guy” every woman claims to want, and was punished for being that way. He wouldn’t be a PUA if he had not been harmed by doing what women here claim he should do. Got that? He already lived as you want him to, and it harmed him to do so. So maybe, just maybe, a little of that shaming language could be turned on your sisters?
* No PUA is turning “good girls” into sluts. They do it to themselves. Because the whole “Madonna / whore” dichotomy is a load of garbage. Women like being sexed by an Alpha. They like it so much, they will do absurd things to their bodies and wear ridiculous shoes and clothing, go to stupid places with stupid people and do stupid things, in order to get it. PUA’s are not taking delicate, dainty lambs and ravaging them, they are cavorting with randy she-goats that are just as nasty as they are, only in a different way.
Sorry if this restatement of reality upsets anyone’s dainty, lace-covered tea cart. But that’s the way it is. You want less pump-and-dump? Make it less dangerous for men to form LTR’s. Make it less hurtful and harmful for men to be genuinely nice people. There will always be some number of players and sluts, but if you want fewer players, first you have to reduce the number of sluts.
Until then, don’t complain that someone pissing in the sewer is somehow defiling a well ten miles away.
Um, Dalrock, Dan in Philly’s 12:15 comment needs to be a separate post. Every female blogger ought to steal it to re-post. Unbelievable; it goes up there with “Relationship Game, A Reader’s Journey,” in must-read advice to married couples, this in advice to women.
Anonymous Reader – “I’ll point out that so far as I can tell, PUA’s are not so much “polluting the well” as pissing in the sewer.”
I think that this is a good point to reiterate.
Going back to the previous thread, I think the difference between those who recognize this and those who over-look it is quite striking. I’d use two women, who I find to be otherwise very much alike, as an example.
Kathy, who is the mother of a teenaged daughter, is (understandably, I’d argue) protective of her, and simply assumes that such a PUA is a threat to her daughter; while Grerp, who is mother to a son, is able to step-back and take a more dispassionate look at the situation, and see it for what it actually is:
”What greenlander is describing is his willingness to use women who are willing to be used (and very likely looking to use him).”
While many points, such as the one you make, might seem somewhat insignificant in terms of the larger issues, they are important to consider as they will tend to have a large influence on individual’s perspectives.
This is an interesting discussion. I’d like to point out something. I’ll paraphrase and probably exaggerate too but I am focused on the essence. Paige implied that women do not see the consequences of their actions and are acting in the moment. She has little faith in women that the rational will trump the tingles. Therefore she seeks men to take the lead.
Men say women follow their folly and are not rational in their decisions. Yet these women claim equality and entitlement to do as they please, so the cad PUAs oblige these women.
I think the bottom line is that generally women cannot be taught or convinced. But women can be led, shamed and held responsible. Under this system, women develop much more wisdom than they generally have today.
I believe a man should also be shamed and held responsible for his behavior, but not for women’s behavior. Traditionally the behavior of the woman was the responsibility of her father. Thus the demise of patriarchy is correlated with the increase in slut availability. Who most has a rational interest in curtaining slutty behavior, the daughter of the father of the daughter? So any father whose daughter was pumped-and-dumped can have a stern “talk” with any man that does this.
Paige is just saying what virtually all women want, as demonstrated by female behavior: LEAD ME. This is the behavior of the sluts, even though they will pontificate at length of about how strong and independent they are. Women crave a man to lead. It is almost as if God made them this way but something went wrong long ago and women acted in a defiant manner because of free will, and now have become blind to their needs and nature.
Anonymous Reader – ” There’s more useful insight in Dan’s short note above than in some entire books on “relationships” that I have read. Seriously.”
Agreed.
Sometimes great insights are lost in excess verbiage, but sometimes they stick right out for everyone to see.
And, on that note, I’d also note this:
Paige – ”There is absolutely zero that I could possibly do to give women the incentive to not sleep with PUA’s. I am their competitor.”
Paige,
Another good insight. I believe that most women do intuitively see other women as competitors (for the best choices of men).
And, yet, you seem to gloss right over the corollary male perspective – most men tend to intuitively see other men as competitors. This is why your view that most other men are praising the sexual dominance of Alpha/player/PUA males, doesn’t really hold up – and why other (non-PUA) men’s attempts to “steer” them away from such endeavors is as doomed to failure as a woman’s attempts to likewise “steer” women away from promiscuous (yet attractive) men.
So long as it isn’t, as they say, “hitting too close to home”, men can admire the sexual successes of other men (which is still far short of praise), but when it’s not some alpha-guy after some other women who that other guy will never meet, it’s definitely a “competitive” situation. Been there, done that (as “that other guy”).
-there is no duty from single males to single females, period. no specific type of action is owed to them by the mere fact they are fellow humans. its incumbent on women alone not to be pumped and dumped. neither do cads owe a duty to fellow males based solely on their existence as other humans. there is also no such thing as “society” as a super-organism to which single males owe some duty. ethics implies a duty–absent some definable duty, like a professional code or mutual stated embrace of religious mores, the concept of ethics just doesn’t even apply.
slwerner – In this case I think my POV has been influenced by listening to my husband occasionally – even after 12 years of, I believe, reasonably happy marriage – vent about how hard it was for him to get the time of day out of women during undergrad. He was/is a good looking guy and wanted to do the nice boyfriend thing, and…no interest. I contrast that to the experiences of my father and brother-in-law who were both married in their early twenties to their first or second real girlfriend (and stayed married). They are much less interested or invested in the kinds of ideas that float around this area of the web.
I will say that reading the comments of greenlander does produce in me a feeling of defenselessness, a sense of “Where’s the protection?” or a there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I ominousness, even as I try to see things objectively. One thing I would not claim is being immune to the kinds of alpha “charm” Roissy describes. My defense when I was single was that I stuck stubbornly to my upbringing. I also did not really put myself “out there” too much – I didn’t party, bar hop, or flirt outrageously but only because that was not my personality. If I’d had a different temperament or needed more attention, my outcome very well might have been different.
A women in, say, 1940 who followed the path of least resistance would very likely have found herself at 25 married with a few children. Her financial future would have been tied directly to her husband’s abilities, but she would not have been heavily indebted. A woman in 2011 who follows the common wisdom found in women’s magazines and the MSM and the path of least resistance will find herself, in just a few years, in debt, unmarried, fat, and promiscuous. Probably a single mother too. The system sets both women and men up to fail – socially, sexually, financially, spiritually, all of it. And most people do not see it until they have been at least partially fleeced.
I will teach my son to show consideration and kindness to the people around him, but also to watch out for predators – above, below, male and female. I can understand, however, the frustration with feeling that you’ve done everything the way you “should have” and gotten kicked in the teeth for the effort.
Great insights, Grerp.
I got married at 19 in part because I was Catholic and I wasn’t sure how long I could maintain my chastity. I had converted 2 years previously and was a “born again virgin”.
I was in the Army and basically surrounded by very hot men who were quite interested in sleeping with me. It is quite a temptation for any red-blooded female..
Paige, virtuous women are hot!
vent about how hard it was for him to get the time of day out of women during undergrad. He was/is a good looking guy and wanted to do the nice boyfriend thing, and…no interest.
I think because this is an experience that only a minority of women have, many women have a hard time really grasping its impact on the development of men in that age range. The fact that you have will undoubtedly help your son, and he is lucky for that, really.
“Paige, virtuous women are hot!”
Damn right! I think one of the issues in this society is the fact that bad has become good and vice versa. If any shaming is done now it’s because one person is actually living up to their morals and not selling out to the lowest bidder. Once more, effed up reward/penalty system negatively affecting our society. Also, I have seen many of the men that I know who would rather criticize a virtuous woman as ‘dumb’ or unworldly. This woman dresses fashionably yet conservatively, never raises her voice, and isn’t dumb by a long shot (I work with her in Radiation Protection).
Yet the guys that I work with consider her stupid and not worth her time. It boggles my mind as I couldn’t see how many Beta’s on the manosphere wouldn’t even miss a heartbeat to ask her out (she isn’t ugly either) as she seems to meet so many of the ‘good wife traits’.
This woman recently sold her wedding dress because there where some projects around the house that she and her husband wanted done. It was HER idea, to this day I wish I could have seen the expression on my face when she said it.
I don’t think many men in society even know what a “lady’ looks like these days.
What about men who were used by women for sex, then unceremoniously dumped?
Does this not turn Paige’s whole argument on its head?
There are many women who use their sexuality to get what they want, and somehow feminists deny that this may be why men look at them as objects.
Lovekraft
What about men who were used by women for sex, then unceremoniously dumped?
Why, that never happens, because each woman is a special, innocent, virtuous snowflake who rides unicorns over the rainbow, living on pure thoughts and air. That’s why they are more moral than ugly, grunting, animalistic men. They would never, ever engage in making the beast with two backs just to get their rocks off, and leave without a word. That’s what men do, to poor, innocent girls…
There are many women who use their sexuality to get what they want, and somehow feminists deny that this may be why men look at them as objects.
From where I stand, a lot of tradcons are heavily in denial over that as well.
Paige: “There is absolutely zero that I could possibly do to give women the incentive to not sleep with PUA’s.”
This is crap, and you’re a coward or worse. You can treat harlots with disgust. Cross the street to avoid walking near them. Ban them from your home. Raise Cain if they are allowed into your church. If they’re your family members, cut them off. Spit on them. Call a slut a slut.
Or, hell, treat them as Odysseus treated his faithless servant girls.
Comparing the PUAs to the eeeeevil banks is an apt analogy.
It *wasn’t* the banks ultimately behind it; it was the government’s screwed-up legislation. Any bank which didn’t take advantage of these immoral opportunities would find itself outcompeted by the banks that did.
Same with the PUAs; it’s a tragedy of the commons. Even if you convinced 99% of PUAs to quit, all that would do would be to drive the whores to the remaining 1%.
Women are not an innocent party in this game – they are equal players.
As the saying goes, don’t hate the player, hate the game – a game whose rules were built by feminism, and which was encouraged by feminists.
What are the PUAs supposed to do, anyway? Remain chaste, and settle for some fat cougar when she turns 30? Or dance around the walls of the crumbling castle of patriarchy? I’ll do what I can to bolster the ramparts – but don’t expect me to lash myself to a sinking ship.
Let’s place the blame where it lays – at feminists feet – and figure out a way to eliminate their poisonous influence.
Grerp
I will teach my son to show consideration and kindness to the people around him, but also to watch out for predators – above, below, male and female.
slwerner in “Supply and demand in the marriage market” writes of Kathy:
Consider why a women in her position (mother of an attractive teen-aged daughter) would feel as she does, and see if her comments on other issue (which would not hit so close to home for her) demonstrate something quite different than did her comments here.
Let’s look at the problem described here. Abstractly, we want to protect young men and young women from people who may use and abuse them for their own ends.
I’ll first discuss this by analogy. Two analogies, just to be pedantic. Consider the issue of a household that owns firearms, and has small children in it. We don’t want small children near firearms, or the stove for that matter, without supervision. Because their judgement is nonexistent, and they could get seriously injured, or worse.
Some people take the approach of removing guns entirely from their household. Well, it’s their house. A more extreme example is the gun control movement, that seeks to essentially ban all guns entirely, so that no child would ever see one. However, even they would allow police to have guns. Since I’m aware of a truly horrible tragedy some years back that involved a policeman’s household, I find this argument without merit. Because what they are trying to do is “child proof” the world. There have been attempts to make “child proof” guns going back, oh, maybe 100 years; the trouble is, any gun that a normal woman can operate, given her hand strength, a healthy 12 year old boy can also operate. So what to do? Teach the children lessons appropriate to their age, and http://ayoob.com/cgi-bin/miva?Merchant2/merchant.mv+Screen=PROD&Store_Code=Ayoob&Product_Code=GP
Small children need only to know the NRA’s “Eddy Eagle” mantra:
1. Stop! Don’t touch!
2. Leave the area.
3. Tell an adult.
Older children (by maturity) can be introduced to firearms safety, taught to unload and clear any firearm, etc. even if they don’t have an interest in shooting, they should know how to render a firearm fully unloaded.
Analogy 2: driving cars. Shall we mandate all vehicles to be built so they never exceed 35 MPH, are coated with extra armor, drive on rubberized roads, have full underpasses at intersections, etc., etc. so that beginning drivers of 15-17 years of age can be safe, or shall we teach “driver’s education” to beginners and guide them to competence?
Kathy came into the “supply and demand” thread with a load of feminist shaming language for a man she doesn’t like, and slwerner points out this is a reaction to her protectiveness of her daughter. Well, as I see it, Kathy is trying to make the world safe for her daughter, presumably by ridding it of cads.
This isn’t a new tactic. 100 years ago, in the US, Progressives, feminists and plenty of good, church-going traditionalists all banded together to rid the US of booze, beer and wine. Prohibition was added to the Constitution at almost the same time women were given the vote. It was all supposed to rest on the fact that women are more moral than men, and know better what’s right. Prohibition didn’t work (but did make the Mafia rich) and women as voters hasn’t quite gone as predicted, either.
Ridding the entire planet of cads that might do a bad thing to Kathy’s daughter is not a feasible goal, any more than ridding the entire world of guns is, or making every single street totally safe for a novice to drive on is. What is feasible is “Cad Proofing Your Daughter”. There are methods to teach people to use knives in the kitchen safely, guns in the field safely, methods to teach people to drive motor cars safely, fly airplanes safely. None are perfect, and bad things can and do happen, but risk can be considerably reduced with training.
Dalrock has a couple of postings here for men to use in interviewing prospective wives, in order reduce the risk of “men’s fault” divorce, followed by chil-imony.
(Which reminds me, isn’t getting married, having a child or children, being divorced against your wishes, losing half your assets and your house, and being forced at gunpoint to pay for the process a form of “pump and dump”? And a more drastic form than anything being discussed here, given the suicide rate among men being divorced or recently divorced? Anyone want to discuss the ethics of that?)
So it clearly must be possible to train young women how to be “cad proof”, or at least “cad resistant”. I’ll take a first pass. Others surely will have better ideas.
Right up front, let me state that I don’t think that the traditional “you are special”, or “you are moral but men are all beasts” approach works at all. For the simple reason that it’s what’s been most common for years, and, well, here we are. I assume that in this venue, most people with daughters probably don’t want them anywhere near anything from feminists, especially the “sex positive” ones.
So here are some general thoughts, in no special order.
* Such instruction must be age specific. Don’t burden a 10 year old with excessive details of reproductive biology, obviously, and don’t talk childish nonsense to a 15 year old. I’ve heard of this. It is counterproductive.
* If a father is available, there are some topics he likely should address, provided there is a proper relationship with the daughter. Like “why not to go in cars with men you don’ t personally know, even if your ditzy friend thinks he/they are ‘cute'”. Or “maintain control of your beverage glass at all times at any party, and don’t let someone else refill it for you where you can’t see it”.
Alas, some of the necessary topics are likely to be uncomfortable for some, or many, modern parents. It is likely difficult to tell a young person “Don’t do what I did” or “learn from my mistakes”, both for the parent and for the daughter or son. For example, I had a relation who didn’t want his girls to just move in with some guy, but wanted them to get married first. Unhappily, he’d not been exactly a sterling example himself on that front, so he had to hem and haw around the topic. The results were, um, mixed. Also, it won’t help if “grandma” was a flower child or disco queen who partied hard, either. Funny how some of the daring decisions of our youth look just stupid a couple of decades later. Perhaps silence on personal issues is the best approach; hypocritical, yes, but necessary.
How about evo-psych? Well, I’m not sure how much of psychology to bring in to this. But at some point, surely before age 18, a young woman should have explained to her in understandable terms what the tingles mean — not just biologically, but psychologically – , and why she better be real careful about giving in to them. Hypergamy needs to be explained as well, the trouble is in the world of “self esteem” it’s going to be difficult to tell a teenaged young woman that on the one hand, she needs to be particular about men in social ways (and very particular in sexual ways), on the other hand it’s a myth that she “deserves the best and should never settle for less” because of where that likely leads.
Plus there is a larger problem. We can’t explain something we don’t understand. I can explain how to change a tire, or paint a wall, or cook an omelet, because I can do those things but I can’t explain how to set ceramic tile on a ceiling so that it stays, because I’ve never done that. A lot of women do not understand their own hypergamy (Dalrock’s posting on the “whispers” might be a good reference) so they likely can’t explain it to their daughters. But without some kind of understanding of why she will be tempted to cheat at some point after marriage, and what to do about that, a young woman is still not fully “cad resistant”.
Just some thoughts. Not organized. Got to go do other things.
Dalrock, Alte, slwerner, and everyone else have at it.
“He without sin cast the first stone”.
this is a very interesting comment stream to read.
for myself, i have had only one partner who is currently a bit too beta and it was seriously freaking me out. he’s always been rather beta, but had enough alpha (and met my needs at the time), so i can’t totally fault him. he’s utilizing Deida to discover his more alpha self and it’s working well for us. and heck, we’ve only been at it for about 35 minutes (3 months actually).
i wasn’t looking to divorce, but i was frustrated and exhausted. i was “doing everything” in the decision sphere, he was sort of my minion. he followed orders well, but i was god damn tired of giving them for everything in our lives. just having him step up and make some decisions (without consulting me, just telling me what he needed done), and so on was *supremely helpful* in making my life *much* better. Seriously, i still cook, clean, do the primary child care, do most of the heavy lifting of our business (which is really my business and he helps out while we get it off the ground), but it’s been nice to have him take on some of the planning around our lifestyle, and in particular, our sex life. because, i just feel that — evolution wise — we are built to have a man direct that process and females to be responsive.
and turns out that works well for me anyway.
in regards to promiscuity, i’ve never experienced it myself, and it’s a bit of a turn off in a man (for me). i have a friend who has some notoriety, and he has definite sex appeal — even if he’s not the hottest guy in the bar. i don’t go to bars often, btw, because i can’t handle the smell of cigarettes. LOL but it was live music and my friend was going and he invited me out for a “drink” (and since i don’t drink. . . LOL).
anyway, friend was bemoaning the ‘not finding the right kind of girl’ and i wasn’t sure what he was looking for. he said he was looking for someone like me. i asked him to describe (quite a nice puff of the ego, btw): hot, smart, tough (such that no man or woman can take advantage of, sexually or otherwise), interesting, loves to travel and have adventures and interesting experiences. he would also add to his list — likes to party. i told him i like to party, and he laughed saying “no, not hang out with friends and chat to late hours, but get drunk/high and screw.” and i was like, oh, yeah. ok — i’m not into that. LOL
his ex was, and he’d wanted to marry her but she didn’t want to marry him — largely because of his past. Now, this is strange to me. He spent 22-30 messing about, the first 2 yrs of which i really don’t count because of the depression (sex can be another drug, really, a way to medicate yourself from depression — i can’t “fault” that). to an extent, i can’t “fault” the game either — i believe it’s evolution.
that being said, it’s not absolute. i think men can be more thoughtful rather than PUA-styled. (i mostly object to the language they use, though.) like my friend, whom i like a lot.
but, the 5 years prior to meeting his ex, he was — well, he used a lot of women and i found it really disgusting. pissing in a sewer, yes. those women wanted to have sex with him, and he wanted to have sex with them. everyone getting what they wanted. but until he had this 5 yr relationship, i would not have dated him coming out of that. no way, no how.
so, he starts dating his ex and it’s committed, monogamous, and he wants to marry. she breaks up with him and “upgrades” to a guy with a bit more cultural cache (and is more beta, imo, which sort of points to the Shrew issues). He’s gotten way more alpha over the last 5 years, really knowing what he wants and going for it, while still being able to maintain the good sides of being beta. I honestly think that’s why she broke it off, because she wasn’t really ready to let go of that side of feminism (the fish/bicycle issue).
anyway, that’s my opinion on that, which is irrelevant to my point. LOL my point is that at 30, my friend was NOT a good catch in my eyes. Now, at 35, coming out of a 5 year relationship and having *wanted* to marry, he is a much better catch. Good job, good looking, takes care of himself, wants to settle down and have a family, and has demonstrated that he can handle the commitment of doing so.
SO, my advice to him was — be picky. Don’t go back to the 6 years prior to this relationship, because a woman like me is not trawling bars looking for a commitment. we probably aren’t trawling churches other (i’m non-religious). in fact, we really aren’t trawling. we are fishing. old school. we go out, we ask certain questions, we watch behaviors.
and yeah, we Shit Test for all it’s worth. Because if i’m hitching my wagon to you — and all the benefits and risks inherent (and there are risks if he’s not going to commit — eg, he could bring home a disease, give it to me, thus endangering the long-term health of our child if it impacts my ability to care for them) — you better damn well pass my Shit Tests. (btw, i prefer Fitness Tests, but heck, if someone wants to call them Shit tests and act like babies about it, then fine).
Fact is, the Shit Test protects my assets and reduces the level of risk i’m taking in marriage — and there is risk, too. And, he better damn well also have Shit tests — so that he doesn’t end up with someone bat shit crazy, or someone who is unlikely to commit to him, or someone who is seriously damaged anyway. that’s tough to work through — it can be worth it, but more of then than not, it isn’t.
In regards to Alphas becoming more Alpha — this is definitely what i’m working on for my son. He’ll look to my husband, of course, but i’ll do whatever i damn well can to make sure he’s a Man and not beta or omega. Last thing i want is for him to loose his wildness.
@Anonymous Reader, good post. Knowledge and reason are incredibly powerful and necessary.
I would add that parental discipline is also essential. Parents that do not set proper ground rules will have unruly children.
AR, you nailed it
Lovecraft;
You are exactly right about turning Paige’s argument on its head. Reading the two threads where this ‘pump and dump’ issue has come up; it’s funny to watch how these women commenters immediately revert to ‘shaming language’; which are, of course, only projections of what they do to men.
1. 90% of relationships are terminated by women. Exactly who’s doing the pumping and dumping here? Paige’s argument that women have sex in hopes of securing a committed relationship is laughable, considering the numbers of divorces and abortions women routinely carry out against men.
2. The idea that men are shallow and only want the beautiful women: umm, Paige; beauty is a highly subjective value among men. And, BTW, considering your own gender’s proclivity for choosing louts, bums, and thugs as partners— just who is any woman to criticize a man’s relationship choices?
3. The idea that men are only interested in sex: well, if men are using women for sexual gratification, the question logically follows: aside from sex, what else exactly do you women offer in a relationship? Everything else you give is pain, shame, and blame. Can you fault some men if sex is all they want, when you have nothing else to give?
I’m no advocate of ‘pumping and dumping’; because I think it’s ultimately a dangerous practice for men to engage in, given the number of false accusations and our legal system’s biases against men. But women have no credibility to complain about men’s choices until they can get their own gender to start behaving like civilized human beings again.
“But women have no credibility to complain about men’s choices until they can get their own gender to start behaving like civilized human beings again.”
Then the same applies for men? Until all men behave themselves they can’t complain about women?
Bravo to all the fantastic contributors on this thread. This stuff is golden.
When I started banging hos, I was just trying to have some good clean fun.
I honestly had no idea that my debauchery was going to be the inspiration for a long thread on a blog!
Paige does not understand the concept of “gatekeeper”…
Pingback: Eternal solipsism | Deansdale's Blog
Wow, Paige, you must’ve been the barracks mattress. Explains a lot. Bet those PnDs were sooooo hot till you realized that submitting, 3 holes and all, didn’t lead to commitment and undying love. Sucks to be you.
Your appalling shaming language inspired me to PnD a bimbo last night, total degradation, felt wonderful. Hope it ruined her. Gonna find another one tonight. I prefer the smart-yet-so-dumb ones … fortunately they are legion.
They love it, they control access to their most private parts but give it up oh so willingly. Someday they’ll start leaving stupid comments on MRA blogs too, but in the meantime I’m savoring every stroke and pop-shot.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/04/01/exp.pn.girlfriend.set.free.hln?hpt=T2
In a world where women can now kill men and receive no jail-time, getting pissed at men for the pump-n-dump is just ridiculous.
I never said I was the barracks mattress…your reading comprehension is poor. I said I got married young to help avoid temptation.
Sure, whatever … You didn’t have to say it.
Let’s all collect some money, and buy a new keyboard for Sweet As.
A keyboard with a functioning “shift” key.
This may be only tangentially related to the above discussion, and just to be clear I do believe that everyone should be held responsible for their own behavior.
That said, it does kind of bother me that some MRAs think that they can sleep with as many sluts as possible, but when the time comes, they think that they deserve to get married to a virgin, or relatively inexperienced girl. I am of the persuasion that promiscuity is inherently bad for both genders (as is our host), and I would like to eventually get married to someone who has some clue about MRA stuff.
But as I am someone who does not engage in promiscuous behavior, I am left wondering, what if all the MRA guys thought it was ok to pump n dump to their heart’s content? I would never even consider marrying (or dating) anyone who had ever pumped and dumped someone, even once. I think that is a dangerous attitude for a marriage partner. Heck, some MRA guys think that a married man getting blowjobs from his secretary is inherently ok as long as he does not get emotionally attached to her. Rubbish.
What I am saying is that I don’t see a lot of people in the manosphere saying that “promiscuity is bad for both genders”, and this does come across as hypocritical a lot of the time. Maybe others don’t see it that way, but it does to non-promiscuous women.
Helvetica: Women control access to the cooch – always have, always will. Men get what women give. All there is to it. If women give freely, most men will take. Women have changed, not men. Get off the wheel and cut the hamster act.
Pingback: The Battle of the Sexes « Raise Your Glass
Or, to put it another way, marriage does not make bad people good, it only makes single people not single anymore. If you have bad sexual morals before marriage, you will have bad sexual morals after marriage.
Even Roissy says “once a cad, always a cad” often.
Look at it this way…
Let’s say that the people in a certain town eat too much McDonald’s and get fat, and then start having other health problems. People complain that McDonald’s is making people fat by offering unhealthy food. “McDonald’s needs to change, McDonald’s needs to stop selling fattening food.”
So McDonald’s stops selling Big Macs and fries and instead goes to a low-fat, low-sodium, healthy menu. What do you think will happen? Two things…
1. People will just go to Burger King and Wendy’s instead to get their burger fix, while ignoring McDonald’s.
2. McDonald’s will go out of business, because they’re offering a product that there’s no demand for.
Guys like Greenlander are like the guy who opened a health food restaurant, only to see everyone keep stuffing themselves with burgers and fries. He finally got tired of other guys getting all the customers, so he changed his menu to adapt to what his customers wanted. And now business is booming.
If he were to go back to his old ways, customers would just take their business elsewhere. It wouldn’t make his customers any healthier; rather, it would just make the lines at Burger King, Sonic, Wendy’s and Carl’s Jr. that much longer.
Besides, why should he go back to the old menu when his business is booming with the new one?
I am not 100% sure that a man gaming me…even now when I have many children and a solid marriage…that I wouldn’t eventually fall to temptation. I haven’t had it happen so I don’t know, but considering how hard it is to stay away from chocolate cake when dieting, I have not always been impressed with my will power.
I would certainly feel like absolute shit afterwards and that is probably the main difference between a virtuous woman and a non-virtuous woman. The virtuous woman tries to stay away from temptation and if she falls she feels like hell about it. The non-virtuous woman sees no reason to stay away from temptation nor any reason to feel bad about falling for it. In regards to actual strength of will…I don’t think the virtuous woman really has more than the average woman. Those of us with a modicum of self-awareness know better than to tempt it.
I guess I can just thank my lucky stars that being old would put me off a PUA’s radar. I would like to think logic and love for my husband would outweigh tingles but I don’t want to find out.
I have serious doubts that a man can always correctly discern whether he is pissing in the sewer or the well.
I believe people are indeed responsible for their own actions, male and female. I don’t believe game is inherently good or inherently bad, what is good or bad is what is done with it. I don’t think a woman is only hurting herself when she sluts it up though, nor do I believe it is the man-ho’s fault if a woman has sex with him. But, I do understand where Paige and Helvetica are coming from though, there is an apparent lack of recognition that when men have sex outside of marriage it is sin, just like it is sin for a woman to do so. God has no double standard, nor does He excuse one person’s sin because another person’s sin is greater. I would not expect a non-Christian to agree with this or to believe this way, but I am disheartened when my brothers and sisters in Christ seem to excuse or give tacit approval to sexual sin.
@Helvetica
But as I am someone who does not engage in promiscuous behavior, I am left wondering, what if all the MRA guys thought it was ok to pump n dump to their heart’s content? I would never even consider marrying (or dating) anyone who had ever pumped and dumped someone, even once. I think that is a dangerous attitude for a marriage partner. Heck, some MRA guys think that a married man getting blowjobs from his secretary is inherently ok as long as he does not get emotionally attached to her. Rubbish.
Excellent point. Just because the law is one sided doesn’t mean a woman should overlook attitudes or history in a man which are an extremely poor fit for marriage. Additionally, my advice to men looking to marry is to find a woman who has disgust with promiscuity across the board. Your attitude both protects you from choosing a poor fit for a husband and should make you more attractive as a potential wife.
I think the challenge that women face in this respect is that they likely want a man who has the benefits of the knowledge and confidence which come from sexual success, without a history of promiscuity. The concept of “greater beta” is really one of the best of both worlds, a knife edged balancing act. To the degree that a woman can tune her own need for alpha/tolerance for beta, she can expand her pool of suitable potential husbands. It probably also makes sense to marry a younger man who shows sufficient alpha potential without having realized that potential.
@Learner
God has no double standard, nor does He excuse one person’s sin because another person’s sin is greater. I would not expect a non-Christian to agree with this or to believe this way, but I am disheartened when my brothers and sisters in Christ seem to excuse or give tacit approval to sexual sin.
I don’t see any Christians here excusing or giving tacit approval for specific forms of sexual sin. More accurately the discussion is about the un biblical view most Christians seem to hold that fornication is ok (or not as bad) if love is involved, or is better if part of a non-committed relationship (LTR) instead of a one-off. That is where I see Christians giving tacit approval for sexual sin in general, and a general pass for female promiscuity. The point of the post isn’t that pump-n-dump is moral, but to challenge the widespread belief that serial flings are somehow more moral.
I’m not a biblical scholar, but I’m fairly confident the bible doesn’t make such a distinction. There is sex within marriage and fornication. My approach is a practical/logical one vs a theological one. Interestingly both seem to lead to the same conclusion. As I have said before, it turns out that the idea of being a little bit committed is a fallacy.
Paige
I am not 100% sure that a man gaming me…even now when I have many children and a solid marriage…that I wouldn’t eventually fall to temptation. I haven’t had it happen so I don’t know, but considering how hard it is to stay away from chocolate cake when dieting, I have not always been impressed with my will power.
Let’s analyze the risk, qualitatively. Where are you more likely to encounter a man who isn’t your husband, who is willing to game you? Do you go to those places much, or at all? And would you really have the time to let such a thing happen? If some guy began chatting you up in the produce section of the grocery, would you really have the time to let him pursue you?
Athol claims that married women without children should have some kind of job, not just for the financial benefit of the family but so they have things that must be done. If nothing else, it would reduce the amount of time she could spend on Facebook. I do not have a link to hand, but late last year I recall reading that divorce lawyers now trawl through Facebook routinely, looking for evidence of infidelity. They find a lot as well.
In a general sense, you bring up the issue of “the company we keep”. It’s known that in any given group of married women, if one or more divorce, the risk of divorce for the others increases; divorce is “catching” in some sense. Pre-sexual-revolution, formal manners enabled women and men to interact in the public sphere but keep some emotional distance, and this was regarded as a good thing. Looking at those customs now with what I know of female and male psychology, it seems to me that a degree of formality would enable a woman to keep her emotional distance from men that might be a temptation to her, as well as give her the tools to discourage them from getting too close.
I doubt that any man is going to suddenly pop up and start gaming you just out of the blue. If you don’t go to places where players/cads are common, and if you politely brush off any random temptations in other public spaces, the risk should be low. Especially if you have two or more children.
AR-
I agree. I am not at risk of being Gamed. My body isn’t as good as it use to be pre-kids, I am getting rather old by PUA standards (29) and I am far too busy to carry on an affair.
My point was more that virtue doesn’t necessarily prevent a person from falling into temptation…I don’t believe. It can happen to anyone. Avoiding the “occasional of sin” is key.
But you make good points about the absence of formal manners to contribute to the problem of infidelity.
Paige:
It doesn’t matter how a few bad men behave and whether ‘all men should clean up their act or not’ for two reasons:
1. Women’s behavior is generally bad, whereas most men have a willingness to commit to a relationship and actually love women, most of you see us aas expendable commodities. The numbers don’t lie: women are responsible for ending around 90% of all relationships, including marriage. The numbers of divorces and abortions pretty clearly demonstrate that your own gender is wholly responsible for the fact that decent men want nothing to do with you and the only men that women can attract are the kinds of men they deserve.
2. Complaining about women getting used by loutish men is ridiculous, since it’s obvious to anyone that women will avoid decent men and jump willingly into bed with men like that.
Do something about your own gender’s behavior before complaining about ours.
Dragnet:
On top of that, given the abortion rate, it’s even more ridiculous for them to come on to us like sex is some precious treasure that they’re saving for the ‘right man’.
Like most American men, I was brought up believing that all women were little Disney princesses at heart, waiting breathlessly for their handsome prince. What happens in real life is that they put the prince to work fighting the dragons for them while they’re in the prince’s bed doing the court jesters. My attitude is, since it’s the jesters they want; it’s the jesters who can take care of them. (Oh, I forgot about ‘fish and bicycles’: not sure how they’ll work that one out… probably doesn’t matter anyway since the jesters would just run off and leave them in the lurch; then they can complain about what pigs all men are LOL)
A woman is entirely responsible for the behavior of their gender.
I am not going to defend the behavior of ALL women, nor will I throw women as an entire gender under the bus and say that ALL women deserve punishment for the actions of some.
I have broken up with more men then have broken up with me but I broke-up with them for good reasons. The fact that women are initiating the separations does not in anyway suggest they are ALWAYS wrong for doing so.
Reasons I have broken up with men: Excessive porn use, excessive drug use, cheating, excessive gaming (and by excessive I mean that it caused him to disappear for days at a time and leave me worried sick that he was dead). Would you put up with any of the above from a woman?
I am not going to defend abortion because I believe it is horrible, but I will say that not all men are against abortion, so it hardly a female-only crime.
@Dalrock, alas my Roissy dating market value is somewhere between “cockblocker” and “lesser beta”.
@learner, I don’t disagree with the statement that non-Christians can’t be expected to follow Christian sexual mores, but I don’t think that we should be encouraging them in their PnD pursuits either way. That would be like me advising a Christian woman not to divorce and a non-Christian woman to go EPL wild. I would advise both not to divorce. Similarly, Christians should advise everyone not to pump n dump. Whether or not they follow that is a different story, but at least then your conscience is clean.
Dalrock,
I am honestly a bit lost how serial flings relate to Paige’s comment. She said “I have more respect for a man who Goes His Own Way than a man who pumps-and-dumps.” It was my understanding that MGTOW may be PUAs, married, have serial flings, be celibate etc, not that they just have serial flings, but that they “go their own way”. I thought she was saying she has more respect for those in the men’s movement who don’t contribute to the problem by engaging in sex outside of marriage. Did you think she was implying that serial monogamy is superior to pump and dump? Paige?
Regarding tacit approval, in this thread people have made comments that imply that calling a spade a spade with regard to sexual sin is “ridiculous”:
In a world where women can now kill men and receive no jail-time, getting pissed at men for the pump-n-dump is just ridiculous.
…and the case has been made that Greenlander’s PUA-osity (his sexual sin) exists because women harmed him, not because he made a choice that it is better for him to “get his” (aw, the poor baby only had sex with 4 women by his late 20’s) than to live a moral life:
Greenlander made it clear that he started off as the “nice guy” every woman claims to want, and was punished for being that way. He wouldn’t be a PUA if he had not been harmed by doing what women here claim he should do. Got that? He already lived as you want him to, and it harmed him to do so.
Yet, in the very same thread you have people calling for slutty women to be called out (which I have zero problem with).
You can treat harlots with disgust. Cross the street to avoid walking near them. Ban them from your home. Raise Cain if they are allowed into your church. If they’re your family members, cut them off. Spit on them. Call a slut a slut.
But, there are no calls to ban Greenlander or spit on him, but he is defended and there is rebuke for women who call a spade a spade.
Now, I am not saying that I wish Greenlander ill, may God have mercy on him (and me for that matter), or that the societal factors that contribute to the immoral choices of both men and women should not be examined, talked about, and understood plainly. But, I wonder why it is proclaimed the right thing to do as a Christian is to shame a female slut but shaming a male slut is not the right thing to do. I am not talking about expediency, I am talking about Christian morality.
Helvetica,
I don’t think that we should be encouraging them in their PnD pursuits either way. That would be like me advising a Christian woman not to divorce and a non-Christian woman to go EPL wild. I would advise both not to divorce. Similarly, Christians should advise everyone not to pump n dump. Whether or not they follow that is a different story, but at least then your conscience is clean.
Agreed
@Learner
Did you think she was implying that serial monogamy is superior to pump and dump? Paige?
Yes.
Paige:
“Reasons for breakup: excessive porn use; excessive drug use; excessive gaming…”
And you avoided the scores of decent men who would have had you for scum like that? You see my point: you women WANT weak men.
“Would you put up with any of the above from a woman?”
No, which is why I quit the dating scene, because women expect men to tolerate that kind of behavior (and worse). We’re told that ‘real men’ accept them with their ‘issues’.
“Abortion is not a woman-only issue”
Yes it is. Men can’t force a woman to have an abortion anymore than we can prevent women from having one. The fact that variously from 30-50% of all pregnancies end that way shows about how little women value either sex or motherhood.
I have some sympathy for Paige’s predicament of sending a fifteen-year-old daughter into the world. Every source in society except Paige herself is telling her to go ride the carousel. Seventeen magazine tells her to do that. Her friends tell her to do that. Her culture tells her to do that. Paige’s voice is just a whisper in a crowd. You could give her some useful advice, like “in your early twenties, find a greater beta about seven years older that seems ready to get married and reel him in,” but her ability to use that advice is limited. She’ll gravitate toward the twenty-eight year-old version of Tucker Max instead of the actual greater beta. Men and older women are good at judging the character of young men, but young women are definitely not. You can tell a young woman, but you can’t tell her much!
The world plays a sort of cruel joke on women: by age sixteen even an average-looking woman has an enormous amount of SMV. Since they don’t have an experience of having no SMV, they look at it in the way that you and I look at tap water: it flowed abundantly yesterday, it flows abundantly today, and tomorrow it will flow abundantly too. The average non-fat woman doesn’t experience low SMV until age thirty-five.
This is really different experience than 80% of men, who have no SMV at age sixteen. Doing well in school actually hurts a man in the short term, since he’s at home studying for AP Biology instead of partying every night and smoking weed with his peers. The “greater beta” strategy doesn’t really start to turn around for “nice guys” until their mid twenties, and by then their compatriots in the dating market have already gobbled a lot of cock. If he finally manages to grab onto a girl (and he’s excited, he finally caught one), he’s looking at the risk of marriage 2.0 and divorce 2.0 without really even being aware of the risk. Unless a guy has taken the red pill, he doesn’t understand how womens’ hamsters work.
Admittedly, there are some young women go for greater betas early (and perhaps Paige is one of these), but the number of women with this strategy is dwarfed by the actual number of greater betas.
It’s pretty clear to me why young men are “dropping out” of society and not going onto college and instead just playing xbox, smoking week and hanging out with their guy friends. They see that there isn’t much payoff for the greater beta strategy relative to the investment required. Academic and even good professional success doesn’t get you much attention from women, and a good chunk of your income is taken to pay for socialist crap (social security, medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, section 8 housing, etc) that actually undermine the greater beta strategy.
Well, there are players and then there are players. I know guys that swallowed a whole bottle of the Red Pill early on, and they bang married girls all the time.
I lol’d regarding the shift key. amazing how that’s the only response I got. I didn’t realize that there was a style guide fro comments to this blog.
Here is my process: I don’t think promiscuity is that big of a deal *if* the process has an element of conscientiousness. For example, youth experimentation between ages 16-ish and 25-ish. I mean, it’s built right into some traditional cultures — the Samburu encourage their warriors and their young, pre-married women to have sex, but everyone marries by 22 at the latest. Any babies that come out of these experimentations (and, btw, they often do not marry people with whom they experiment) are given to families with no children or few children. So, it’s a good little system that fits well in with the sexual needs of the individuals and the larger cultural values surrounding sex and children and so on.
Unfortunately, our culture doesn’t support this, and sends teen sex and young adult sex “subterranean,” and as illegal prostitution does, often creates more evils than it attempts to prevent.
That being said, I also highly value my own experience — which was to wait until I was in a committed relationship at 22 before having sex, and experimenting with my own partner — who indeed has many weaknesses but also many strengths and benefits. His lack of sexual experience was beneficial to me, and beneficial to us ultimately as we experimented together to learn what works for us. And, we continue to do so, rather than getting into a rather tedious pattern that many friends complain about.
I think it is possible to teach the value of waiting while also acknowledging the benefits of sexual experimentation outside of marriage (so long as risks are also understood), and out of that trust that the young person (in this case, my son) will ultimately make good decisions for himself.
Of course, I often feel that I’m “out there on my own” as other people have different values in this regard — in particular seem to prefer to shame male’s for the inherent nature of their sexuality: the desire for sex. Of course, this seems to pick up where it was left off prior — in shaming female’s for their sexuality: the desire for sex.
God forbid we like sex! Oh no!
Inherently, there is nothing wrong with having sex — Pump and Dump, Go Your Own Way (serial monogamy), Marriage, Long Term Committed Relationship Not Legally Allowed To Be Called Marriage Because Of the Sexes of the Parties Involved, Whatever Else. (Enough Shift Key for ya?) Sex is just sex.
How you think about it, how it affects you personally and socially (and biologically in terms of health and disease), that’s what Matters. And that’s what can make the difference between whether someone is a cad or a catch.
@Paige: “I have broken up with more men then have broken up with me but I broke-up with them for good reasons.” … That’s priceless, thanks for proving the entire point. Of course, it’s different with you, you’re special. NAWALT gents, you have been warned.
@greenlander: Your points are very well taken, hermano. The vast majority of women, due to the eternal solipsism of the female mind combined with the narcissism which our society cultivates in the uterus, simply cannot comprehend how the entire system we have crushes the greater beta strategy. I am one of “those” players but I started out as a “nice guy” and then Average American Women intruded on my narrative. So I indeed swallowed a big red pill early. I get massive amounts of tail in Roissyean fashion and men would be horrified how many of them are married; for the record I never seek married ones intentionally, but a high percentage “forget” to mention hubby until after body fluids are exchanged. Women dig jerks, they really do, and most of them are so inured to lying they don’t understand truth anymore.
Dalrock,
Okay, why?
[D: Check out her initial replies to the post. Or better yet, lets ask her. I don’t think her position has changed on the matter.]
@Paige
Nope. Virtuous women don’t cheat. They have… virtue. A thief who feels bad after stealing isn’t an honest man. He is a thief. If he rationalizes his crime away by saying he is a good man because he feels bad after the fact (or will feel bad the next time he steals), he is an unrepentant thief.
Dalrock,
Thanks for indulging me. Yeah, I didn’t get that inference from what she said. But, you are right, we need to ask her.
Paige,
By the comment that inspired this post did you mean you have more respect for those in the men’s movement who don’t contribute to the problem by engaging in sex outside of marriage or did you mean that serial monogamy is superior to pump and
dump…..or something else entirely?
It’s fascinating that you believe there has never been an intelligent person who didn’t steal from stupid people. The writer is totally wrong, but who cares for rightness or wrongness, when the con-man is trying to trick stupider people into believing his transparent lies so he can steal from them?
And here I though he was doing everything in his power to make sure they are destroyed. I guess I mis-interpreted no-fault divorce, no bankruptcy for college loans, the endless lies about income increase from college, all the laws supporting false rape, and the active and continually attempts of CONservatives to lie to young men about the dangers of marriage.
I should have realized they were actually doing all these things to HELP them.
Oh wait, the writer is “intelligent” and therefore a liar trying to steal money from those stupid enough to believe anything he says. Got it.
This is what constitutes “thought” in America today. Non-conformist thought even.
Hee-hee.
Greenlander,
Great comment–a great encapsulation of the modern SMV. It’s exactly as you described, with the hot and moderately attractive girls getting massive social proof & SMV from 15-35, when, except for all but the hottest, the SMV drops like a rock. Whereas, with effort to build a career, men’s SMV will continue to rise throughout that period and beyond. But the Red Pill, and a strong dose at that, is required to progress on this path.
Re: married chicks–I see that all the time. It’s epidemic. Feminism gave women complete agency over their own sexual decisions. Never mind that it destroyed most of the little remaining decorum in the modern SMV. And they almost never marry their cuckolding lovers–less than 3% of the time, according to the studies. So they end up alone, with cats. But they make their own decisions, the women involved are 100% responsible for their own actions and the repercussions thereof. As it’s been said here before: “You broke it, you bought it.”
There is absolutely zero that I could possibly do to give women the incentive to not sleep with PUA’s. I am their competitor. If I tell them to not sleep with some handsome stud they have major tingles for it is interpreted as jealousy. I could tell her “Hey…he will just dump you later…you will never change him” and she hears “when you get studs I get jealous because I am just a lowly middle-aged married woman with nothing going for me and I can’t stand to see other people happy”.
This is another byproduct of the defiant and adolescent attitude that feminism instructs women to have.
To the feminist mind, any attempt by a man OR a woman to dissuade a female from operating on her basest impulses is “oppression”.
This is how children also feel when they are told to eat their vegetables.
Feminism destroyed the value of females by turning them into a cheap, poorly functioning version of men.
I wish I could stir this much controversy on my own blog.
I saw a few questions directed at me. I will answer them tomorrow. Right now my brain is on low-fuel.
This is really different experience than 80% of men, who have no SMV at age sixteen. Doing well in school actually hurts a man in the short term, since he’s at home studying for AP Biology instead of partying every night and smoking weed with his peers. The “greater beta” strategy doesn’t really start to turn around for “nice guys” until their mid twenties, and by then their compatriots in the dating market have already gobbled a lot of cock. If he finally manages to grab onto a girl (and he’s excited, he finally caught one), he’s looking at the risk of marriage 2.0 and divorce 2.0 without really even being aware of the risk. Unless a guy has taken the red pill, he doesn’t understand how womens’ hamsters work.
There’s something in your teeth, dear…
Yeah, that about sums it up. No Rings for Sluts.
A great quote I once read:
“If I couldn’t have the kitten, I don’t want the cat”.
Paige: “I saw a few questions directed at me. I will answer them tomorrow. Right now my brain is on low-fuel.”
I guess most commentors here would agree with everything but the “right now” part.
@ Lavazza
Oh, snap!
“Yet, in the very same thread you have people calling for slutty women to be called out (which I have zero problem with).
You can treat harlots with disgust. Cross the street to avoid walking near them. Ban them from your home. Raise Cain if they are allowed into your church. If they’re your family members, cut them off. Spit on them. Call a slut a slut.
But, there are no calls to ban Greenlander or spit on him, but he is defended and there is rebuke for women who call a spade a spade.
Now, I am not saying that I wish Greenlander ill, may God have mercy on him (and me for that matter), or that the societal factors that contribute to the immoral choices of both men and women should not be examined, talked about, and understood plainly. But, I wonder why it is proclaimed the right thing to do as a Christian is to shame a female slut but shaming a male slut is not the right thing to do. I am not talking about expediency, I am talking about Christian morality.”
My sentiments exactly Learner..
If a woman came onto this thread boasting about how many men she had slept with and dumped, because she was bitter about having been cheated on by a previous boyfriend then I would come down on the slut like a ton of bricks.. The same as I did when Greenlander boasted of his sexual conquests. I cannot abide people who use others up and then spit them out, male or female..
It matters not that I have a teenage daughter. My opinions are formed from my Catholic upbringing. My own brother was a virgin when he married too.. My parents taught us that it was a sin to have sex outside of marriage. There were no exemptions for gender.
” I do understand where Paige and Helvetica are coming from though, there is an apparent lack of recognition that when men have sex outside of marriage it is sin, just like it is sin for a woman to do so. God has no double standard, nor does He excuse one person’s sin because another person’s sin is greater”
Very true. Learner. You and I are on the same Page (lol! )
In any event as Alte pointed out on the other thread I am an equal opportunity slut shamer.. Some of the men here are just not getting that, somehow seeming to interpret what I have said as favoring women over men..
I also believe that women are the gate keepers with regards to sex. I have explained this all to my daughter.. I have talks with her about the importance of being chaste.
If my son was the same age he would be getting similar talks about remaining chaste.
Greenlander raised my ire when he talked about respect.. Of course no one respects sluts, but neither should he think that he is entitled to respect when he is acting like such a slag… Two wrongs don’t make a right.. That was really my point..
Reiterating once more what my learned friend Learner, said,
“But, I wonder why it is proclaimed the right thing to do as a Christian is to shame a female slut but shaming a male slut is not the right thing to do”
Shaming is, and very likely always will be, a more effective tactic for controlling women’s behaviour than for controlling men’s behaviour.
80% of men never reproduced. Had men been susceptible to this tactic, 99.9% of them would have never reproduced, since the smarter alphas would have used this to their benefit, surely.
No, we men have to think for themselves, have to be different, have to be good at something, have to find that niche, have to take risks, because this might have been all that prevented our male ancestors from genetic oblivion. We men today are descended from a long line of iconoclasts (which, I might point out, you and your sisters gladly shagged and had babies with).
A better tactic is to appeal to a man’s sense of honour, to “God, Queen, and Country”, to the tribe, to the civilization … but this too only works if the man feels the civilization or culture is worth it, and he has a stake in it. If there are no good women, what’s the stake?
Xanadoo said:
And it came that after five days and five nights of waiting on the hill, the Great White Coat Man came unto Xanadoo in his Great Big White Coat. And Xanadoo was struck in amazement at the Whiteness of the White Coat and fell down before him who wore the Great White Coat.
And he called out:”Oh Great Bearer of the White Coat! I am in Darkness and Confusion! Will you show me the path!”
And the Great White Coat Man heard his plea, and gave unto him the Unverifiable Maybe Experimental Observation. In confusion Xanadoo called out, “But how can I know that this is True?” And the Great White Coat Man smote him with his slide rule for his impudience until Xanadoo repented! The Great White Coat Man then took the Sacred Blue Point Pen from his golden Pocket Protector and wrote upon the Clipboard. And then Xanadoo descended from the mountain and bore the Unverifiable Maybe Experimental Observations written upon the Clipboard to all those waiting below!
I know of no way 99.9% of humanity could verify that “observation”. Given most peoples tendency to wildly make stuff up on readily checkable facts, I’m going to ignore it. Completely. But then again, I have been in the presence of the Great White Coat Man. Lot less impressive in person. That slide rule does sting though.
“Kathy came into the “supply and demand” thread with a load of feminist shaming language for a man she doesn’t like, and slwerner points out this is a reaction to her protectiveness of her daughter. Well, as I see it, Kathy is trying to make the world safe for her daughter, presumably by ridding it of cads.”
Just noticed your comment anonymous reader.. Lol. Great example of not getting what I was saying..
Firstly I am obviously not a feminist(many here already know this)
Secondly, Greenlander’s behaviour is abhorrent, and immoral and I said so. It has nothing to do with liking him ..He SHOULD be ashamed of his behaviour too..And so should any slut who crassly boasts of using a man for sex.
I wouldn’t call that shaming language, I would call it being honest.
Thirdly, my aim is to bring my daughter up the right way.. I have no fear of cads in this regard, because (with God’s grace) she will never be taken in by them.. She is a beautiful young girl who already attracts much male attention.. But she has been brought up with good decent Christian morals, like myself.(are you seeing a pattern her?)
Would YOU like to marry a woman who had slept around?
Certainly not! And I wouldn’t blame you.
I never wanted to marry a man who had slept around, either.. And I didn’t..
I was merely pointing out that Greenlander was the equivalent of a male slut.
I have no time for sluts of either gender, is basically what I was getting at.
And it is obvious that if my daughter were of a marriagable age then a man like Greenlander wouldn’t get a foot in the door. Her father would see to that. 😀
It is well known that many promiscuous people of either sex, have trouble bonding if they marry, and so the incidence of divorce is greater, as infidelity becomes an issue..
Well maybe it’s 60% of men that never reproduced, argument still broadly correct I think:
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/proof-of-the-modern-american-harem/
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/
Caveat: both cite the same sources.
I’ve also seen you attack Uncle Elmer on the Spearhead simply for having a hot Vietnamese wife. That sort of takes the wind out of your self righteous sails now doesn’t it? He’s married, and doesn’t cheat, what’s your beef with him?
At any rate, you still aren’t getting it, you still aren’t listening (surprise, surprise). Read the post above made by retrenched (brilliant analogy BTW) about Health Food Restaurants vs Fast Food. Then when you want to shame someone like Greenlander, read it again. If the mood affects you once more, READ IT AGAIN.
Is the PnD abhorrent? Yup, I have no arguments with you there. Here is the deal, there is not one man on this blog who has stated that the PnD is great or beneficial, just that it was a natural reaction to women’s current actions. Men’s pragmatic nature simply means that we accept things which cannot be changed, and getting mad at us for not ostracizing Greenlander (while not high-fiving him, yet simply understanding why things came to be this way) is like getting mad at the sun for giving some people skin cancer.
You don’t want skin cancer, YOU put on Sunscreen, the sun will simply do what it always does.
My advice to you is to shame women far more then you would ever shame a man for this action. This bugs me when women either don’t want to see it, or don’t get it; modern women create the PUA’s, stop letting women do that. Shame the bejezus out of them when they leave Nice and Sturdy bf, for Cadman, even if they haven’t gotten physical yet. Let ’em know that the popular train of thought has a good chance of leaving them in a place they don’t want to be.
I believe it was Hope who come here from time to time wanting MRA’s to recognize that Feminism hurts women too. She’s right on the money. You ladies need to attack them with extreme prejudice. It’s them who are taking men away from their families so that young boys are aimless and cannot be the ‘greater beta’s’ you ladies want for your daughters. It’s them that create this horrific media stream which denigrates men so that the few who still remain married have no voice to even pass down proper masculinity.
It’s feminism which is creating a legion of Men-children who haven’t the foggiest clue how to be the strong men you women wish to have your daughters marry, you want to shame anyone, shame the @#$@ out of them!!! You ladies should give them no quarter, blast any one of those women if they ever show up, they are wolves in sheeps clothing, you must know this by now unless you don’t wish to see it.
Hey, if us guys try to blast feminists, they simply dismiss us as ‘misogynists’ but you women must know what’s at stake. Men not being able to train their young boys means more potential PUA in the future, that’s what’s in it for you ladies if you think I’m full of sh!t! You know what a potential PUA looks like? Simply a man who wants to settle down with a woman, who pays attention to what the lamestream media says about women (thinking that it will be the salvation he is looking for in terms of relationship success) and then finally packing it in after just getting too much bullsh!t.
I’ll level with ya’ll, as I said, I was there once. In fact I had made the choice to forget being a “Jedi” and switch over to the Dark Side. Being a Jedi hurt too much, but Sith Lords had women falling all over them, in reality, easy choice to make. One faithful night about 9 years ago, I got 4 women’s phone numbers, and I called one of them the next day.
That woman is now my wife, but that was purely chance. I can tell you this, I would be a PUA if I hadn’t met my wife, and the main thing I am trying to tell you ladies is that Nice Guys simple want to settle down and get married to ONE woman. It’s the being treated like crap for being nice which grates on our nerves.
You don’t want that, I promise you, you don’t. You want ‘Nice’ strong greater Beta’s to be rewarded for being like that. Right now they are being penalized, and the cycle continues to spiral out of control.
With everything we have learned about the woman’s psyche, do you really think that our ‘foremothers’ only told young women once about the dangers of Cads? Do you not think this was something they railed on over and over again? Will it work, hey I have no idea, but as Alte stated, if you change one woman, you change their life. That is also possibly one more ‘proper woman’ who won’t assist in churning through yet another unsuspecting nice guy and make him go from being a Jedi to becoming a Sith Lord.
Hey, I somewhat get where you are coming from Kathy, my wife has a 17 year old girl and a 14 year old son. And I will tell you this, she RAILED from when her daughter was young about the importance of dressing and acting proper. I got in on the act too, heck it wasn’t hard, some of the clothing choices they have available for even a 13 year old girl has me shaking my head, disgusting!!! What I mean is that it wasn’t just one simple talk, it was repeated over and over and over, and even to this day it continues. Where not done yet, but at the very least we do know that she hasn’t ‘been there’ with a guy while some of her friends have several times already. Once won’t be enough, it just simply won’t.
I still see a lot of ping pong here between women and men on this subject and it really has to stop. For crying out loud I will say it again; Badger, Green, and Simonson where NICE GUYS before ‘the market’ told them to eff off!! If you don’t want more of them switching sides ladies, tell your female friends to keep their effing legs closed and use the friggen brains God gave them.
Build up the positive male role models you know and support them if they work with youth or want too. It’s a dangerous time for men to do that right now, but it’s sorely needed as can be clearly seen. If you ever hear a young man complain about the burden’s of being ‘nice’, jump on that right away, don’t let him become a ‘wounded dragon’, that increases the risk of them going to the dark side, yeah? Get your “men” to bolster his confidence, and increase the odds that he will stay on the right track. Get em to show him what leadership means, Paige is correct when she states that women don’t find weak men attractive.
Be honest with the young girls in your life. If any one of them ever states that some Alpha singer or celebrity is ‘dreamy’ give em a dose of reality. Build up their Dad, and show them how when the chips are down, Charlie Sheen would be a bad man to be with, but their Dad has never let them down yet. Your goal there is to make sure that when they see similar situations in their lives, they will remember you words of wisdom and realize that sexy Alpha Cad is gonzo during such a crucial time, but a steadfast man like their father would be there through thick and thin.
I do not condone PnD’s, but I can see exactly what brought about this situation. Giving men sh!t for it will not make it go away.
I’m done, sorry for yet another rant.
A rant indeed. Don’t be sorry..
I’m not at all bothered with your histrionics..
I will say this one more time.
I have no respect for male or female sluts. (bangs head against a brick wall numerous times)
It’s quite simple, really. Too bad if you don’t like it. If you want to go off on a tangent and read other things into what I have said, go right ahead, that’s your prerogative.
“I’ve also seen you attack Uncle Elmer on the Spearhead simply for having a hot Vietnamese wife. That sort of takes the wind out of your self righteous sails now doesn’t it? He’s married, and doesn’t cheat, what’s your beef with him?”
Proof please! Whilst I will admit that I personally did not hold Uncle Elmer in high regard, due to his often lurid descriptions of unatural sex with his wife (eg anal sex) I HAVE NOT CRITICIZED HIM ON THE SPEARHEAD FOR HAVING A VIETNAMESE WIFE..
The “Kathy” that he referred to on the other thread, is not me.
As I said this is easily verifiable. Ask Bill Price. He will tell you the truth.. I have not commented on the spearhead for many months.. I meant what I said when I said that I was leaving.. I don’t even read the articles anymore.
Bill can verify this too, because he can tell which countries the “hits” are coming from. I am from Australia, so it would not be hard to verify.
Ask him..
“By the comment that inspired this post did you mean you have more respect for those in the men’s movement who don’t contribute to the problem by engaging in sex outside of marriage or did you mean that serial monogamy is superior to pump and
dump…..or something else entirely?”
Men who don’t participate in the sexual market place have my full respect. Between serial monogamy and a pump-n-dump I think serial monogamy is the lesser evil only because the intention is for an LTR, while the intention in a pump-n-dump is to use and discard.
Neither my husband nor I were virgins when we got married (I had 2 partners at age 16 and then none until I married him at 19) and he had 4 partners by the age of 25 and they were all LTR relationships. We both considered the fact that neither one of us showed any fondness for pump-n-dumps as a good sign regarding our ability to maintain fidelity. In the grand scheme fornication is fornication regardless of intent, but when picking out a spouse it mattered to my husband and I. YMMV.
dream puppy said: “When a man pumps and dumps a woman he is debasing her, but he is also debasing himself.”
Sure, but he spares himself cuckoldry, divorce and having his house, kids and half his income taken.
As for my position on sluts…I have a few old blog posts that show that while I am not necessarily going around spitting on them I am not supporting them either:
http://likeinbooks.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/slut-shaming/
Here is where I make the argument that women have less power to change women than men do:
http://likeinbooks.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/why-traditionalist-women-cant-convert-feminist-women/
Here I talk about “marriage quality” and make the point that our current culture is making many men and women bad bets for marriage:
http://likeinbooks.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/where-have-all-the-cowboys-and-girls-gone/
The point of these links is to show that I am not throwing men under the bus entirely or blaming them for all the problems in the world. However, unlike most MRA’s I do think there is plenty of blame to go around.
“Nope. Virtuous women don’t cheat. They have… virtue. A thief who feels bad after stealing isn’t an honest man. He is a thief.”
I have a more sympathetic perspective on the weaknesses of human nature.
[D: That is one way of putting it.]
Pingback: Getting the Love You Want « Raise Your Glass
@ElectricAngel
Done.
Well, you’re missing something that is different, which is that remaining chaste is a viable path for a woman if she wants to catch a husband. In fact, there are some real advantages, since men who actually want marriage will be drawn to that. However, such a woman won’t have much experience with men, and it’s likely that she’ll be drawn to an alpha without good advice from older people.
Remaining chaste isn’t really a viable path for a man in the current SMP unless he’s living in a tight-knit community of religious people (like the Mormons). With the hypergamous impulses set free, women gravitate toward the men with the most confidence and pose. Invariably, those men are the ones who are getting laid.
If you’re going to encourage your son to be chaste, well I guess that’s what you’re going to do. In that case, I hope that your religious believes don’t oppose the liberal consumption of porn… because he is going to need it!
Kathy, I’m so past this. I followed all the “nice guy” rules before. It just resulted in me being tooled by our culture and its women. Now Greenlander follows Greenlander’s, which involves sportfucking non-marriagable girls for fun. Go ahead, pile on the shaming language. If you run out of things to say, I’ll give you this handy page that you can use: http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/ .
I think you’re missing something, which is this: if a guy wants a family in this culture, he must be both alpha and beta, and know when to use which. It’s not enough to be beta, because even if you catch a woman you won’t keep her. (Where do you think Dalrock’s and other “married man game” blogs are coming from?) If you’re just alpha, a quality woman will just tire of alpha BS and realize that he will never be a good husband and father. A family man in this age must be both.
If your hypothetical twenty-five year old daughter brought me to your house, you wouldn’t see “manslut who pumps and dumps bitter old feminist shrews” tattooed on my forehead. I’d come across as a confident, educated, upper-middle-class professional. I’d be playing the beta role. And honestly, if I was coming to meet you, I’d be considering your daughter as a marriage prospect and non a PnD target.
Reading this blogs and discussing these issues in real life with women has made me realize that they literally can’t see the truth. The hamster is just too strong. To change society, men are somehow going to have to band together and pass the collective shit test that feminism is. The good news is that it is starting to happen. I think that things will get worse before they get better, but the “green shoots” of feminism’s death are starting to appear.
I think he ‘gets’ your argument, Kathy. It’s just that you are coming from very different frames.
His point is the “beta” path in this culture is no longer a viable path. It just leads to celibacy and/or a screwing in marriage 2.0 and divorce 2.0.
Your point is the “beta” path is the ethical path. It doesn’t matter if that’s not a viable path: following that path is doing God’s work. If the “system” screws him for being beta, it doesn’t matter. He is, after all, following a Good and Virtuous Path and therefore is in His favor.
And that’s fine, I guess, if that’s your belief system. Just don’t expect many men (and especially not many atheists) to chose path that is likely to screw them just because you are thumping your Bible at them.
Kathy
“Kathy came into the “supply and demand” thread with a load of feminist shaming language for a man she doesn’t like, and slwerner points out this is a reaction to her protectiveness of her daughter. Well, as I see it, Kathy is trying to make the world safe for her daughter, presumably by ridding it of cads.”
Just noticed your comment anonymous reader.. Lol. Great example of not getting what I was saying..
Firstly I am obviously not a feminist(many here already know this)
But you came into the other thread using feminist shaming language. That told me that you use those words to think about the world. That told me that you think like a feminist. If you do not wish to be identified as a feminist, then don’t write like one.
Secondly, Greenlander’s behaviour is abhorrent, and immoral and I said so. It has nothing to do with liking him ..He SHOULD be ashamed of his behaviour too..And so should any slut who crassly boasts of using a man for sex.
I wouldn’t call that shaming language, I would call it being honest.
That is more along the lines of traditional conservative language. So perhaps you are not as much of a feminist as I thought.
Now, let’s turn to the other side of “pump and dump”. Let us consider the 22 year old woman who has sex with as many handsome men as she can, for years, and then when she gets close to 30, she suddenly realizes that she wants children. So she finds some nice guy, the kind of man she didn’t have the time of day for before, and lets him marry her. Sure enough, she gets pregnant, and quits her job to stay home with the bay-bee, which is infinitely more important than whats-his-name, the guy with the paycheck. Maybe another child comes along couple of years later.
Then, when she’s around 35 or so, and the youngest child is 4 or 5, she realizes that whats-his-name, the guy with the paycheck, is not nearly as exciting to her as the alpha bad boys that she used to hop in the sack with just 10 years earlier. So she decides that she ‘loves, but isn’t in love” with whats-his-name. From this point on the story is predictable. Oh, there’s a few variations; does she hit him with a fake accusation of Domestic Violence in order to have him hauled off to jail and serve with a restraining order upon his release from jail, or does she have the divorce papers and the restraining order delivered to him at work, where all his colleagues can see, etc.
But the upshot is this: he puts a few things in boxes, suitcases, gym bag and he moves out to a crummy apartment, while she keeps the house, because naturally the children stay with her. A big chunk of his before-tax salary now is garnished by the state and paid to her, tax free. She’s free to park her kids in front of the TV set while cruising the local night spots, to see what Alphas can be found — and brought home — and installed right in that precious “marriage bed”.
She pumped sperm out of him for her children, and they are always hers, and now she dumped him but gets to keep pumping money out of his pocket. Tell me, Kathy, do you see anything unethical — anything at all — in this form of “pump and dump”? Or is it, well, you know, different from that nasty thing that evil menz do, because women are helpless creatures that need lots of protection from the evil menz, who are all just ravening beasts…
Learner, you might note that not everyone in the thread goes to church or participates in churchianity. Dalrock is a Catholic, and it’s his blog, but I don’t think it is totally logical to call this a “christian blog”.
You want Greenlander to change his behavior, but all you have to offer him is “God doesn’t like it”. If he doesn’t believe in your God, what other reasons have you got?
What do you tell a 22 year old man who went to a femininized school, saw his classmates that acted up too much drugged, saw girls praised and boys smeared, saw a lot of young women lining up to be sexed by the school alphas, who sees that having a job and being a nice guy is a one-way ticket to no relationship with women at all?
What have you got for him, that is better than Game?
Again I say it. If tradcons want fewer PUA’s, they need to reduce the supply of young women riding the alpha carousel. I will say this, if Kathy truly is teaching her daughter to be chaste, then she’s at least doing her part of the job in a small way.
Although I seriously doubt that Kathy, or virtually any other tradcon, has ever stood up face to face with another woman and said in person anything nearly as vituperative as she’s said to men, both here and in real life. And I base that opinion on personal experience.
Once you have children you have to be willing to suffer on their behalf.
“Although I seriously doubt that Kathy, or virtually any other tradcon, has ever stood up face to face with another woman and said in person anything nearly as vituperative as she’s said to men, both here and in real life. And I base that opinion on personal experience”
I told a roommate she would be a fucking moron to lose her virginity to a cad (she did anyway). I once started a very lengthy thread on another forum that is a feminist hot-spot when someone complained about her baby daddy and I said “what tangled webs we weave when we have sex out of wedlock” The result was not pretty and made me rather infamous on that corner of the internet. I told another roommate I had who slept with someones boyfriends that she had no self-respect and should be ashamed of herself.
If you think trad women don’t slut-shame other women you don’t hang around enough trad women.
Paige:
I’d rather think that ‘trad women’ are so heavily outnumbered by the feminists, Amazons, and sluts that it hardly matters. In fact, it’s usually traditional women who receive all the shaming.
Speaking of shaming: you’ll notice that after all the shaming Greenlander has gotten, what’s the one thing he’s never complained about? Lack of willing women for his ‘pump and dump’ lifestyle. I doubt he’ll ever have any shortage.
In fact, I know a lot of men who do much the same thing. They might not hold steady jobs, bathe regularly, stay out of jail, or know how to read; but I’ve never known any of them to be without steady girlfriends. Nobody could calculate the number of kids they’ve produced.
Compare them with the hardworking, committed, responsible and intelligent men I know. The ones who aren’t still single have been dragged through divorces, lost their kids; sometimes lost their sanity and one committed suicide.
The bottom line is: you can moralize all you want to; the fact is that American women are TRASH. They offer loutish men nothing but sex; and decent men, worse than nothing.
Paige
Once you have children you have to be willing to suffer on their behalf.
Under Marriage 2.0 and Divorce 2.0, it’s “once a woman has children, any man that she claims is the father will suffer on their — and her — behalf”. No charge for the correction.
Paige
I told a roommate she would be a fucking moron to lose her virginity to a cad (she did anyway).
Ok.
I once started a very lengthy thread on another forum that is a feminist hot-spot when someone complained about her baby daddy and I said “what tangled webs we weave when we have sex out of wedlock” The result was not pretty and made me rather infamous on that corner of the internet.
Name the forum.
I told another roommate I had who slept with someones boyfriends that she had no self-respect and should be ashamed of herself.
Ok
If you think trad women don’t slut-shame other women you don’t hang around enough trad women.
Maybe so. I don’t recall much shaming of Karen Owens, not in public and not on weblogs. Ditto “EPL”. I suppose it is a matter of perception; what I regard as a trad con woman you might totally disagree with. The nameless middle aged woman I saw a while back buying a copy of “Eat, Betray, Love” along with some self help books from the Christian section, for example, seems likely to me to be a church going lady, who might be at least a so-con. But carrying a copy of EPL tells me all I need to know.
I swear, if I was back on the market, and I saw a copy of that thing in a woman’s house, I’d first tell her exactly how despicable that book is – lower than whale dung – and I’d walk out right afterwards, no matter what. It’s a symbol of what feminism has done, and is still doing, to this civilization.
“Tell me, Kathy, do you see anything unethical — anything at all — in this form of “pump and dump”?”
Can’t you read anonymous reader? The woman in your story is a slut, non?
I have said that I have NO respect for male or female sluts. That they should be ashamed of themselves., for using another person up and then casting them off!
Why are you posing a question that I have already answered in previous posts.
“Or is it, well, you know, different from that nasty thing that evil menz do, because women are helpless creatures that need lots of protection from the evil menz, who are all just ravening beasts…”
Now, this is just utter BS..
Proves that you either have not read or understood what I have said…
ALL PROMISCUOUS WOMEN ARE SLUTS..
The difference between you and me is that I have the same opinion about promiscuous men, whereas you do not.
Using people up for sex (or using sex as a means to an end, eg trap a man into marriage and then fleece him) is unethical and immoral.. I don’t respect a person who does such things.
“Tell me, Kathy, do you see anything unethical — anything at all — in this form of “pump and dump”?”
Can’t you read anonymous reader? The woman in your story is a slut, non?
I have said that I have NO respect for male or female sluts. That they should be ashamed of themselves., for using another person up and then casting them off!
Ok.
Why are you posing a question that I have already answered in previous posts.
To see how you will answer.
The difference between you and me is that I have the same opinion about promiscuous men, whereas you do not.
Cool. Another mindreader. What’s my favorite color?
Using people up for sex (or using sex as a means to an end, eg trap a man into marriage and then fleece him) is unethical and immoral.. I don’t respect a person who does such things.
All right. Let’s try another variation:
Woman with no sexual past marries man with no sexual past. They have children. She focuses all her attention on the children, such that the husband no longer feels he has a place in the house. He spends more and more time in the workshop, or garage, or basement, where his wife doesn’t care to come. She spends all her time with the children; she loves them, she honors them…when the youngest is 5 or 6, she decides that she “loves, but is no longer in love”, with him. Same result as before; essentially she does the “Eat, Pray, Love” thing to him.
I say, he’s been pumped and dumped. What do you say?
“I say, he’s been pumped and dumped. What do you say?”
I say… you are bloody well right! You will get no argument from me there.
Let me clarify something else..
A slut is a user.. I don’t believe a man (or a woman) who has had a few genuine relationships and made a few mistakes in the pursuit of finding a lifelong partner is a bad person or has indulged in slutty behaviour.
Most people want to find love..The sexual urge is strong..
We all make mistakes in life.. None of us are perfect..
Least of all me.
Anonymous Reader,
Learner, you might note that not everyone in the thread goes to church or participates in churchianity. Dalrock is a Catholic, and it’s his blog, but I don’t think it is totally logical to call this a “christian blog”
Yes, I am aware not everyone here is a Christian, though I recognize plenty of people from other blogs and know that they have identified themselves as Christians. Did I call this a Christian blog? Could you point out where because i don’t remember doing
that.
You want Greenlander to change his behavior, but all you have to offer him is “God doesn’t like it”. If he doesn’t believe in your God, what other reasons have you got?
I didn’t say Greenlander should change his behavior, but I did say I would not expect a nonChristian to agree with me or believe the way I do. I don’t think there is anything I could say to him to change his behavior, he seems quite pleased with it.
What do you tell a 22 year old man….What have you got for him, that is better than Game?
I would tell this young man that I agree that relations between men and women are badly messed up and that this state of affairs pains me greatly. I would tell him to learn about Game from men who don’t promote that he make a slut out of himself because it would be harmful for him, and put it to use. I would encourage him to put it to use in a manner that isn’t sinful.
Dang, I screwed my tags up!
AnonReader,
I see, I called Dalrock’s a Christian blog on the other thread. It was not my intention to imply it was for Christians only, but that the person it belonged to was a Christian.
@Anonymous Reader
Dalrock is a Catholic, and it’s his blog, but I don’t think it is totally logical to call this a “christian blog”.
Actually I am a Protestant, but generally don’t attend church. If I could find one like my father in law attends I would probably do so though. You are correct that this isn’t a “Christian blog”. But Christian points of view are certainly welcome.
Kathy:
“…made a few mistakes…”
How many is a few?
More than three sexual partners may or not be classified as “mistakes” if they were long term. It still hints at a promiscuous girl.
But more than three or so actual “mistakes” pretty much equals first-tier slut to me.
Actually I am a Protestant
Too bad. Wake up and smell the incense, Dalrock! As Will Rogers used to say “I am not a member of any organized party; I’m a Democrat,” you could say “Yep, I a member of a cult that believes in human sacrifice and practices cannibalism, and venerates BDSM, and that God grants orgasms to the faithful.(see: Bernini’s St. Theresa)
Kathy, it appears I have been hasty in forming an opinion of you based upon your initial posting in “supply and demand”.
Learner, you did call it a “Christian blog”, but I’m not going to make an issue of the ambiguity of the statement. I see your point. Also, I had the impression you were calling on Greenlander to change.
We agree on the necessity of young men to learn “game”, and believe it or not on the issue of how to use it. I don’t see the PUA life as one that is viable long term, if nothing else for reasons of health. The chances of catching something escalate geometrically with each sexual, oh, “event”.
Herpes cannot be cured, only controlled. HPV clearly can cause certain cancers in women, can’t help but wonder if it isn’t a factor in prostate cancer. Chlamydia is nasty. Hepatitis and of course HIV are, shall we say, “game changing events”.
Dalrock, don’ t know where I got the idea you were Catholic. There’s a lot of “churchianity” out there, for sure.
Anonymous Reader:
What all these ‘trad women’ remind me of are the ‘Third-Party’ people who post on political blogs. They somehow imagine that, because they get 100 or so votes in a national election, they’re serious competition for the Democrats and Republicans. I’m willing to bet that Greenlander—all by himself—has laid more women (including Christian ones), than all the ‘trad women’ who post on these fora combined.
I disagree though, that it’s important for young men to learn ‘Game’. I was at a newsstand yesterday and three of the womens’ magazines were featuring that pants-wearing, roll-up-the-sleeves, Alpha ironman, Justin Bieber. Just like when I was in school, the women were all drooling over such Alpha-studs as Michael Jackson! I’d hate to think these are the ‘Alpha’ role-models that young men should copy.
In fact, I think it’s fairly obvious that weak, stupid, immature, and dysfunctional men are the types who really appeal to women in our culture. It’s better to teach young men what real women should be like, and encourage them to explore other cultures where they can actually find them.
“I’m not at all bothered with your histrionics..”
No worries, takes one, you can finish that yourself.
“It’s quite simple, really. Too bad if you don’t like it. If you want to go off on a tangent and read other things into what I have said, go right ahead, that’s your prerogative.”
Worry not, I will no longer spin my wheels, you have proven once more why women who have reason are in the minority, and you still have said nothing about your baseless attacks on Uncle Elmer. While you may forget my posts, (and I don’t give a rat’s hienie if you do) just remember this thread the very next time you see yet another nice guy become a ‘bad boy’. You where warned, you said you didn’t give a rip. You and the whole Western Female Society.
That is until you are knee deep in bad boys, oh crap, that already happened.
“Speaking of shaming: you’ll notice that after all the shaming Greenlander has gotten, what’s the one thing he’s never complained about? Lack of willing women for his ‘pump and dump’ lifestyle. I doubt he’ll ever have any shortage.
In fact, I know a lot of men who do much the same thing. They might not hold steady jobs, bathe regularly, stay out of jail, or know how to read; but I’ve never known any of them to be without steady girlfriends. Nobody could calculate the number of kids they’ve produced.
Compare them with the hardworking, committed, responsible and intelligent men I know. The ones who aren’t still single have been dragged through divorces, lost their kids; sometimes lost their sanity and one committed suicide.
The bottom line is: you can moralize all you want to; the fact is that American women are TRASH. They offer loutish men nothing but sex; and decent men, worse than nothing.”
My man, I hear what you are saying, but only a minority of women will listen. This is the truth of the matter which is really sad to say. You are saying the very same thing that all of us ‘dudez’ are but it’s falling on deaf ears. Louts shouldn’t be rewarded with with many women, and good men shouldn’t be penalized. I’ve seen exactly what you have and many more of the guys here have too. IF women listened, they would realize that this should stop, realize that as partners on this planet that men going through that is a huge problem, but it’s easier to simply blame men for their loutish ways.
Women simply won’t change until they have no other choice. It’s a crying shame that there are some innocent women who will suffer the consequences, but this is now beyond our control.
What are you on about.. What baseless attacks on Uncle Elmer?
DID YOU ACTUALLY READ MY COMMNT ABOVE.? HERE IT IS ONCE MORE.
” OMNIPITRON:“I’ve also seen you attack Uncle Elmer on the Spearhead simply for having a hot Vietnamese wife. That sort of takes the wind out of your self righteous sails now doesn’t it? He’s married, and doesn’t cheat, what’s your beef with him?”
Proof please! Whilst I will admit that I personally did not hold Uncle Elmer in high regard, due to his often lurid descriptions of unatural sex with his wife (eg anal sex) I HAVE NOT CRITICIZED HIM ON THE SPEARHEAD FOR HAVING A VIETNAMESE WIFE..
The “Kathy” that he referred to on the other thread, is not me.
As I said this is easily verifiable. Ask Bill Price. He will tell you the truth.. I have not commented on the spearhead for many months.. I meant what I said when I said that I was leaving.. I don’t even read the articles anymore.
Bill can verify this too, because he can tell which countries the “hits” are coming from. I am from Australia, so it would not be hard to verify.
Ask him..”
You obviously don’t read my posts fully.
You proceed to condescendingly tell me how should I bring up my own daughter, when I had already made it plain how I was going about that .(and it seems to be working).What makes you an authority on how I should bring up my daughter? She has a very good and loving Dad , who keeps her in check, which is very important. A teenage girl needs a strong Dad, to keep her grounded..
OMNIPITRON says “and you still have said nothing about your baseless attacks on Uncle Elmer.”
I am waiting for your reply with regards to your baseless accusation above.. An accusation that was easily refuted
Even Elmer himself, accepted that it was not I making those comments on the Spearhead..
Anonymous Reader,
Do I think Greenlander “should” change? Yes, because I believe being promiscuous isn’t physically, psychologically or spiritually healthy for him. But I also know it is fruitless for me to insist he does. I was really aiming my comments at my Christian brothers, not him. This issue has never sat comfortably in my mind since I first began reading books about men’s issues and mens rights blogs about 4 1/2 years ago. I just haven’t been able to wrap my mind around it.
I have been thinking about this a good bit the last few days and even had a quite spirited “discussion” with my boyfriend about it, and I have a bit of an underdeveloped theory about it. My boyfriend tells me that men are better at compartmentalizing than women and I can certainty see that is the case between he and I. He can separate ideas (for example morality and pragmatism/political expediency) into separate boxes that don’t really influence each other, whereas in my mind those two ideas are intertwined in such a way that they cannot really be separated. For me it would be like asking me to separate the visual stimuli from my right eye from the visual stimuli from my left eye. So, I think perhaps what happens is that when someone like Greenlander says things like he said in the other thread, men like my bf or Dalrock or other Christians are responding to that out of their “political expediency” box, not out of their “morality” box. But I (and perhaps women like me) respond with my concept of morality intertwined with any thoughts I have about “what works” because these concepts are not considered as separate in my mind.
Just something I have been thinking about.
Learner: “But I (and perhaps women like me) respond with my concept of morality intertwined with any thoughts I have about “what works” because these concepts are not considered as separate in my mind.”
So if your first thought is “this is not moral” then pragmatism will not influence you to change your mind?
Consquently it must work the same way when your first thought is “this is a really pragmatic/expedient solution” then moality will not influence, or you might find reasons why the expedient solution is also the most moral.
Google “left hemisphere interpreter”.
I feel moved to comment after lurking for a while since the last time I engaged here, because I 100% totally and completely agree with Dalrock! Yes, yes, 100 times, yes, any woman who has uncommitted sex assumes the risk that the man might end the “relationship” (to the extent there is one) before she would want to.
This seems blindingly obvious, to the point that I wonder who would say otherwise? It seemed perfectly clear to me when I first started having uncommitted sex at 18, and it was clear to all my female friends who were having sex at that time.
That said, a sensitive person of either sex would rightly be concerned about other people’s feelings during the course of either flirting, dating, or sex. I spent hours during my teenaged years, agonizing and weeping over the boys I turned down — until I grew up and realized they could probably handle it just fine. But even when I was older, my horror of hurting anyone colored my whole dating and sex life, to the point that I only kissed and slept with two people in my whole life, including my husband. I didn’t mind the prospect of being dumped in an uncommitted relationship at all. But I was extremely concerned about kissing or sleeping with someone who would then want a relationship and that I would be unable to extricate myself without hurting him.
Hmmm. This post wound up in a different place than I expected. On the one hand, I don’t think there is anything immoral about pump-n-dump. On the other hand, I have never been able to quite bring myself to do it. (Since I am not guy, maybe I should call it a hump-n-dump.)
[D: Thanks Doomed Harlot. Your point about being sensitive to the feelings of others is well taken.]
Lavazza,
I should start by saying I don’t think this is necessarily a purely gender based “theory” on my part, though I go think it highly influenced by neurological gender differences.
So if your first thought is “this is not moral” then pragmatism will not influence you to change your mind?
Consquently it must work the same way when your first thought is “this is a really pragmatic/expedient solution” then moality will not influence, or you might find reasons why the expedient solution is also the most moral.
Yes and no (you seem to be demonstrating what I mean btw). For me (and I am extrapolating to others) the idea that a first thought would be about either morality or pragmatism (and let’s not forget my feeeeelings) and then one box interprets the other is moot because my thoughts do not seem to be fully coming from one box or another, they are all intertwined together (and probably a result of the significantly greater connectivity between the left and right hemispheres in women). However, I do think that people, mostly women, who think like me may weigh one type of intertwined thought over another because of what they value. I think it is probably more accurate to say perception, meaning a stimuli interpreted by the brain, because analytical thought is intertwined in there too (whereas for people, mostly men, who have the “boxes”, analytical thought is not in a box but rather is the over arching agent that works between the boxes, though I imagine boxes are “weighted” somewhat based on things other than logic at times).
Anyway…back to weighting of integrated perceptions, which is where I think the rationalization hamster comes into play. Those who think like this (again mostly women) have a hard time holding seemingly contradictory ideas in their minds so they feel compelled to rationalize the two together, whereas those with “boxes” (mostly men) can hold contradictory ideas in their minds without trying to rationalize them together….just keep ’em in their separate boxes where they belong! For example, in the thread about Malthus (sp?) Paige is giving highest weight/value to her feelings and thus is working hard to rationalize that. People who don’t use “boxes” can learn to be more analytical, or learn that feelings cannot always be trusted and so should not be the basis of decision making, but you have to make conscious effort to do that (at least until you train your mind to do it). This is part of why it makes more sense for men to lead women, their brains are just better equipped to not be swayed by emotion.
Regarding the left hemisphere interpreter, yes, this is a very interesting theory (especially the split brain experiments. One of my colleagues has a long standing clinical relationship with a young man who had his corpus collusum severed due to severe seizures and my colleague will sometimes have his research advisees study him for their theses…..fascinating stuff).
@Learner:
Badger had a couple of posts on what you are describing:
Scientific Evidence for the Rationalization Hamster
More on Neurohamsterscience
Also Fedrz had a post that seemed to describe the tendency of women to personalize and men to generalize:
In General, People Who Don’t General Are Useful Idiots
Contemplating these things helps me understand how men and women communicate differently. Application of these concepts seems to help me relate and assist me in not reacting to things that others say, since I am better able to see where they are coming from.
CSBP,
Thanks, I will check those posts out. And yes, I agree that thinking about these things helps me understand things better too. It may sound odd to other people but this was actually a revelation to me. Not that men have boxes…or as on author put it, men are waffles, women are spaghetti, but more how that plays itself out in a discussion such as the one about Greenlander. It always puzzled my how a devout Christian man could react to guys like Greenlander they way some do. Realizing that when discussing what is pragmatic that the morality of the action is not extricably intertwined with it’s political expediency (as it is in my spaghetti) helps that make more sense to me.
Male Rationalization Hamster:
So is that how you really view them? Really. More accurately, you view them as men who will work hard(but ask for little), do their job well(but don’t demand status or respect for it), and intelligent(will do as they are told and not buck). In short, they are useful, but
THEY POSE NO COMPETITIVE THREAT TO YOU IN ANY WAY.
And that is, my man, exactly how women see them. As terrified slaves broken by the wheel who will never ever buck, ever.
Breeding with broken slaves has never been terribly useful, now or ever. Thugs>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Slave
Would a real beta be better than a thug? Maybe. But that is not the current situation.
I think there’s a moral continuum with pumping and dumping. It’s always the girls responsibility who she sleeps with, but there’s a least a continuum of distaste for me.
Pumping and dumping a virgin by deceptively leading her to believe you want a relationship that might well lead to marriage, when in fact you know from the outset all you want with her is a one night stand, yeah that’s not moral behavior. I also think very few alphas do that. If she’s not a virgin but is a good girl who’s only had sex with two bf’s, it’s not much better than with a virgin.
However having one night stands with sluts is par for the course. Not immoral at all. That’s what most so called pumping and dumping is.
The term pump and dump has considerable amount of bravado in it, and is in a way alpha and working to be alpha guys bravado about sluts, to get and keep hand over them.
Often a guy won’t know if he’s gonna want at least a fling or something longer when he ends up pumping and dumping a girs who’s not a complete slut. Depends on how much fun and compatible she is post banging, whether she’ll allow a non exclusive kind of relationship for a good while or semi permanently and so on.
Hmmm. I guess I was referring to pump-and-dump, I was relying on Dalrock’s rather neutral description. I see no problem with two people having a good time with each other and then going their separate ways — even if one of them wishes the other would stick around.
But what Doug1 describes an interaction that is perceived by the man as a way to get the upper hand over a woman he despises, i.e. a “slut.” For a man to despise someone who has just engaged in a mutually pleasurable activity with him makes no sense. This attitude seems more self-loathing than alpha.
Of course, the man who keeps such thoughts to himself is hurting no one, except possibly himself. But if he engages in post-coital slut-shaming, then he has crossed a moral line into punishing another person for conduct that the night before he was encouraging. I don’t see how that can be morally justified.
Doomed Harlot–
Alphas don’t despise sluts, and I’ve never implied they do. We generally like them for causal sex. Not so much to fall in love with and have a LTR not to mention marriage with.
Wanting hand over a girl isn’t despising her. It’s important for men to have some alpha hand in a marriage for example; though much of feminist and chivalrous American culture propagandizes for the opposite – the wife’s upper hand in marriage.
Doug1,
Oh. I took the word “slut” to be an expression of contempt and disdain. But if it’s not, fair enough!
But if the “alpha” is dropping the “slut” immediately after having sex with her, why does it matter that he has “hand” over her? And how does dropping her give him “hand” over her? Doesn’t she simply proceed on her merry way to the next alpha?
Omnipitron:
When I first came to the MRM, I remember reading a thread on ‘The Spearhead’, with about 150 posts, where men were reciting their experiences with the ‘Un-Fair Sex’. Not one of those stories surprised me in the least; in fact, all about three of them had happened either to me or to men I knew; I could have easily added a dozen others.
What cracks me up is the way these women come on to these posts, spouting NAWALT and shaming tactics, like none of us have ever heard them before; or are willing to disbelieve what our senses tell us. All this schmaltz about women’s innocent intentions, and going for the ‘Alpha types’ makes me want to LOL or throw up. Like I’ve mentioned before, they go for thugs and louts—not because they’re impressed these idiots’ superficial strengths— but because they perceive the underlying weaknesses in these men. Same reason they go for limp-wristed metrosexual types: only there the weakness is more overt. Feminism and female supremacy has educated women to believe that they are superior to men, and that relationships are only a mechanism to get whatever they believe themselves entitled to. They’re not going to go for strong, intelligent, or good men because they can’t feel superior to them.
I know that probably is hard on the egos of the ‘pump-and-dump’ advocates, but that’s pretty much the way things are. Sex is a meaningless thing to most women, and they would have it with any man, as long as it serves whatever short-term interests these women are contemplating. Then, it’s the man who gets ‘pumped and dumped’ , usually to his own detriment.
Sluts can be great for casual sex, for short term flings and as fuck buddies. (Non sluts can be great fuck buddies too.)
It’s unwise to fall in love with a slut though, engage in a supposedly exclusive LTR with one, or god forbid, marry.
Since feminists and their more moderate representatives in the entertainment and other media adamantly disagree with the later, because many girls have short time horizons, and because most girls think they’ll be able to hide their slutty history, their are lots of sluts and semi sluts around.
Paige—
You have a general perspective and really a campaign, expressed in various threads on this site, that premarital sex and premarital promiscuous sex should be socially controlled by shaming men into acting “responsibly”. That’s doomed to failure for a host of ultimately biological reasons.
Most men and by far most alpha men have a hormonally hard wired strong drive to have sex with many women of above average attractiveness (6 and up). They may also want a lasting relationship even before they want children with as hot and compatible a girl they can attract, but that varies a lot among men, if they can otherwise get sex with hot girls.
Most women want a lasting and committed romantic relationship with the highest quality man they can attract. They may also want casual sex if it won’t cost them too much, but what the want most is a relationship and relationship sex.
You’ve said as much yourself:
Now given these two things, which you yourself have acknowledge, on which gender, males or females, do you shaming about pump-and-dumping or casual sex, do you think promiscuity shaming will be more effective.
Yeah all societies in history before feminism have thought so too. Further research has indicated that it’s a trans-cultural near universal that it’s mostly women that deliver slut shaming messages. That’s certainly true in the US these days. Men most focus on slut avoidance when they want to partner up and fall in love. It tends to be only very beta guys who engage in slut shaming – doing that doesn’t help guys get laid.
No, but it is ‘tarded. It’s easier for a woman to refrain from casual and/or promiscuous sex than it is for a man WHO HAS THAT OPTION to do so with hot girls. Most men don’t really have that option.
Women including most conservative women in this feminist age just want to shift all responsibility for everything to men. Maintaining a high martial SMV is entirely the responsibility of women in general and a particular woman in particular.
The reason for the slut versus stud double standard can be boiled down to this: It’s easy as hell for a slut to have casual sex with tons of guys hotter than herself – all she has to do is be easy. It’s hard for a guy to have casual sex with girls as hot or somewhat less hot than himself – he needs mad alpha skills. This boils down to being due to female hypergamy and male polygamy/promiscuous drives.
Pingback: Do you love me? | Dalrock
What the fuck, Paige got around by the age 16?
What is it with these women who got action when they were young and are now guardians of everything virtuous?
The question arises: Is it better that the woman learns her lesson and vows to teach chastity, aka “born again Christian” path of female sexuality or is it still bad because they are technically hypocrites (they had their cake, ate it, and now want other women to pick one)
That shit is definitely offensive to male virgins who never got any female interaction well into 20s. Don’t care if the message is right, the fact that it comes from a woman like that sounds insulting.
“It’s hard for a guy to have casual sex with girls as hot or somewhat less hot than himself – he needs mad alpha skills”
No he doesn’t. He just needs to be in a place with young women of a certain type and frame of mind and a lot of alcohol. A place like Colchester town centre on a Saturday night, or Dublin, or even DC.
A couple of young English guys I know are in DC at the moment, apparently getting sex there is like ‘shooting fish in a barrel’ even compared to a drunken night here. Lots of young women wanting drinks and fun in a town where apparently there are a lot of ‘old boring stuffy old men’ (the boys words, I have never been to DC so cannot comment).
If some of the girls are all the raging sluts that is being claimed (slut not whore, i.e. not always holding out for the best) then there is a lot more casual sex going on than this mythical 20%. And if Eric is to be believed, limp wristed metrosexual boys (surely they cannot be alphas) as well as the men he talks about who don’t bathe are getting lots of action too.
Looking at Kathy as the mom-and-protector of a daughter who is coming into Prime Time, I can see no blame in her jumping in the face of someone who would appear to be a threat to said daughter’s SVQ. It’s a MOM thing. Okay, I said it.
I’m nominally sympathetic to Greenlander because he got splashed with the shit. Fortunately, cyber-shit doesn’t even stain the inside of the monitor screen. I’m also persuaded that he presented himself as a clear non-threat to any girl who’s young and “innocent” enough to be good marriage material; he’s hunting out “more experienced” women who are looking to hump-and-dump the likes of him!
Me? I haven’t got a hamster in the fight. While the other monkeys are out dancing their Alpha-Beta-Omega dance, I’m foraging for myself. Once in a while I have enough berries to travel offshore, someplace where there are cute she-monkeys who are willing to trade some of my berries for a slice of her mango, and it’s a business doing pleasure with them – how much more protective insulation can I offer, for the parents’ nubile daughters on this website?
But I’m enjoying the commentary and learning from it. Thanks ….
I think the 20% is more likely to relate to guys who aren’t ‘getting laid’ or if so, very rarely. Another 20% are the alphas who more or less always know they can get laid if they want to.
Everyone else falls in the middle (including Roosh who despite being a Game guru has %s which are less than most guys would get in Colchester, perhaps he ought to try looking like he bathes to see if that would increase or decrease his %s) and in this day and age are getting laid plenty.
Lily==
He’s not.
Obviously. Duhhhh.
Lily–
Says you Lily.
And very few 20 something guys. Well that is unless they are in a committed relationship. Which isn’t so easy for guys in the middle (betas) to get with a decent looking girl of their own SMV. But not impossible either, esp. if they’ll go down 1 SMV.
“Woman with no sexual past marries man with no sexual past. They have children. She focuses all her attention on the children, such that the husband no longer feels he has a place in the house. He spends more and more time in the workshop, or garage, or basement, where his wife doesn’t care to come. She spends all her time with the children; she loves them, she honors them…when the youngest is 5 or 6, she decides that she “loves, but is no longer in love”, with him. Same result as before; essentially she does the “Eat, Pray, Love” thing to him.”
Traditional conservatism has a tradition of sacrificing their desires for society and for the greater good (someone transcendent like God or another deity). Sometimes they even had arranged marriages. They tend to avoid divorce except for adultery. It seems more like a liberal chick divorcing a dude for not feeling the same she felt the same as the first time she saw him.
“One of my complaints about “traditionalists” is how they clearly endorse, embrace, and practice the pedestalization of women. That mistake, the idea that women are inherently monogamous, more moral than men, etc. is a big part of how we got here in the first place.”
Victorian understanding of women is not the traditional conservative understanding of women. Nobody here is “pedestalizing” women. Next thing you’ll say is how I’m full of female arrogance, a feminist and a entitled princess. That’s not true. Reactionary or traditional conservative women like Alte, Woods and Kathy don’t see the current form of marriage as good. They encourage to have hope, to change the system and to marry women of good character. Just because they view marriage as something intrinsically good for society and/or ordained by God himself doesn’t mean they overview the current liberal dystopia as something positive.
Also kudos to the commenter who talked about “Alpha Justin Bieber”!
“One of my complaints about “traditionalists” is how they clearly endorse, embrace, and practice the pedestalization of women. That mistake, the idea that women are inherently monogamous, more moral than men, etc. is a big part of how we got here in the first place.”
Victorian understanding of women is not the traditional conservative understanding of women.
Beg to disagree. Almost every discussion I have with trad-cons eventually reaches a point where women, all women, are put onto a pedestal.
Nobody here is “pedestalizing” women.
Not in this thread, so far, but I’m sure it can happen. Certainly I’ve seen it happen enough times.
Next thing you’ll say is how I’m full of female arrogance, a feminist and a entitled princess. That’s not true. Reactionary or traditional conservative women like Alte, Woods and Kathy don’t see the current form of marriage as good.
Woods was a feminist in college. She was a female supremacist. She still is. Her attack upon Spearhead, and the way she went about it, proves that clearly. She “values” men only in terms of what they can deliver to women.
They encourage to have hope, to change the system and to marry women of good character.
Woods regards men as beasts of burden. She hates men who won’t serve women. Those who serve women are “good”, those who do not are evil. Other trad-cons have a similar gynocentric view.
I am not an animal. So sorry if my attitude is insufficiently deferential to women. I will not kneel before your pedestal.
AR:
How do you judge a mans worth? How do you judge a womans worth?
It seems to me that LW expects women to work as hard as men.
Paige, I recall my world history teacher in High School spending quite a lot of time on the “worth and dignity of the individual” as a key concept in western history. Many men and women seem determined to piss that worth and dignity away, and he was not at all afraid to point that out as well (he had been in the military, in wartime, in combat).
I have an intense dislike for the whole “self esteem” notion, because self respect is what they really were after, and that is earned, not given. But you know what? Anyone with any self respect doesn’t regard humans as animals to be used. Even a bum asking spare change in the public square is still a human being, however he may have warped himself through a lot of bad choices.
Regarding men as pack animals to be used is one of the common threads in all tyrannies. You find it in the ancient empires. You find it in the various Marxist regimes. Feminism is a kind of Marxism, so it is no surprise to find it there as well.
This is a roundabout way of saying that human beings have an inherent worth, independent of what they can provide to the state, or to other people. This concept is embedded in the West, in various ways – you see it in Locke, in the US Constitution, and so forth. The utilitarian notion that a human only has worth in the labor or other value they can provide is in direct opposition to the thought of hundreds of years.
And I can’t figure out why trad-cons seem to go there. But they do.
I see a distinct difference between innate human dignity as a philosophical belief, and societal worth.
As for societal worth- we are only as good as we behave. If we contribute to a better future we have more worth. If we contribute to a worse future we have less worth.
A bum on the street has innate dignity but very little societal worth. The same can be said for the Lindsey Lohans and Paris Hiltons.
Paige
I see a distinct difference between innate human dignity as a philosophical belief, and societal worth.
Well, ok, but who gets to decide what “societal worth” is?
As for societal worth- we are only as good as we behave. If we contribute to a better future we have more worth. If we contribute to a worse future we have less worth.
Feminists would agree with this. Of course, their definition of “better future” and your definition of the same term might not have much in common. Feminist ideas of a “better future” are all over the place, from the status quo, to a world of mandatory female quotas in all leadership positions, to some vaguely defined world where marriage is constantly re-defined, to a total gynocracy, to the extreme view of the likes of Mary Daly (90% of men exterminated, the remainder kept as breeding stock). All of them have a common theme, obviously: the “better future” is “what feminists want”, so any man who serves that goal has societal worth, any man who does not serve feminist goals has no societal worth.
A bum on the street has innate dignity but very little societal worth. The same can be said for the Lindsey Lohans and Paris Hiltons.
Maybe so, but from what I can tell a normal man, who lives within the law, pays his taxes, but who also refuses to marry — a man going his own way — has zero “societal worth” to trad-cons, and therefore is considered to be evil by some trad-cons. So “societal worth” to trad-cons boils down to “furthers trad-con goals”.
Men therefore only have “societal worth” if they are aiding the goals of the group. Those who do not aid the goals of the group are worthless. Once again we see that the feminist attitude towards men and the trad-con attitude towards men is the same, so far as the ordinary man who just wants to be left alone is concerned.
And it’s the ordinary man, who doesn’t want to be shamed, manipulated, browbeaten, told he’s “evil” just for existing, pushed around for being male, hated, filed, stamped, numbered — he’s the guy that has been getting shafted for 30, 40 years or so by feminists from one side and tradcons from the other. He’s the guy who is getting more and more fed up with both sides, too.
Just where do you think that “bitter MRA’s”, “bitter betas”, husbands desperately trying to learn Game, etc. come from? No man is born that way, you know. They are made that way over time.
Well I am not a trad-con of that variety. I applaud any man who refuses to marry so long as they don’t replace marriage with social vice. The same can be said for women. Condoleeza Rice didn’t marry but instead devoted herself to her career. She has societal worth. Lindsey Lohan doesn’t marry, instead she spreads STDs and goes to jail repeatedly. Big difference.
Given the divorce rate probably only 50% of people have a temperament suitable for a lifelong commitment. Everyone else would be doing well to just to be productive members of society.
Pingback: Separating Solipsistic Hedonism from The Alpha Male « Reality Snaps Back: Embracing Reality, 1 Truth at a Time
Pingback: A LTR is not a mini marriage. | Dalrock
Omnipitron says: April 1, 2011 at 10:03 am
“The actual power to change the sexual marketplace lies with the 20% of men sleeping with all the women. ”
Rationalization hamster alert. The actual power to change the sexual marketplace lies with the women who decide to reward these men with sex. Between this thread and the supply and demand thread I see a huge amount of ignoring the females role in this problem.
If women are so upset and concerned with this state of affairs, then you need to tell your sisters to close their legs as men telling them too is having no effect. Did any of you women even read Badger’s response to Kathy? Any at all? Badger noted that he and Greenlander started off as the kind of man who didn’t like to pump and dump. What happened, society, women (read that once more; WOMEN) penalized them for being that type of guy and rewarded those men who weren’t.
Point set match, whether you like it or not is irrelevant.
This, Paige, is why your statement is so woefully in error, you are taking a page from the Non-Thinking Housewife and telling men to ignore the currently messed up reward\penalty social paradigm and continue on in ways which lead to failure or sometimes disaster for said men. This issue will only be rectified when BOTH genders change. If you are in the mindset that men need to change and they are the only ones who do then you are contributing to the problem, period.
Men have been blamed for everything, women have something to be blamed for and it’s time we all grew up and realized it.
It doesn’t matter if you like it or you don’t, it simply matters that this is what is happening whether you want to see it or not. Pretending to be like Wil. E Coyote and pulling the blinds on the oncoming train doesn’t change the fact that you will become street pizza in short order.
In other words, and I say this to every woman who reads this blog or in life;
LISTEN WHEN MEN TALK ABOUT THEIR PROBLEMS.
Don’t argue, don’t disagree, don’t shame (point), don’t minimize…just listen. If you do, you may learn something. Kathy had made a point about how Greenlander ‘knew’ as opposed to Susan Walsh. This is what I mean…he’s a man, and he’s talking about men’s motivations. He does know, it’s women not listening which is the problem, his point shouldn’t even be in doubt.
He’s a man, sorry, right from the jump he has already has you trumped. Not trying to be mean, just saying that just like a relationship between spouses, issues are never resolved by projecting blame and ignoring problems. If a man is telling you that he is being rewarded for the behavior you abhor by countless women, AND that when he was the sort of man that you would have respect for but got penalized for it, now it’s time to realize what’s wrong with the machine.
FYI, getting to brass tacks, shaming a man who has learned the truth about women and engaging the pump and dump is simply going to become more set in his ways. Understand, I’m not advocating using women in this manner, far from it, but I can easily see why it’s becoming more popular amongst men. However, if you engage in shaming a PUA and then also, putting the blame on him for this current set of affairs, you are showing in plain terms you do not care about what even got him there in the first place.
Rant done, sorry this went long but I’m simply sick and tired of this wonderland that women live in when men plainly tell them what the deal bloody well is and they freaking ignore it because it doesn’t meet with their fluffy worldview.
Umbrellas don’t protect from falling boulders, time to get the point.
THANK YOU OMNIPATRON… You have shortened this up… But you were MONEY thoroughout…
The men are being neglected & marginalized
Pingback: Nothing is more subversive than the truth | Dalrock
Pingback: Do women want to get married? | Dalrock
Paige, if you are a feminist, then you are the only feminist I have found to be not over the top bitter. In fact, you’re the only one who listen to BOTH sides in a given argument. I hope there are more women like you.
Pingback: The ubiquitous frame of hypergamy. | Dalrock
Pump and dump is okay as long as everyone is being honest in their intentions with everyone else.
Anonymous reader, virginity has nothing to do with the morality of pump-and-dump.
If the female virgin doesn’t state what she wants and doesn’t ask what he wants, then she can’t be a victim.
Pingback: Feral love | Dalrock
I fail to see the controversy. . . . even if the guy is less than forthright . . . .Two consenting adults. . . Who lays all their cards on the table to soon anyways? . . . This is the sexual marketplace as it exist in the philosophically de-contructed, post-modern, post sexual, post-femenist universe. Where truth and certainty are unknowable, much less traditional moors . . .
Sorry to say it, but the dog shit reality of it is, for guys, the marriage checked has bounced. . . . . another words a huge downside RISK.
Norman Mailer said it best “With all the benefits come all the burdens.”. . . Welcome to the shark tank ladies.. . . Another words, you reap what you sow. . . .
So why did the guy lie to the girl? . . . . . Cuz he wanted to get a second date. . . Lol
Marilyn Monroe was once asked why women don’t pursue men, her response, “Because they don’t have to silly!”.
Don’t blame alpha’s for creating the environment, we’re just navigating the landscape. . . . .
Pingback: John Derbyshire On JayMan—A Righteous Jamaican-American | VDARE.COM
Pingback: The Derb on the JayMan | JayMan's Blog
The simple reason that one is more egregious than the other is that we regard one party as having more agency to address the problem.
A society that practices lifetime monogamy does so because it’s enforced by the men, from the top down.
The man who *can* pump and dump is the only one who can change the landscape.
He’s the one who says “Sorry honey, I’m taken.” and/or “Sorry honey, you’ve already chosen someone else.”
Granted, this can apply all the way down the sexual market value ladder.
That’s the point. This is how it does. It’s because the king only takes one queen that the baker gets a loyal wife. This is why there’s reverence upwards in a functioning hierarchy instead of animosity.