Through some mutual friends we know a young boy who I’ll call “Mark”. Mark’s maternal grandparents are independently wealthy, and by the age of 7 he already knows he won’t have to work to support himself when he is an adult. His parents are very liberal and don’t believe in discipline or telling him no. As a result Mark isn’t a kid many people want to have around. He even has relatives who genuinely enjoy kids who won’t babysit him. The kid is so spoiled and materialistic that when he is given a gift the first thing he looks for is a designer label.
Mark’s parents and grandparents think they are being kind to him. From where I stand they are being cruel.
The reality is cruelty often comes with good intentions. In my last post Greasing the marriage rope I included a table with two sets of expected outcomes. The first column of outcomes were the rosy view we typically sell to women and girls. Taken in their entirety, the first column’s outcomes send a message that women and girls won’t ever experience negative consequences for irresponsible behavior. No matter what choices they make, someone else is expected to pay or otherwise protect them. In this sense the first column of outcomes closely resembles the message Mark receives from his parents and grandparents.
However, as several commenters pointed out the outcomes in the second column are often the outcomes a woman will actually experience. I haven’t been blogging for a year yet and I have been able to debunk quite an astonishing number of myths commonly sold to women. The reality is making bad choices is never cost free, and no one can really insulate a person from the harm their own bad choices cause.
The kindest thing we can do for women of any age is tell them the truth. Part of this involves being honest about their own desires and their responsibility for the outcomes they receive. The fairy tale we tell young women is their sexual motives are naturally pure. If they have uncommitted sex with an alpha and wind up unceremoniously dumped, it is almost always described with platitudes like she loved too much and she was only following her heart. No matter the platitude, the implication is the negative outcome just happened to her and she couldn’t reasonably be expected to have made better choices. The Taylor Swift song 15 is an excellent example of this (H/T Paige). While the song ostensibly is a warning to young girls, the underlying message is essentially a pre-rationalization for a young girl’s hamster:
Cause when you’re fifteen and somebody tells you they love you you’re gonna believe them
when you’re fifteen and your first kiss
makes your head spin round but
in your life you-ll do greater than dating the boy on the football team
but I didn’t know it at fifteenWhen all you wanted was to be wanted
wish you could go back and tell yourself what you know now
Back then I swore I was gonna marry him someday
Ah yes. All she wanted was to be wanted. For some inexplicable reason she wants to be wanted by a boy on the football team and not a member of the chess club. I’m sure someday someone will crack that mystery. But until then all we know is her desires are in no way sexual or selfish like those of the boys she interacts with. She is only offering sex with the hope of being loved in return. She even had him tell her he loved her.
I can think of no crueler message to send to young women.
Excellent post, Dalrock!
These girls are chasing feelings, what else would you have them do? If you let them make their own romantic choices, what else can you expect? Its like telling a kid he can eat whatever he wants and then hoping he’ll eat peas and broccoli. With the culture the way it is, with media and advertising trying to suck up every penny of disposable income by creating as much temptation for short term satisfaction as possible, nobody has a chance. It’d be like setting the dinner table with cookies and candy and putting the real food off to the side with a label saying “for when you’re done having fun and ready to settle down”. By that time you’ll be a 300lb diabetic.
Given the economic situation these days, kids like Mark will really be in for it when they hit their age of majority. There used to be fiction about that sort of rude awakening among aristo-kids who were told they had an inheritance and then found out otherwise at 18/21/25/30.
Ah, yes, they “want to get married… someday” but “have fun” in the interim until they can’t be monogamous or more than a pump-and-dump any more… and eventually find themselves alone feeding multiple cats.
“Ah yes. All she wanted was to be wanted. For some inexplicable reason she wants to be wanted by a boy on the football team and not a member of the chess club. ”
It’s the apex fallacy – women almost literally don’t see unattractive men as men.
I’ve talked to women about this for years. They complain they just want a guy who will treat them well. Then I point out a decent, in-their-league guy who’d be happy to do so, and they whinge “ohhhhhh…well, he’s not really my type you know.”
Funny how their “type” is always the guy all the other girls want. If your type is “conventionally attractive” it’s not a type.
I feel weird listening to Taylor Swift’s music, it’s reading the diary of a teenage girl.
And then they’re “not happy” when you’re in Iraq and want a divorce…
I get nauseous when I see a typical teenage girl or her older twenty-something mentor talk. They all have the whiny voice of a six year old with nasal problems. They are clones of one another with not an original idea in their pea sized brains.
Obviously, they are pleasing to the eye, but they are possibly the shallowest generation in the history of Planet Earth. And they get their cues from Hollywood, home of insignificant relationships which last no longer than a Superbowl commercial.
One thing is certain. Time does catch up to individuals who make poor decisions. It may take longer for some than others. But it always happens. Multiple marriages and divorces, multiple abortions, children born out of wedlock, uncontrollable kids takes its toll either mentally, physically, economically and/or emotionally. There is a penalty for irresponsible behavior.
This kind of story plays out in high schools and college campuses all over the country.
Women want the best they can get, and everyone else is invisible. Some think they can get the alpha to “commit”, and then when he doesn’t, they’re inevitably hurt (and sometimes left with an unwanted pregnancy or an STD). I’ve known too many women who have learned this the hard way. I also knew a lot of career girls in college who never married for a variety of reasons.
It used to be the older women understood this phenomenon very well. They encouraged the young women to date the nice young men, and sought to get the girls married off as soon as they could. Why? Because the older women knew the girls, just out of high school or home from college between ages 18-23, were at the height of their SMV, it wouldn’t last, and the window of opportunity for marriage would not be open forever. And they knew that local societal and church pressure would tend to keep them married, which inured to everyone’s benefit. Everyone in town knew – and pitied – the “old maids”, who waited too long or just didn’t attract a mate. And no girl wanted to be one of them.
I knew one girl in college who was quite open about this. She openly said she was in the market for a husband and wanted to get married shortly after college. She told me in no uncertain terms that she wasn’t going to waste time dating anyone who wasn’t looking for a wife and was serious about getting married in a couple of years. Since that wasn’t in the cards then, I excused myself. I did admire her honesty, though.
TO Anon @ 9:57:
Agree. The “party girls” just “having fun” eventually hit the wall, and they can’t pull alphas like they used to. Then they become pump and dumps, or they get burned from one too many rides on the carousel. When they decide to get off the carousel, it’s too late — their SMVs have been reduced so much they can’t even pull betas. If she does pull a beta, she doesn’t love him or she eventually tires of him, and will divorce him the second he’s no longer useful to her.
Taking the red pill just illuminates and gives voice to what we intuitively know but couldn’t articulate.
I feel weird listening to Taylor Swift’s music, it’s reading the diary of a teenage girl.
Wanna read mine? I actually have some diaries that go back to when I was fifteen [2006-2007]. I can scan a few pages if you’d like.
My diaries have a cute Holden Caulfield-ish vibe. I’m a judgmental brat so it’s just page after page of witty critical observations.
I was never in a relationship, though. Well, there was this one guy. He was 3 years older than me. He would DJ at raves. We used to hang out all the time and I think we both mutually liked each other. I never like, made-out with him or anything, but in hindsight I probably should have. Gosh, I was such a prude *counts on fingers* four years ago.
No rings for sluts.
Anyway, men need to stick together. We need to shame the white-knights. We need to shame the pussy liberal men who are, as Roissy called them “s–t-lapping betas”.
Only about 10% of women are capable of identifying the problem and considering its significance. The rest are adult children who live in a fairy-tale world of imagined female victimization. They are unreachable.
Time to start ignoring the women altogether and solving the problem with the white-knight beta and omega enforcers. They are the REAL problem. Once they are off the plantation, change can be effected. Forget the women, most will never change.
+1 Jack
@John
One thing is certain. Time does catch up to individuals who make poor decisions. It may take longer for some than others. But it always happens. Multiple marriages and divorces, multiple abortions, children born out of wedlock, uncontrollable kids takes its toll either mentally, physically, economically and/or emotionally. There is a penalty for irresponsible behavior.
Unfortunately, responsible behaviour is punished even more heavily (by state and society).
Badger: “It’s the apex fallacy – women almost literally don’t see unattractive men as men.
I’ve talked to women about this for years. They complain they just want a guy who will treat them well. Then I point out a decent, in-their-league guy who’d be happy to do so, and they whinge “ohhhhhh…well, he’s not really my type you know.”
Funny how their “type” is always the guy all the other girls want. If your type is “conventionally attractive” it’s not a type.”
I thought that women did not want to admit that they want the men other women want as well, so that other men will still try, which means more options.
But maybe I am wrong and women don’t even know that there are other men. It’s certainly their view when they discuss equality.
I read a passage this morning which speaks to the folly of being led around by one’s feelings:
Only fools trust in their hearts alone,
but if you live by wisdom, you will do all right.
Proverbs 28:26 Contemporary English Version
Taylor Swift’s advice is bad advice but it probably sounded perfectly reasonable to the average 15-year-old girl. “Just follow your heart!”
Is Taylor Swift a Christian pop artist? [I know Swift is Country but she is often lumped with the Jonas Brothers and all those other allegedly squeaky clean Christian tween acts]
Christian tween pop has some rather contradictory messages.
Way back in the day [the 5th grade] I thought Jump5’s “All I Can Do” was the coolest song ever. It was #1 on Disney Radio.
The whole song is about a girl rationalizing the constant emotional abuse she dishes out at her boyfriend. It’s implied the boyfriend threatened to leave or has already left. Because the girl “loves him and can’t stop thinking about him” the abuse is completely okay.
….Hamster Spinners, the Jr. High Edition! […imagine if the song had been the other way around?]
“Taken in their entirety, the first column’s outcomes send a message that women and girls won’t ever experience negative consequences for irresponsible behavior. No matter what choices they make, someone else is expected to pay or otherwise protect them. ”
It is painful to live this as a high school boy and even as a young man. It is also easy to tell yourself that they will grow up and learn from their mistakes.
But, that pain is nothing compared to waking up twenty years later to find that many of them don’t. That you married one who never grew up. They continued to behave irresponsibly in many critical areas of their life. Money, work, and ultimately, monogamy. Solomon II had a post that made light of the phrase “But I’m a good person!”. Sure, they have a lot of good in them, but feelings just drive them to one stupid decision after another without any regard to the collateral damage. All that matters is how they feeeeeeel.
I end up a little sad when I read posts like this. Because it reminds me that the women I hang with and meet are pretty much good people who still act, at times, in such irresponsible ways that it makes my head spin. They are still shocked when there are consequences, but not for long because they quickly rationalize away any bad consequence. And these are educated women in their forties! Take away the obvious signs of age and the same words would sound like they are coming out of the fifteen year old in Ms. Swift’s song!
No thanks.
This post is gold.
Im sorry, but with some women their consequences do not catch up with them, especially if they remain physically attractive. I know of a woman at 54 that has been married four times, has four kids, STD’s, and does not have a dime to her name. The expectation from the commentors above is that she will pay the price and die with cats in her lap in her 10 cent apartment next to the train tracks.
Nope.
She lives in a reasonably nice home and has a reasonably successful boyfriend. Why? Because at age 54 she looks much better than the average woman her age.
As long as a woman is well above average in looks compared to the rest of the female population, the consequences will never catch up with her.
This is another great post Dalrock. You could be your own womens study department at any major university. A young preteen ready these post and unsterstanding would save herself and her family a lot of grief. I can only imagine the joy and happiness the life of a woman and her family can have with hypergamy control. This is the foundation a young woman can lay down to be truely loved as a family matriarch. To be grandma at the grandparents house with her own children proudly showing grandma the grand kids. The alternative is what we have now with middle age women talking about a lack of men and feeding cats or a daughter on her third husband asking you to watch the kids because she has met a guy that loves her for her.
NMH: Actually it feels really weird when one on rare occassions meet a good looking woman who still does her share and takes responsibility for her actions, as if she was not good looking and would not have any other choice.
Yes, a very attractive older women who is well behaved, modest and graceful is….
practically non-existent.
That’s why MGTOW is so strong in the older 40 crowd.
Interested said: “But, that pain is nothing compared to waking up twenty years later to find that many of them don’t. That you married one who never grew up. They continued to behave irresponsibly in many critical areas of their life. Money, work, and ultimately, monogamy. Solomon II had a post that made light of the phrase “But I’m a good person!”. Sure, they have a lot of good in them, but feelings just drive them to one stupid decision after another without any regard to the collateral damage. All that matters is how they feeeeeeel.” (And as noticed and commented upon by NMH above, too.)
Yup, I know one who’s in her late 40s, divorced four times, still decent looking, still trying to ride the carousel alpha-chasing.
It’s the apex fallacy – women almost literally don’t see unattractive men as men.
I’ve talked to women about this for years. They complain they just want a guy who will treat them well. Then I point out a decent, in-their-league guy who’d be happy to do so, and they whinge “ohhhhhh…well, he’s not really my type you know.”
Funny how their “type” is always the guy all the other girls want. If your type is “conventionally attractive” it’s not a type.
I think to a significant degree this is because women are generally not as aware of what actually attracts them, at least in the sense of being able to articulate it easily. I think for a woman it is “normal” to find most members of the opposite sex kind of “grey” in terms of not being attractive, with a few standouts here and there who are “in color” — that is, they stand out from the grey/monotone mass of males and therefore are attractive. Of course, as you can see from that description, it’s very contextual — who stands out in a given context as compared with the rest of the guys. It’s a given, however, that in any context most of the guys are not going to be attractive to her, and she is used to this — it is “normal” for her and how she erotically experiences the world. As a result, I don’t think women view this as being “limited”, because it is the only kind of attraction they know.
We experience the world very differently, in erotic terms. Taking the same example, we are attracted to probably a slim majority of the women in any given setting, perhaps more, perhaps less, based on the objective attractiveness in terms of appearance. Therefore, our own way of looking at and experiencing attraction is much more inclusive with, of course, women to whom we are more attracted than others on a kind of sliding scale. But it isn’t generally our experience that most women in a given context are “blanks” when it comes to attraction, as I think is the way women experience the world. Therefore, for us, it seems very odd when women don’t express their attractional vectors as being extremely limited when they articulate what they are — because they are, in fact, quite limited compared to male attractional vectors. But they don’t articulate that because their own way of experiencing attraction is just a given to them — they don’t experience it as restrictive. In the same way, women will tend to view the male way of attraction in negative terms like “indiscriminate” or “animalistic” when it could just as easily be described as inclusive and welcoming of different types. The key is that women don’t “grok” the male way of attraction, because it is very much at odds with how they experience the world, erotically, while we have a hard time “grokking” the female mode of attraction because it is very different from how we experience the world erotically. As a result, a lot of projection tends to take place around these issues.
I think, on a slightly different but related topic, some of the misunderstandings between men and women in terms of eroticism in the workplace, for example, stem from the same kind of thing. Women are not attracted to most men they work with, regardless of how they are acting or dressing or what have you. Of course, men will be attracted to every attractive woman in the workplace to some degree, and this can be accentuated by the way she dresses and acts. When a woman dresses and acts in a sexual way in the office, she is either displaying a fundamental ignorance of male sexuality, or is acting in a very disrespectful way to the men in the office, because inevitably she is not attracted to most of them and dislikes the “gaze” and so on that she may be drawing by taking her sexuality to the office. The projection aspect of this is that the woman will feel “righteous” in her behavior because it is the men who are “animals” who “can’t control themselves” as compared to the women who “don’t act that way towards most of the men” — i.e., men are defective because they do not have the same restrictive attractional vectors as women do. It’s kind of a dodge based on deliberate misunderstanding and projection, because I do think in many cases a woman who brings her sexuality directly to the office do like the visual attention of the men in the office whom she doesn’t find attractive (as long as it is done discreetly) due to the self-esteem boost she gets from this, while deploying most of the more overt aspects of her sexuality towards the men to whom she is attracted in the office. In any case, I think many of the assumptions about this, from the perspective of both sexes, are based on projection about the sexuality of the opposite sex and, in particular, a demonization of typical male sexuality coupled with an exaltation of typical female sexuality. Other areas where we see this are in the disparate ways male and female cheating patterns are often characterized as well as the disparate views on female-oriented sexual erotica and male-oriented sexual pornography. The sexuality of men and women is, generally, different, and currently male sexuality is generally problematized to a much higher degree than female sexuality is. I think this also leads to women naturally legitimizing their own attractional vectors — society as a whole is much less critical of these, generally speaking, than it is of male patterns of sexual attraction — regardless of the foibles of each.
Butterfly Flower – “Wanna read mine?”
Here’s a though for you, start your own blog.
That way you can talk about yourself to your hearts content. You can even keep the focus entirely on you.
It can just be all about you.
And, anyone who’s interested can go there for their up-to-the-minute-update on your favorite subject – you.
[D: Excellent idea.]
Brendan,
Can you check your email, please?
Sorry to interrupt, Dalrock.
Brendan: “We experience the world very differently, in erotic terms. Taking the same example, we are attracted to probably a slim majority of the women in any given setting”
That is certainly not true with me; I would say I am sexually attracted to about 1/20 of women in my age range (mid 40’s) because the obesity epidemic has rendered the female cohort asexual to me–in the “grey zone” as you well put it.
Now, years ago (say 1980’s), when I was young and their were not many overweight women, then yes, I would have been attracted to a slim majority of the women.
My theory is that thanks to the obesity epidemic and women losing their looks quickly and the value that men put on it, older men do take on the narrow women’s attraction zone. I can tell you this is a depressing place to be.
That is certainly not true with me; I would say I am sexually attracted to about 1/20 of women in my age range (mid 40′s) because the obesity epidemic has rendered the female cohort asexual to me–in the “grey zone” as you well put it.
In your age range, yes (although that varies by where you live, too — some places seem to attract more people who are quite conscientious about their looks, say Manhattan, LA, and so on). However, would you also feel so relatively unimpressed with a group of women in their 20s, from the attraction perspective?
Brendan: for me, the 20 year old cohort is much improved in terms of looks simply because they are less overweight than the 40 year old cohort but I would say 1/5 for me is sexually attractive; however, I live in one of the five fattest states in the nation in a small city (metro 300,000).
Perhaps I have the pickiness closer to an average woman more than to an average man.
My view is that your theory of a different narrowness of sexual attraction between men and women certainly was true before the obesity epidemic, but because men are more affected by woman’s BMI than women are affected by man’s BMI, the window is getting narrower for men, approaching to the narrowness of a woman’s window, as time passes because people are just getting fatter as the decades pass.
NMH: Yeah, even in countries where most people used to be slim you see a lot more obesity nowadays.
https://apps.who.int/infobase/Comparisons.aspx?l=&NodeVal=WGIE_BMI_5_cd.0704&DO=1&DDLReg=ALL&DDLSex=2&DDLAgeGrp=15-100&DDLYear=2010&DDLMethod=INTMDCTM&DDLCateNum=6&TxtBxCtmNum=20,35,50,65,80&CBLC1=ON&CBLC3=ON&CBLC4=ON&CBLC6=ON&CBLC8=ON&CBLC10=ON&DDLMapsize=800×480&DDLMapLabels=none&DDLTmpRangBK=0&DDLTmpColor=-3342388
@NMH
Im sorry, but with some women their consequences do not catch up with them, especially if they remain physically attractive. I know of a woman at 54 that has been married four times, has four kids, STD’s, and does not have a dime to her name. The expectation from the commentors above is that she will pay the price and die with cats in her lap in her 10 cent apartment next to the train tracks.
Nope.
She lives in a reasonably nice home and has a reasonably successful boyfriend. Why? Because at age 54 she looks much better than the average woman her age.
The thing is I would bet serious money she is still miserable. I’m guessing if you talk to her for five minutes you will hear how everyone from the pizza delivery guy to her kids to her current boyfriend has it in for her or has let her down in some profound way. Am I right?
And of course once her looks go she will be a single 4 times divorced penniless bitter old woman with STDs and 4 kids and 4 ex husbands. I’m guessing all 8 would rather have a root canal than deal with her. I’m also guessing she couldn’t live on a budget to save her life. Am I close?
If you add up the misery she has caused others throughout her life, it still isn’t “fair”. But either way it isn’t a life path I would wish for any young woman.
“My diaries have a cute Holden Caulfield-ish vibe.”
Holden was a creeper.
“I’m a judgmental brat”
You don’t say.
“so it’s just page after page of witty critical observations. ”
I think we’ve seen plenty of those from you. Wouldn’t call them witty though.
@nmh
I totally agree. The mid forties dating scene can be pretty depressing.
But I have to comment that there always seems to be people ready to jump in and point fingers. The ladies reading these comments typically jump in and say things like, “See, another example of a man with completely unrealistic views expecting to catch only the top 5 percent of women in SMV. Who the hell do they think they are? They should accept women as they are!”
Sorry, but it doesn’t work like that.
If I manage to keep fit, why shouldn’t I expect a potential partner to do the same?
If I my BMI is good, why shouldn’t I expect a potential partner’s to be good too?
If I am responsible with my job, finances, and kids, why shouldn’t I expect a potential partner to be the same way.
Harsh? I don’t think so. This is not about being perfect in all these areas. This is about trying and that requires some commitment and ability to, at times, put the needs of others before your own. Especially when it comes to money.
So when you date and meet women in their forties who don’t really seem to care about what they eat, spend, or do, it’s hard to see how they would add any value to your life. Add in the fact that a good portion of them left marriages for flimsy reasons. Or cheated. That doesn’t leave a whole lot to choose from and the ladies who do care and try typically aren’t out at happy hour. They are home taking care of kids, working, and living a responsible life. Makes it kind of tough to meet them.
I went on a guys weekend about a month ago for some golfing and such. Mostly mid forties guys, some divorced some not. One night the discussion focused on who they would target if they were on the market again and decided to look for a LTR. To a man they said that they would look for women who were cheated on and divorced by their cheating spouses or women who finally left abusive marriages. They had no faith in any reformed cheaters or financial train wrecks. None. Those ladies were moved over to the uncommitted sex zone.
Depressing or funny depending on your POV, but a harsh reminder of the realities of the mid forties dating zone.
I want to second the suggestion that Butterfly Flower get her own blog.
Butterfly Flower, just click on the wordpress link at the bottom of the page and you can start your own blog. Women who blog invariably end up with a cadre of obsequious beta orbiters. See for example the blog of Becca Swanson (linked to by Jack Donovan on Soft Shutdown). She blogs under her own name, and has an about me page, a me page, and a Gallery page with lots of photos like this one. She has a crew of beta orbiters ready to tell her she is the hottest woman anywhere whenever prompted. Note the number of men who tell her she is the most beautiful woman in the music video.
You can thank me later. And the rest of us can discuss the issues at hand.
Brendan: “Women are not attracted to most men they work with, regardless of how they are acting or dressing or what have you.”
Not exactly. I have spent my life working in high tech companies. At one of them in 2000-2001 I was working in a cube. The partitions of the office cubes were six feet high. Most people were unable to see over them. My cube was at the end of a row into a corner of the building, which formed a dead end. On the other side was a round table and 6-8 chairs that some genius had set up which people would sit around and make small talk. It made it difficult to concentrate since even hushed conversations were quite audible in my cube. Once morning a bunch of women congregated there. They ranged in age from early 20s to mid 40s. The topic of conversation was the “hotness, tightness, and desirability” of the ass of every man on the floor. It is true that many names were mentioned, shuddered over, and laughingly dropped, but a surprising number were graphically compared. They did not see the majority of the men as gray blanks or colorless. It reminded me of many locker room conversations between men in their early 20s, and the head to head debate was every bit as graphic.
After a few months management removed the table and chairs because of noise complaints. For all the annoyance of trying to concentrate when impromptu meetings would form, I kind of missed it.
Lavazza
Badger: “It’s the apex fallacy – women almost literally don’t see unattractive men as men.
I’ve talked to women about this for years. They complain they just want a guy who will treat them well. Then I point out a decent, in-their-league guy who’d be happy to do so, and they whinge “ohhhhhh…well, he’s not really my type you know.”
Funny how their “type” is always the guy all the other girls want. If your type is “conventionally attractive” it’s not a type.”
That’s easy, you already know the answer: social proofing. Because women are much more likely to be influenced by the opinions of other women, they are much more likely to be attracted to the same sorts of men as other women.
You write, by the age of 7 he already knows he won’t have to work to support himself when he is an adult. His parents are very liberal and don’t believe in discipline or telling him no. As a result Mark isn’t a kid many people want to have around. He even has relatives who genuinely enjoy kids who won’t babysit him. The kid is so spoiled and materialistic that when he is given a gift the first thing he looks for is a designer label.
—will never need to work
—parents provide no discipline
—some won’t babysit him
—materialistic and likes designer labels
these characteristics are widespread in the government-assisted class. they are far less common in the privileged class, and non-existent in the self-made money class. Yet, you provide it as a cautionary tale for the privileged.
I don’t agree with that either. There’s a subset of guys considered “superhot” that most women would sleep with in any case, but there’s a wide swath of men that many women would sleep with if in the right situation. And there are even guys that most women don’t notice, but that may strike a certain woman as attractive or desirable at a certain moment because of something he’s done or said. And that then sort of stays with her, and she’s reminded of it everytime she sees him, even if he isn’t very physically attractive.
There’s no counting for attraction really. I have friends who say, “So-and-so is so dreamy…”, and I’m like, “What? You’ve gotta be kidding me!”, and vice-versa. I think there’s less general agreement among women of “male hotness” than the Manosphere allows.
Brendan
I think to a significant degree this is because women are generally not as aware of what actually attracts them, at least in the sense of being able to articulate it easily. I think for a woman it is “normal” to find most members of the opposite sex kind of “grey” in terms of not being attractive, with a few standouts here and there who are “in color” — that is, they stand out from the grey/monotone mass of males and therefore are attractive. Of course, as you can see from that description, it’s very contextual — who stands out in a given context as compared with the rest of the guys. It’s a given, however, that in any context most of the guys are not going to be attractive to her, and she is used to this — it is “normal” for her and how she erotically experiences the world. As a result, I don’t think women view this as being “limited”, because it is the only kind of attraction they know.
This is a very profound and important observation, and one that bears a lot of thought. There’s probably a book that could be written off of Brendan’s posting, for those with the time.
This significant point can be tested rather easily with Game, and I have inadvertently done so to a trivial extent. Using principles of Game, in a coffee joint near a campus, or in other social gatherings, a man can be more or less visible to women. In Brendan’s very insightful terms, a man can enter the room either in color, or grey, and switch to the other mode. Clothing often doesn’t make the difference, either, although in a more formal setting it might. It’s the posture, the bearing, the tone and timbre of voice, the approach — all the things that Roissy addresses very well.
The first few times I experimented with this, it was simply astounding to behold the results, as I found that I had transitioned from “some guy” to “interesting man” merely by changing certain patterns of my behavior. Thinking about it in Brendan’s terms, it means I went from being a grey outline to a 3-D object in color — no wonder the transition was so rapid.
Thanks for this insight. Now if only women would read the other half and understand that it isn’t fickleness or being “an animal” that motivates men, it’s a different threshold and mode of attraction.
I think another sexual-market complication is that women generally prefer men who are a bit smarter than they are, but not really smarter than they are. If he’s dumber than them, they won’t take him seriously, but if he’s way smarter, then it’s like he’s from a different planet. That puts women like myself in a prime position (where there’s a glut of men competing for a relatively small subset of women), and allows women to “act up” with fewer consequences (until their fertility wanes), but creates a bit of a bottleneck for female mates at the far-right end of the curve.
So, I think the male competition for mates is rather fierce at either end of the IQ-curve, while the female competition for mates is fiercest in the middle 96%. Having Game allows men in the right 2% to move further left for potential mates, where there’s less competition.
Just speculating and extrapolating, based upon what little I’ve seen and experienced of the modern dating/marriage market.
Interested: “To a man they said that they would look for women who were cheated on and divorced by their cheating spouses or women who finally left abusive marriages. ” I am of this camp as well. 30 years ago, the fraction of women who left for this reason would be nearing 100%. Now, the fraction I would say is 20%, at best. Most women leave because their husband could no longer give them the tingle, or the man loses his good-status job. Man divorce women usually because the woman spends too much, are abusive, or to fat to be sexually attracted to. In short: it’s usually the woman’s fault nowadays.
Over In Mala Fide the theory is that on average, men get the women they deserve. While this is possibly true on average, if you are a good man with a high SMV that is certainly not true. If it was true, then there would be as many women with your SMV for your age, which of course is false.
The Manosphere meme that “it gets better for men” in regard to an LTR with a woman is vastly overrated, if not outright wrong. The reason is that the average woman’s SMV declines much faster than a man’s with age, such that women with a good SMV are extremely rare.
That last comment was sort of long and off-topic. In short, what I meant is:
At the very far right end of the curve women can afford to be more promiscuous and less faithful, and still maintain a relatively high market-value into her 40s or even later. I know brains aren’t supposed to count toward male attraction (so I’ve been told), but I’ve seen little evidence of that IRL. Or maybe it’s simply the correlation with other positive traits.
So most of the high-IQ women I know and know-of (and we tend to cluster, for obvious reasons) seem to be less worried about the decline in their SMV, and less inclined to warn other women about the negative consequences of that decline when coupled with unchastity. The focus is less on strict chastity and more on modesty (i.e. “not tempting men”) and protecting yourself from unwanted advances. Even if a high-IQ woman gets “left on the shelf” with her cats, she’ll probably have little trouble making ends meet financially, so she’s less frightened by the prospect (unless she has a bunch of young children, of course). The Internet raises her SMV because the men fall in love with her through writing first, which gives her a leg-up on the (younger, prettier) female competition.
TBH, I feel like my SMV is declining at such a slow pace that it’s hard to even care about it. I don’t feel like there’s a declining number of men interested in me (although I know there is, I don’t really care, as I’m only attracted to older men), only that the men whose interest I attract are getting progressively older.
So I write regularly about the practical importance of chastity, but it’s hard to get really worked up about it, and my female readers instinctively pick up on that. The women who would write most convincingly about the practical importance of chastity are those that fear the negative consequences of unchastity — and they’re not usually writing this stuff.
Oops. Clarified a long, wandering comment with a longer, more wandering one. Sorry.
Jack/Greenlander:
Spot on. I’d go one step further and suggest that the bums, louts, thugs, and meterosexuals that women seem to want so badly be shoved into the void the White Knights vacated. Since these bitches seem to pride themselves on not needing a good man, let them rely on the bad ones and see how well they fare when there aren’t any responsible men willing to bail them out anymore.
@jz
these characteristics are widespread in the government-assisted class. they are far less common in the privileged class, and non-existent in the self-made money class. Yet, you provide it as a cautionary tale for the privileged.
I don’t see it as a cautionary tale for the privileged. A family can be wealthy and choose to raise their children with discipline and expect them to make their own way in the world. I only offered this as an example of cruelty by kindness.
“Women who blog invariably end up with a cadre of obsequious beta orbiters.”
hahah, that reminds me of the women bloggers that Frost linked to. Damn were they entitled.
Interested said: “To a man they said that they would look for women who were cheated on and divorced by their cheating spouses or women who finally left abusive marriages. They had no faith in any reformed cheaters or financial train wrecks. None. Those ladies were moved over to the uncommitted sex zone.”
Agreed. In the 40s, the ones who weren’t at fault are best. The rest (‘Hos) are good for being cum-dumpsters. Period. The one I mentioned earlier (in her late 40s, divorced four times, still decent looking, still trying to alpha-chase on the cock carousel) is in the latter category… if she has a descriptive, “used” it would be. (She’s the one I told not to bug me unless she grew up and could accept a man who’d commit AND pork her brains out… if she wises up, she’s a nice piece of ass, what can I say?)
So is there an assumption that a womans hypergamous instinct is morally corrupt?
Because otherwise this post makes no sense to me. What does the chess player have to do with anything? Why would a teen girl naturally assume the chess player is nice and honest and the football player is a liar trying to get in her pants?
Also..what do we say about “beta orbiters”. I am sure every head cheerleader has a few. Are they deserving of whatever ways the cheerleader might take advantage of their infatuation and naivety?
I never had a whole lot of “orbiters” but back when I was 15 a guy liked me who had a car. I was tempted to string him along to get some free rides (though I didn’t)….if I had would I have been in the wrong? Is it wrong to take what is offered even when you sense the person offering has hopes for more than you will ever provide?
“Is it wrong to take what is offered even when you sense the person offering has hopes for more than you will ever provide?”
Yes, this is wrong. Do unto others as you would have them do to you, as you may vaguely recall.
“Do unto others” unless it is a foolish woman trying to trade sex for love?
So who gets to decide when the golden rule applies?
@Paige
So is there an assumption that a womans hypergamous instinct is morally corrupt?
It is no more and no less corrupt than the sexual impulses of the boy she has sex with.
What does the chess player have to do with anything? Why would a teen girl naturally assume the chess player is nice and honest and the football player is a liar trying to get in her pants?
She is following her tingle. She wants to have sex with the alpha (football player). She also wants to monopolize him sexually, and extract investment from him. This is only natural for her to want to do, the same for a 15 year old girl as a 25 year old one or a 35 year old one. She is following her base animal instinct. What is cruel is papering this over and pretending it is something entirely different, and even worse, inevitable. Women are less aware of their own sexual natures as it is. She got half of what she wanted (sex with an alpha), and our culture tells her she is a victim for not also securing investment from him at the same time. She is no more a victim than Karen Owen, who also had sex with alpha athletes and failed to obtain commitment and investment.
The operating assumption is that it is merely some profound coincidence that the 15 year old girl in the song and Karen Owen just happened to do the exact same things. So the hamster starts spinning and creates an elaborate explanation of why the 15 year old did the exact same thing but for entirely different reasons.
Otherwise we would have to confront the fact that the 15 year old girl was acting like a tart.
@Paige
“Do unto others” unless it is a foolish woman trying to trade sex for love?
So who gets to decide when the golden rule applies?
The most bizarre thing to me about many Trad Con women is how obsessed they are with creating “rules of the road” for sex out of marriage. They lay awake at night worrying that women’s hookups are not as fulfilling as they could be.
I understand why feminists do this, but not married church going women.
@Paige “So is there an assumption that a womans hypergamous instinct is morally corrupt?”
Possibly. What if the instinct was forged in an era when charismatic brutes with clubs ruled?
Unrestrained female hypergamy could be at odds with the goals of an advancing civilisation, by selecting for males who do not have the qualities to sustain it…
Which is to say, some measure of restraint on the “animal instincts” of both sexes might be required to advance our culture … hence, marriage, fidelity, religion, etc.
The Taylor Swift song is about a boy who lies (says he loves the girl…wants to be with her forever and ever)…the 15 year old thinks he is telling the truth and that the natural progression of this love is sex. She provides and then finds out that he lied..he did not love her and did not want to be with her forever and ever. She is hurt…she thought she was progressing a committing relationship to next level when in fact she was a pump-n-dump.
The guy lied. She believed the lie. She didn’t want “sex with an alpha” as a stand alone thing…she wanted love and commitment and thought she already had it.
For some women casual sex has ZERO appeal because they want sex to be an expression of love rather than lust. This is why she didn’t “want sex with an alpha” she wanted “love expressed through sex” which are totally different thinks. Her big mistake was assuming she had it based on the boys actual words.
You seem to be saying the boy did nothing wrong when he lied to this girl about his feelings and his intentions.
Being a Trad Con I dislike uncharitable behavior (such as a boy lying, deceiving, misleading) as much as I disagree with the foolishness that makes people easy targets.
There is nothing about the Taylor Swift song I disagree with. It is about a girl who was foolish and naive when she believed the boys lie. She then shakes herself off (hopefully learns her lesson) and moves on with her life. Taylor Swift song beautifully described the experience of learning a hard lesson without being cruel about it.
Paige, I have to confess, your posts are fascinating. Pure, distilled hamstereley.
What about my argument is flawed? Is it or is it not ok to lie? Who is more at fault..the person who lies or the person who believed the lie?
Guys should not lie about their intentions; for example, I think guys like Roissy, if they lie to women about “feelings” they may have to get the chick in the sack, are low grade slime. However, my complaint about Taylor Swift is that she is whining that this guy lied to her to get sex, when she should shut her damn yap and accept the possible negative consequences of opening her legs for some guy. It is regrettable that he lied, but that does not absolve her from her responsibility of agreeing to going horizontal with the guy.
Lots of her songs are about how alpha lied to her. She needs to stop whining and shut the f*ck up, accept the consequences that she got rogered buy heartless men. What would be refreshing would be if she wrote a song with these lyrics:
Yes, he lied to me….
But in the end it was my respons-i-bility…
for I felt the tingle….
and took a chance…
and then he porked me, and gave me a song-and-dance…
But the fault was…
…mine…mine…mine…
*Marshall Tucker Guitar tang*
You seem to be saying that the guy lying was “regrettable” but not as regrettable as the fact that she wanted something she shouldn’t have wanted…
But what was wrong with what she wanted? She wanted a committed monogamous relationship with a guy. What about that desire is deserving of shame?
And how exactly is a girl suppose to know when she has a commitment if she isn’t going by the guys words?
I suppose you could say that she should wait til marriage but how many guys are willing to do that? Maybe 1 in a 100? How many guys here would marry a girl without having sex first? Is that even an option for any people other than the super religious anymore?
@Paige
And how exactly is a girl suppose to know when she has a commitment if she isn’t going by the guys words?
Saying “I love you” isn’t a commitment. It also isn’t a promise to be monogamous. If you aren’t clear on this as a married Catholic woman, you will steer many teen age women astray. And that is cruel.
If a person says they love you and is not committed to you then they are lying, because love is by definition a commitment to the other persons well-being.
@Paige “What about my argument is flawed?”
Begin with the assumption that cads exist. Can they be sifted from men/boys with honour? In a casual hookup regime, very difficult. Solution: delays and tests.
Did Taylor Swift make her suitor slay a dragon? Several dragons?
@Paige
If a person says they love you and is not committed to you then they are lying, because love is by definition a commitment to the other persons well-being.
Nope. It doesn’t imply a relationship of any specific duration, and it isn’t a promise to remain monogamous. No matter how much you want it to be. I had a roomate in college who was a natural PUA. He would come home on a regular basis, sometimes more than once in a week, and declare that he had fallen in love. He was telling the truth. He loved them all. And they all had a place in his harem.
Perhaps more troubling to me is that you are trying to make serial LTRs into a sort of mini marriage. There is no moral basis for this, at least not a Christian one. Serial monogamy is the female preferred version of promiscuity. A harem is the male preferred version. This equation of serial monogamy with a higher moral status is a large part of why marriage is crumbling as an institution. And as I mentioned before, it leads young girls down a very harmful path.
In a high school scenario some of the cads haven’t had enough experience to get a reputation for being a cad. Taylor Swifts high school boyfriend might have even been a virgin who decided after his first lay that he wanted variety instead of a girlfriend.
Delays and tests can help but it is not really obvious in the song that the boyfriend hadn’t been tested or that they hadn’t waited several months…so we don’t know that he was giving off any signals that he was a cad.
If we lived in a conservative culture then I could be more hostile towards those who don’t live up to the cultural norms. Since we live in a secular culture I judge peoples culpability in their actions according to secular standards.
Sex before marriage is a moral evil by religious standards but by secular standards it is a necessity to have a relationship at all. Lying is a secular evil as well as a religious evil…so I judge a secular liar more harshly than a secular person having unwed sex.
I don’t understand why the words “I love you” should be assumed to be meaningless but the words “I am committed” should be taken at face value. They both strike me as bold-faced lies if the person is going to dump a girl after he has sex with her.
Paige is committing a huge and common fallacy – assuming that the woman has no real understanding of the system she is in, but that the man is a fully self-aware rational actor.
It’s worth noting that guys in these situations are often as turned inside out by their emotions and brain chemicals as the girls are. Believe me, in the sexual moment, you do love the woman you are with. You say it, or want to say it. But you have literally no way of knowing if that’s how you will feel tomorrow, the next week, next month, etc. Another reason it’s silly to tell girls to ask their boyfriends to “love” them before they take their pants off.
So don’t think Mr Football is sitting on his perch plotting how he can pump and dump with the most efficiency.
Badger- It doesn’t make any sense to me that a man would go from “love” to “no way” after he has sex with his girlfriend. If the dump is almost immediately after the sex doesn’t that strongly suggest that he planned to do it? Especially if they waited weeks (hopefully months) before jumping into the sack?
“Badger- It doesn’t make any sense to me that a man would go from “love” to “no way” after he has sex with his girlfriend. ”
That’s because you’re not a man. This sometimes happens and we have no control over how our emotions work. But you seem committed to the idea that a man has to accommodate a woman’s emotions (i.e. the woman wanting to lock him down) but the woman has no obligation to account for a man’s feelings (he may not want to be her boyfriend). Her wants are the only ones that matter.
“If the dump is almost immediately after the sex doesn’t that strongly suggest that he planned to do it?”
That’s a projection. Again, you don’t seem to really understand how men work, so you assume we’re operating on a predatory model.
Taylor Swift should simply wait two years, then she’ll know it all:
Considering how many men here brag about their “pump-n-dumping” how on earth would I come to a conclusion other than that many men work on a predatory model and are lauded by other men for it?
Few men here talk about how they felt bad dumping a woman after she slept with him. Rather the general attitude is one of bragging and conquest. You are upset women judge men by what they say rather than what they think which according to you is very different than what they say?
Paige – ”If the dump is almost immediately after the sex doesn’t that strongly suggest that he planned to do it?”
Or, perhaps it was that demonic voice emanating from her during the sex. I know that would have made me dump a gal right afterwards.
But, seriously, it just might be that actually having sex with a girl makes a guy realize that he just isn’t that in to her. Don’t women routinely discuss the men who turned out to be disappointing lovers? I’ve heard that it’s quite common for women to do so, and to never again have sex with a man who was disappointing as a lover. Isn’t that effectively the female version of a “pump and dump”?
They didn’t go into planning that outcome, they just had a change of heart afterwards.
Paige – ”Considering how many men here brag about their “pump-n-dumping” how on earth would I come to a conclusion other than that many men work on a predatory model and are lauded by other men for it?”
Well, let’s count them up. Let’s see there’s Greenlander and…and…um, huh? Okay, I have the total at one. Now, how many other guys post here who don’t brag about their “pump-n-dumping”? And what’s that percentage…?
I’m not sure I’m following your line of argument here.
I meant the general manosphere like Spearhead, IMF, etc. And for every guy who admits to being a cad there are 5 more who applaud him. Since this is my exposure to men expressing their thoughts on women it isn’t such a huge leap to think that the “pump-n-dump” isn’t such a rarity amongst men…at least not amongst manosphere men.
Dalrock this is text book man. I have learned a years worth in one article. It had to be real because there is no way you could have scripted this thread.
Paige said: “So is there an assumption that a woman’s hypergamous instinct is morally corrupt?”
Well, it’s hurtful to others, self-destructive and amoral as a two-year-old’s attention being drawn by a passing fire engine (not to mention irrational) without right and wrong or at least some basic sense from life lessons being applied to it, so it’s assumed to be morally corrupt and seldom fails to confound. Call it Things That Make You Go “Unnngh, do me hard before my loser husband gets home!” (and I Want the House, the Kids and Half His Income because I’m “In Love” with You and He’s Disappointed Me) if you will.
P.S. Not to mention that “I do… until I don’t feel like it” isn’t very moral either.
Paige – ”I meant the general manosphere like Spearhead, IMF, etc. And for every guy who admits to being a cad there are 5 more who applaud him.”
As a long-time reader of The Spearhead, I cannot recall there ever being a significant amount of bragging about “Pump and Dumps”; and I sure don’t recall those who did getting applause for it.
”Since this is my exposure to men expressing their thoughts on women…”
I think you might have meant to say, “Since this is my (apex fallacy) impression of men expressing their thoughts on women…”
I really do think your considering a very few, and equating it to the majority of men here.
BTW, I could help but notice that while you felt quite compelled to respond to the second part of my post, you are never-the-less noticeable silent about the first part.
Do you really believe that men don’t at times end up regretting their choices to have sex with certain women/girls?
Frankly, it’s not all that rare. Having “bad sex” can be as off-putting for either gender. And, I do know that woman routinely discuss the attribute and abilities of the men they sleep with amongst their friends, and that if a guy was a “lousy f*ck”, if the woman does give him the time of day afterwards, it will be most likely be something along the lines of, “Um, let’s just be friends”.
I suppose you would contend that because she “friended” him rather than “dumped” him, that she is somehow morally better than a guy that dumps a girl he regrets having had sex with?
Amirantes said: “Begin with the assumption that cads exist. Can they be sifted from men/boys with honour?”
Absolutely. Having defined morals and character as being too timid to break the rules, they’re not the “losers” you won’t date. Or, put another way, they’re the exciting men/boys that you, all the other girls and the police want.
”Considering how many men here brag about their “pump-n-dumping” how on earth would I come to a conclusion other than that many men work on a predatory model and are lauded by other men for it?”
Again, there is a huge difference between greenlander – who was burned by women in his young adult life and is having casual sex with women who clearly are down for casual sex – and a high school football player in the throes of adolescence with little to no sexual experience and women throwing themselves at him. Assigning moral fault to a 17-year old boy who is just as much at the mercy of his hormonal cocktail as the girl is is ludicrous and frankly shameful.
I think Camille Paglia is germane: “if women are going to have sexual adventures, they need to accept that there will be sexual misadventures.” We can do no worse than to not make this point to them. As I said on a later thread, Tradcons appear to be fixated on impressing their market values on a new and novel market structure that doesn’t fit it; it might sound good on boundless but it’s a punchline in mainstream society.
Paige wrote: “Considering how many men here brag about their “pump-n-dumping” how on earth would I come to a conclusion other than that many men work on a predatory model and are lauded by other men for it?
Few men here talk about how they felt bad dumping a woman after she slept with him. Rather the general attitude is one of bragging and conquest. You are upset women judge men by what they say rather than what they think which according to you is very different than what they say?”
@ Paige: I second the comments above that there are reports of pump & dumping, but I don’t sense that the attitude is one of braggadocio or chest – thumping. If you’ve spent time at Spearhed or IMF, you know it’s generally set out there that pump & dump came to prominence as a response to the current SMP and hookup culture. Have there always been pump & dumps? Of course. And it isn’t just alphas who pump & dump.
But I think all this is really beside the point.
I’m directing these comments not specifically at you, but using your statements above to try to illustrate something that I think sometimes is overlooked. Please understand that what I’m writing is not intended to cast aspersions on you or anyone else, or make moral judgments about what men or women do.
One of the main points and purposes of what is generally, monolithically called “the manosphere” is to explain and educate what science knows (and what previous generations instinctively knew) about how humans get together and stay together. This includes what men and women find attractive and why, the evolutionary and biological nature of men and women (and that they are very different), the evolution of marriage/dating/hookup culture, and the political and sociosexual upheavals brought about by the feminist movement. Most importantly, it appears the manosphere arose (at least bloggers like Dalrock, Badger and Athol Kay) to educate men and women about these things so as to improve their lives.
Many men – myself included – came of age at the very beginning of the hookup culture and during the heyday of the feminist movement. I was told absolutely nothing of any value about male-female relationships. I was told to “be nice”. I wasn’t told much about my own nature, or that of women. As a result I found myself constantly perplexed, confused and frustrated all at the same time. I have to believe that my experience is not unique.
I was told nothing about hypergamy or the nature of men and women. To wit: (1) women wanting the best man they can get, and that all other men are literally invisible. (2) the rationalization hamster and its purposes; (3) what LJBF really means. (4) that serial monogamy is women’s ideal relationship model. (5) That women’s most valuable attributes are youth, beauty and chastity; and that men instinctively know this. (6) that men’s most valuable attributes are confidence, charisma and dominance and the ability to display them convincingly; and that women instinctively know this; (7) that a man’s physical appeal and/or attractiveness are not paramount; (8) Women riding the carousel while their SMV is highest, then trying to find beta providers (and most importantly, WHY the carousel exists and why women ride it; (9) women scratching their heads when they can’t find one willing to commit because their most valuable attributes (youth, looks and chastity) are severely compromised or gone altogether; (10) most men find most women somewhat attractive; but most women find only a few men even a little attractive.
Quite simply, I believe most boys and young men are just not taught these things for a variety of reasons that are beyond the scope of this comment. It appears to me the manosphere is here to teach us about them now, and to teach younger generations how to navigate the dating/mating/hookup/marriage minefield. It’s high time we learned them, understood them, and applied them to our relationships to improve the lives of men, and thus our women. Sure, there are some in the manosphere who rant about this or that injustice, or the divorce court rape culture, etc. etc. But the most valuable service the manosphere provides is education about things that have been heretofore been poorly understood or considered too politically incorrect to say.
I might also point out that most of the constraints on the basest behavior of men and women (pump & dump, hypergamy) have been eliminated. I submit that the removal of slut shaming, easy access to birth control, no-fault divorce, the complete impotence and dereliction of duty of the modern Church, and marriage delay have something to do with the rise of the current hookup culture, the prominence of pump & dump, and women’s jettisoning of husbands and LTRs for the flimsiest of reasons. H/T Roissy, Dalrock, Badger.
I can readily forgive them for being ignorant of reality at 15. Who among us wasn’t?
Grown-ups who succumb to the same fallacies, on the other hand…
Actually, W.F. Price, of the Spearhead, has a simply FASCINATING article where he went nuts that a guy was being charged for distributing underage pornography when he widely distributed naked pictures of his girlfriend in order to please other girls who wanted to hurt her. Apparently, this was in some way important to men’s rights.
I’m sure the English will begin raving about “what should be legal”… a degree of abstraction above “what is legal”. I’m going to be a little less abstract. Was what he was doing a deliberate act of cruelty and evil? Is it bad?
Kinda like when Susan would throw herself at a guy in college, and then dump him later. You know, to satisfy her desire for cruelty. Got her “poor” daughter shredded though. So sad. To bad. 🙂
Pingback: High-IQ dating « Traditional Catholicism
I was fascinated with the Taylor Swift Fifteen discussion. I read the lyrics provided and watched the music video. Here’s some things I found interesting:
“hoping one of those senior boys will wink at you”
“and then you’re on your very first date and he’s got a car”
“in your life you’ll do greater than dating the boy on the football team”
“and Abigail gave everything she had to a boy who changed his mind and we both cried”
Check out hypergamy in action. Older? Check. Has indicators of independence? Check. High status? Check. Friends who date douchebags? Check. We have an idea of the suspect based on MO, and the evidence has spoken. Alf-uh.
(P.S. What about all the freshmen-junior guys without cars, in every other club/sport who dinner-date? I hear Swifts voice coo:”Uhhhh, not my type.”)
Concerning love:
Man- “I love you.” (“Damn you’re hot, feminine, have a lot of hot friends, AND push my buttons.”)
Woman- “I love you.” (“Damn you’re aggressive and alpha and I want your money do me now.”)
Betas/Hos- “I love you.” (“Damn you are about to walk out on me.”)
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: _______ Edition
Pingback: Are the vast majority of women truly incapable of experiencing recriprocal love and attraction? | Dalrock
Dalrock, I don’t think the song’s a bad influence at all; I think it’s simply expressing what girls generally feel. Taylor was remembering that as a girl, and telling other girls subtly what she learned. Brilliant post, though; you have a great balance of honesty and kindness.
Pingback: We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan | Dalrock
Pingback: Women are innately good. | Dalrock
Pingback: Red pill bitterness | Dalrock