Monday, June 4, 2012

H-Y-P-E-R-G-A-M-Y. Find out what it means to me!

Out and about in the shopping centre, I kept hearing the song 'Respect' first sung by Aretha Franklin, but reproduced by many others.

The line R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Find out what it means to me! grabbed my attention, not so much for the demand for 'respect' as the 'find out what it means to me' part.

I have always been at odds with this line, by the way. By that I mean that it has always struck me as odd. Now of course I know why.
It always seemed a touch abrasive for a woman to be demanding of a man for 'respect'.
And it seemed somehow 'unfeminine' to me even before I understood what femininity meant.
Like most (feminine) women, I would rather be loved than respected.
I didn't get it that Aretha Franklin wanted 'respect'.
Unless she meant a specific form of respect which even I would demand of a man without verbalising it...
But I am getting off topic! (as usual :-)

What I applaud Aretha Franklin for in this line is the request for the chance to 'clarify'.
Male-female communication is often flawed because we have different brains.
I usually have no problems understanding other women when they speak or otherwise communicate with me (and I often communicate non-verbally with women!).

But sometimes when a man is being as clear as he thinks he is being, I am still scratching my head as to how to decipher his 'code'.
It is sometimes amusing, but more often than not, it is tragic.
At least for me.




Hypergamy is a word that is bandied about a lot in The Manosphere.
When I first came across this word, I thought it sounded like a disease.
:-)

Things haven't changed.
Because if it is indeed descriptive of how The Manosphere define it, then it is a disease that I wouldn't want.

Speaking of which...

I cannot verify the authenticity of the following story, but given the context, perhaps it should indeed be taken with not just a pinch of salt, but a bucketload.

On April 1st, an online florist company sent its customers an email offering them a choice of flowers to be delivered direct to their door for a special occasion of their choosing.

The following were on offer:

1. Narcissus sylvestris
2. Arum vulgare
3. Viola alba
4. Candida albicans
5. Viscum album
6. Narcissus jonquilla
7. Lanicera caprifolium


Only one of these is not actually a flower. And surprisingly, it was the most popular choice.
Incidentally, no-one chose either of the Narcissus species :-)

Thanks but no thanks to the Candida albicans.
But those who chose it clearly were not aware of what it was.

A bunch of florists having some fun on April Fools' Day.
But somehow I feel I cannot afford to have a laugh about what certain words mean to me.
In the course of blogging about specific issues in the SMP, it has struck me just how differently men and women see the world. The difference in perspective is really more than even I expect sometimes.

Which is not a bad thing, of course.
Men and women should be different.
Otherwise we would all be some weird form of hemaphrodite.
And that would be boring for a start. And there would be no more of us in the coming years :-)

In any case, feminism attempted to do away with said differences.
And look where that took us.

Occasionally, I feel the need to clarify something, if not to anyone else, at least to myself.
This is one such occasion.

This is how The Manosphere defines hypergamy, at least this is my understanding of its definition:
'Woman marries up, and keeps looking out for even higher status men and will trade up at the earliest opportunity that suits her, i.e. when first man is no longer of use to her'.

And this is mine:
'Woman seeks the highest status man she can get and stays with him because it is in her best interests and that of her subsequent progeny to remain a unit with said high status man'.



Both involve a woman seeing a man as bigger, stronger, taller, maybe even cleverer, etc.
The only ones in denial of this reality are those whose heads are stuck in the sand upside down.

But the similarity ends there.
The difference between my definition and The Manosphere's definition (and of course this is based on their perception, which is in turn based on their reality - so I am not blaming anyone for this) is the 'trade up' thing.
This whole 'trading up' thing: that's a relatively recent phenomenon, no? A sister of the EPL phenomenon?
And to me, it doesn't even make sense in Nature.

A woman is the audience of a male 'mating dance' of sorts where several men figuratively (and in many cases quite literally!) 'peacock' their way into her life, with or without her express and often covert help. She may not be totally passive in the whole process - and very often, she is actively complicit in the whole selection process.

Assuming she is a normal woman, with good character, a 'trade up' to a different man, after a few kids with the first man doesn't even make sense.
It is wired into most women to join forces with a man and keep him around to care for the young with her.
It is thus in the best interests of a woman to keep the connection going.
Barring serious reasons, it is against a woman's best interests to break this bond.

But, I wonder, is it even right to call it a trade up?
How many women really succeed in trading up?

Often, it is a trade sideways, or in most cases, a trade down.


Hypergamy?
No.
Folly.

If on April 1st next year I get an email saying: You have  a choice between the following two diseases: Hypergamy (as The Manosphere describe it) and C. albicans...
(Um, yes, I never seem to get the kind that offers you a choice between £5m upfront and £200,000 a year for life...but my lack of electronic luck aside...)...

I would choose the latter.
In the face of two evils...








172 comments:

just visiting said...

Hypergamy might have traded up in the "wild", but life spans were very short. Women through out the ages would have had a tough time doing this in their thirties and forties (Which seems to be the age of the modern trade up)

I suppose that for all the complaints of how modern women look, back in the day, hitting 30 or forty meant you were haggard.

So who are these women the men of the sphere claim have traded up? They're older, probably have kids, and yet they pulled better than the the man they got in their twenties? It happens, but they make it sound like this is how it always happens. I'm not convinced. In order to trade up, either these women got a whole lot better, or their husbands got a whole lot cr&ppier.

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

Yes this is something I have never fully understood. Whilst I am sure that there is a lot of 'dissatisfaction' with one's husband at some point (but this is normal I expect), I am not sure that women in general want to 'trade up' as such.
Is it that as women get older and their naural T levels rise, they begin to develop 'masculine' tastes in that they seek 'variety' like men?
If so, God defend us!
But in that case, it is still not a case of 'trading up'. It is just a case of seeking something else...or someone else.
Which is of course wrong if vows of faithfulness have been taken - I am not condoning this behaviour...but I just wonder if the men in The Manosphere have misunderstood this particular phenomenon...
I wonder a lot about this. And it is still a source of confusion for me.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I feel that the majority of men in the manosphere are just bitter. And you can't really take seriously the rants of such people.

I'm just looking for a man who understands the importance of family, and wants to build a life with me. Once I've invested considerable time and effort into that, it'd be quite foolish of me to throw it away for the chance of something shinier.

But I think as Susan said back on HUS, there are men who have a vested interest in proving how vile and despicable people are. Not really much one can do about that.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Anonymous,

"Personally, I feel that the majority of men in the manosphere are just bitter. And you can't really take seriously the rants of such people."

Whilst I have a tendency to sympathise with them and know why some of them are bitter, I can't help but agree with your advice.
Self-preservation is everything.

"I'm just looking for a man who understands the importance of family, and wants to build a life with me. Once I've invested considerable time and effort into that, it'd be quite foolish of me to throw it away for the chance of something shinier."

You took these words right out of my mouth!
I really don't 'get it' that any woman would throw away a good thing. Unless...it wasn't a good thing in the first place. And I do accept that it can be hard to know sometimes...

I totally agree with you that the bitterness, after a while can become 'a bit old' as they say.
But the lessons the bitter rants provide are a source of education to those who were not aware of said bitterness in the first place, and is a source of healing for the ranters, as they go through this 'stage' in their journey towards resolution.

Thanks for your sensible comment. I hope you find that man! And that you do indeed build a happy and fulfilling life with him.

Anonymous said...

@ Spacetraveller

Thanks for your kind words. I literally went, "Awww!!".

"But the lessons the bitter rants provide are a source of education to those who were not aware of said bitterness in the first place, and is a source of healing for the ranters, as they go through this 'stage' in their journey towards resolution."

I totally get this, and hope that they find peace. It can't be easy dragging all that anguish around

Bellita said...

ST, your reaction to the lyrics of Respect remind me of my general reaction to people who demand respect. I know there's a dignified way to remind rude people that they should be behaving better, but respect is a little like love . . . If the other person is not willing to give it to you, it's not worth the trouble to wrestle it from him or her. Just be the better person and try to avoid those people.

I'll get to your actual points about hypergamy in a while. =)

Grasshopper said...

Hypergamy as you define it ST assumes that any given woman will always act in her own rational best long term self-interest when it comes to selecting and/or staying with a man.

We all know that isn’t true by a long shot.

To put it another way no man ever won a women’s heart by logically and rationally convincing her he is her best long term option.

As B put in a previous post on this site it has more to do with his “sizzle”

So hypergamy as I see it is the phenomenon of a woman wanting a man with more sizzle than the one she has currently.

My perception is this occurs in the SMP before marriage and kids and not after. I agree it would not be rational of her to do this after the kids have arrived – but I do not think even married with kids women make rational decisions all the time.

Grasshopper

Spacetraveller said...

@ Anonymous,

"It can't be easy dragging all that anguish around"

No it can't. It is certainly self-defeating too.
I think it was Nelson Mandela who said (and I paraphrase): 'Being bitter is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die'.

Bell,

"I know there's a dignified way to remind rude people that they should be behaving better, but respect is a little like love... If the other person is not willing to give it to you, it's not worth the trouble to wrestle it from him or her."

Touché.
You are so right...
But between the two (respect and love), respect is the more incorrect one to demand of a man, because I don't think a man will ever dish out respect unless it is earned, but he may give love...but even so...if given 'grudgingly' because it is demanded of him, it may not be love worth having.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

"To put it another way no man ever won a women’s heart by logically and rationally convincing her he is her best long term option."

I never claimed that a woman's love for a man can be achieved 'logically', no. Whilst some women can be 'cerebral' and calculating about who they 'choose', most 'happen upon love' quite by accident, or at least arrive there via a mixture of 'higher function' and 'it just happened' :-)

"As B put in a previous post on this site it has more to do with his “sizzle”"

No no no, Grasshopper! I am almost certain that Bellita meant the opposite! Of course I shouldn't speak for Bellita, but what I remember of her comment that you refer to is that she was not particularly impressed by the men with no 'inner character' who had nothing to offer but a charade that she was calling 'sizzle'.
That 'sizzle' alone never wins a quality woman's heart. It may cloud her judgment for a short while, but she will soon see through it. Of that I am sure. (Now, it's probably worth mentioning that once the fog has cleared, she may still love him enough to 'give him a second chance' but that's not to say that 1. she didn't notice that his first approach was just 'sizzle' and that
2. it was the 'sizzle' that sealed the deal for him...
But that's me getting off-topic again..sorry.

I really do not see that a woman, especially one who has struggled to find her 'one' would chuck it all out in search of 'something shinier' as Anonymous puts it. It just doesn't make sense to me. And frankly, it seems to me that this goes against the grain. Especially nowadays where it is getting harder and harder to find someone of the same values/tastes/compatibility. I think The Manosphere has certainly overplayed this concept to some extent.
Why would a mother separate her kids fom their own father and expect another man to be a better father to her kids than their own father? I don't get it.
Is so-called 'hypergamy' just a woman's attempt to get away from a less-than-ideal man, (and down the line she may meet another man of equal or lesser quality to her ex-husband, or as JV explained, a better quality man, but this is the exception rather than the rule) and not so much seeking a better one?
The idea that a woman is 'programmed' in some way to seek a higher status man after marriage just doesn't ring very true to me.
I do understand that until she has chosen one man to marry or have a LTR with, a woman may keep 'trading up'... that, I understand. We all do it, that's kind of the point of 'looking' otherwise known as 'dating' or 'courting'. But after the 'point of no return' (marriage) most women would be acutely aware that their best chance is behind them, not yet to come! Yes, there is a good chance that she will get a great man if she is or has become a qualiy woman, but she would be aware that like her, he will most likely come with more baggage, not less. A woman would choose that? I find that hard to believe...
Surely in this case, 'better the devil you know...' applies, unless the 'devil' is less 'little devil' and more 'Satan himself'.

just visiting said...

I think this song represents a sore point . Respect has to be earned not demanded. Everytime I think of someone demanding respect, I'm reminded of my step father.

In the same vein, I think that when women demand respect, it has a similar effect on men. What have we done to earn it. Do we expect or demand it simply for existing? Do we demand equal respect for unequal expectations? Are we engaging in behavior that brings contempt upon us?

Do our natures respond better to love than respect. I think our egos respond to respect, but our beings respond to love. I think it's the opposite for men.

Bellita said...

Re: the sizzle and the steak

I think what I was saying was that all Game and no character is like all sizzle and no steak.

Having clarified that, I'm sure there are many women whose "hamsters" are on steriods and can easily rationalize that a man who is only sizzle is actually a great steak. And these sorts won't care that he is unemployed, has a criminal record, already has x number of children with y number of women, and so on . . .

But my argument with the Manosphere is that although all women may be capable of that (because nobody is above temptation . . . or occasional stupidity--Hahahaha!), that doesn't mean all women take it to its "inevitable" conclusion. I have a very good friend who admitted about her awful ex-boyfriend, "I fell in love with an asshole." It was doubly humiliating because she had been reading Manosphere blogs while she was still with him and didn't see that he was just Gaming her. But she does know better now what real "steak" is.

ST, I see that the "steak" metaphor is more versatile than I gave it credit for! ;)

Spacetraveller said...

@ JV,

"I think this song represents a sore point."

It certainly does!
You know what, it doesn't surprise me that it was composed in the 60's. It would never have 'made it' before the rise of feminism. A woman (who is clearly home-based) is demanding that her husband come home from work and show her 'respect'...
Hmm. If I put on my 'man goggles' for a minute I can't help but see how grating this could be to a man. He goes out to earn his daily crust for his family and he comes home to that?
A better line would perhaps have been: I have all this respect for you - show me you appreciate me! Or even, show me you love me! Or something to that effect...
Because as the line stands, I can see that a lot of men would automatically go on the offensive...and that can't be good for a marriage...

"Do our natures respond better to love than respect. I think our egos respond to respect, but our beings respond to love. I think it's the opposite for men."

God bless you JV. I think this is pure gold...I never saw it quite like this before. I shall take some time to digest this properly. I think this is useful information for me.

Bell, thanks for the clarification of what you meant about 'steak'.

"ST, I see that the "steak" metaphor is more versatile than I gave it credit for! ;)"

Bellita, you might want to bottle this up and patent it because I intend to keep using this analogy, and you should get the appropriate royalties from it!

Grasshopper said...

Well OK maybe I took away a different meaning from the sizzle post than intended. I seem to recall it had something to do with the reason ‘nice guys’ were passed up. Comparing men to a buffet table of dishes the nice guy was like a plate of veggies – good for you and women recognize that – but passed over because he lacked the sizzle like a steak.

So a steady diet of steak while it may have negative long term health consequences was chosen over the healthier but blander veggie option.

My point is I don’t see women making their man choices based on long term rational thinking of what is best for them and hypergamy requires a high degree of rational thinking so I don’t think it comes into play as often as thought.

Maybe women get more rational as they get older and wiser and see some of the consequences of steak every day and at some point decide to switch to veggies.

The problem or should I say the risk with that is the veggies having been passed over time and again do wilt. Their enthusiasm or crispiness in keeping with the food analogy fades over time.

You may not like whatever degree of bitterness this may leave in a good man – but just remember from his perspective he is dealing with someone who has gorged herself on steak for a decade or more. That has an effect on you ladies different but akin to the bitterness you might perceive him to have.

Grasshopper

Bellita said...

@Grasshopper
Comparing men to a buffet table of dishes the nice guy was like a plate of veggies – good for you and women recognize that – but passed over because he lacked the sizzle like a steak.

I think this is where the analogy breaks down . . . or should break down. Self-improvement is always possible, so that if a man is not sizzling steak right now, perhaps he is steak-getting-ready-to-sizzle. I've started to think that men who think of themselves as the plate of vegetables are giving into a defeatist, self-pitying mindset. In such a case, it is no wonder that they react with bitterness when women "trade up" to them. It's not because of the way women see them, but because of the way they see themselves. After all, if a woman is "trading up," that is a compliment to the man she chooses, yes? But if a man sees himself in a poor light, it doesn't matter how many compliments a woman pays him . . . He will find a way to spin it as an insult.

A few weeks ago, as I related in another thread, I told a suitor that I didn't think I could reciprocate his feelings and that we should end the courtship. His reply: "I'm so sorry that I offended you, as I clearly have done."

Please note that he did not offend me. His attentions flattered and even humbled me, and I tried longer to feel a connection to him than I would have with any other man. But I just couldn't. I told him as much when I turned him down, but he could not get over his own low opinion of himself. So he just assumed I had a low opinion of him, too.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

"You may not like whatever degree of bitterness this may leave in a good man – but just remember from his perspective he is dealing with someone who has gorged herself on steak for a decade or more. That has an effect on you ladies different but akin to the bitterness you might perceive him to have."

When I read this, I was about to laugh when I realised you are making a solemn and serious point.
So it's not funny anymore.
I sympathise with the good man you describe here, as you know. So do the rest of the ladies who comment here.

But I find an opportunity to ask you a question:

How do you envisage that hypergamy can be 'solved' to a level that men find palatable? And I mean the pre-marriage kind, of course.
Any ideas?
Do you have an ideal with regard to this?
(I guess what I am really asking you, is, what exactly do you mean by 'someone who has gorged herself on steak for a decade or more'?)
It may surprise you to learn that I am not exactly sure what you mean by this. I think it is too important a point as to make assumptions about what you mean. I don't what to guess your 'code' here - I want you to spell it out to me: explain it to me like I am a 6 year old...

Bellita,

You make another serious point:
"I've started to think that men who think of themselves as the plate of vegetables are giving into a defeatist, self-pitying mindset."

I hope you remember that you and I had this discussion over at yours when I mentioned a man who was quite happy to see himself as a 'hamburger' as 'opposed to the more prestigious 'steak'.

And I can really see how this is MADDENING for a woman who wants a man to see himself as a king, but knows that he only sees himself as a beggar with bedsores...
But alas, the woman really ought to leave said man to elevate himself to the level of king in his own mind, because she can never do it for him, at least not with a good outcome...

"After all, if a woman is "trading up," that is a compliment to the man she chooses, yes?"

Yes on principle, again I see your point, Bellita.
But (and this is why I am really keen to get Grasshopper to spit it out - what he means by 'someone who has gorged herself on steak for a decade or more') if this woman who is 'trading up' is what a man sees as 'used goods' (oh how I hate this term! but sadly this is a frequent term in Manosphere-land) then he really would see her trading up to him (desirable mercahndise as he may see himself as) as an insult.

"...but he could not get over his own low opinion of himself. So he just assumed I had a low opinion of him, too."

Ah, how awful you must have felt, Bell.
What's more, so often, the man's lack of confidence is indeed the trigger to cause a woman to flee (not in your case, but in general it could happen like this).

Grasshopper, do you envisage ever getting out of that 'veggie' mindset?
What would it take to help you get there?
Any clues?
Any other man with the same sentiment have an answer for us ladies?

You know, it has just occurred to me reading over my own comment, and Grasshopper's that there is a side to The Manosphere I don't remember ever coming across before...
It is not about bitterness, this facet.
It is more about quiet disappointment, and dejection.

And I think that may be worse than bitterness.
I don't know why though. I just know that this latter gives me the chills in a way that bitterness just cannot.

Bellita said...

@ST
I can really see how this is MADDENING for a woman who wants a man to see himself as a king, but knows that he only sees himself as a beggar with bedsores...

One of my male friends is exactly like this. The Manosphere would describe him as a "beta orbiter" to my best friend. He has been pining after her for years, but she will never feel attracted to him. :( I've asked him several times what he thinks stands in the way of his dating other women, and he gave every excuse in the book. And he was the one who told me that he didn't care about getting a better someone, when he would be happy getting anyone. That's when I knew I couldn't help him . . . because he wasn't helping himself.

if this woman who is 'trading up' is what a man sees as 'used goods' (oh how I hate this term! but sadly this is a frequent term in Manosphere-land) then he really would see her trading up to him (desirable mercahndise as he may see himself as) as an insult.

I do agree that there is something innately insulting about such a choice. (Incidentally, have you read Susan's arguments at HUS about the Manosphere's "beta provider" meme? She says it's not as common as believed because promiscuous people tend to end up with each other.) But mixed in with the unfairness of the "price discrimination" from women are possible feelings of inferiority from men. And while the former only insults them, the latter actually cripples them.

metak said...

@ST

Grasshopper is talking about young women wasting their best years on 'bad boys - steak' that will probably newer be husband/father material and at the same time completely ignoring 'veggies - nice guys' that are husband/father material. After wasting best years fuc*ing all those bad boys they quickly realize how fast their body is aging, their biological clock is going insane and they start looking for ... wait.. you guessed it NICE GUYS! :-) Someone who will be good husband/father/partner... blah blah... but those nice guys are really disappointed with women in general because they've seen what kind of women they're actually dealing with...

"The problem or should I say the risk with that is the veggies having been passed over time and again do wilt. Their enthusiasm or crispiness in keeping with the food analogy fades over time.

You may not like whatever degree of bitterness this may leave in a good man – but just remember from his perspective he is dealing with someone who has gorged herself on steak for a decade or more. That has an effect on you ladies different but akin to the bitterness you might perceive him to have."


@Grasshopper

Am I right?

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bell,

"...but she will never feel attracted to him. :( "

Yes. I KNOW this is correct. I have made this point before somewhere on this blog. It is impossible to get another 'first' chance with a woman if she is clear she is not attracted.
Whereas it is much easier to sway a man (because his atraction 'pathway' is different and starts with the obvious). But even so, there is a high failure rate unless his brain is engaged.
With a woman, the failure rate is much much higher and in may ways she should really have chosen the man first, even if it looks otherwise, or if he approached her 'cold'.

Your male friend's case is really tragic because he has never got a foot in the door and might never.
Unless she uncharacteristically 'changes her mind' when her (SMP) value drops, and then she will become a reluctant bride for him...not a good option for the beta orbiter, but he might well see it as exactly that, and then it all blows up in everyone's face later.
Ugly. Unkind on the part of the woman if she does this.

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

Thank you for answering this question for us. And being as clear as possible lol. You certainly laid it out bare, leaving no stone unturned as to what you mean.

Assuming your are right, i.e. you echo Grasshopper's thoughts on this (and of course I await Grasshopper's answer too), the reason I sought clarification is that there is a general assumption by men that once a woman is seen with a man, she is sleeping with him. I would like to clear this up because I can see it is hang-up that's not helpful to you.
This is a wrong assumption, even in todays' SMP. And I would encourage you to find a way to gain the correct intel on any woman you are interested in, and not just guess about her past.
I think this assumption might be helping you to view women in a rather skewed fashion. That's a shame.
I am not suggesting that all or even most women are virgins past their twenties of course.

I am just alerting you to the fact that you could be making a very costly mistake about individual women where their sexual histories are concerned. I say this because your clarity on this matter allows me to see that your main hang-up on women is their sexual past by the time they 'come your way' seeking marriage.

I recently found out that a friend of a friend of mine who had dated her now husband for 10 years before marrying him at the age of around 30, was a virgin at the time of her marriage.
I always assumed they were...
Yes she was a fervent catholic, but the man was not (in fact he was an atheist), and I imagine he would have tried every trick in the book to get her to...
But she didn't.
For 10 whole years.

So I ask you. Suppose this woman who had been with her bf for 10 years broke up with him or got dumped by him for whatever reason and then sometime later she met you. And she tells you she had a 10 year relationship...
Remember that a decent woman won't tell you she is a virgin until she is in a relationship with you - and then you will find out :-)

So this woman risks being discarded by you by date 3 because you might see her as someone who (to quote you above), "wasted her best years on 'bad boys - steak' (in this case one 'bad boy') that will probably newer be husband/father material and at the same time completely ignoring 'veggies - nice guys' that are husband/father material."

Now if you say that what you tell me is your daily reality, I would start to worry that your part of the world is unusually outlying in its lack of nice women.
So please don't tell me that :-)

For that matter who exactly is a 'bad boy' and who is a 'nice guy'?

Women are getting dumped all over the place by so-called 'nice guys' all the time too. Men they thought would make good husbands and fathers. And everyone thought so too.
The image of the tattooed, alcoholic, drug-taking, unemployed, homeless bum being sought after by church girls is a bit of a fallacy, but I accept that it is a good extreme example to use to make a point.

And what about the 'nice guy'?
If at age 35 he is still single but has had his fair share of women that he also has 'let go', can he really qualify as a 'nice guy' anymore?

I think this much is becoming clear to me:
Every 'nice guy' to a woman who ignores him is a 'bad boy' to another who wants him.
It's a dynamic thing.

Spacetraveller said...

Continued...

I am sure Bellita's male friend who is being an orbiter to a woman who doesn't want him is actually some other woman's cup of tea...
But she probably won't come forward knowing he is hung up on another woman.

My point about the way you as men see women is this: don't be 'disappointed' in women. Because that is reducing your drive to go get one of your own. Know that in amongst the rubble are good gems. They are just harder to find than normal. But you don't want 'easy to find' anyway, do you?
You want 'hard to find, easy to keep' rather than 'easy to find, hard to keep', surely!

If we women, even with our 'limited time' can have the attitude that amongst you 'rogues' out there, there are plenty of 'lovable' ones, why can't you - you who have all the time in the world to find your one and only 'far above rubies' woman?

Allez, allez, les gars!
Come on boys! You can do better than this!

metak said...

@ST

Mamma Mia! :-) Pull yourself together woman! :-)

"I would like to clear this up because I can see it is hang-up that's not helpful to you."

I wasn't even thinking about that... I was referring to those kind of women that have lots of sexual partners early... want to try everything till they're young... and then when they're 28-30 the bitching starts... where have all the good men gone??? why can't I find a decent guy...???


"I would like to clear this up because I can see it is hang-up that's not helpful to you.
This is a wrong assumption, even in todays' SMP. And I would encourage you to find a way to gain the correct intel on any woman you are interested in, and not just guess about her past.
I think this assumption might be helping you to view women in a rather skewed fashion. That's a shame."


You're absolutely right and wrong at the same time... :-) Like I said it becomes problem when woman had many sexual partners before and later she wants a nice guy to settle down with...


"I recently found out that a friend of a friend of mine who had dated her now husband for 10 years before marrying him at the age of around 30, was a virgin at the time of her marriage.
I always assumed they were...
Yes she was a fervent catholic, but the man was not (in fact he was an atheist), and I imagine he would have tried every trick in the book to get her to...
But she didn't.
For 10 whole years."


You could see something "nice" in this situation but I certainly CANT. Are you kidding me??? 10 years just look but don't touch... I've heard many stories about evils of woman but this one beats them all.. :-) This story reminds me of arrogant princess that said to ordinary men if he waits 100 days in front of her house she would go out with him... 99th day the men stood up and left... :-)


"Now if you say that what you tell me is your daily reality, I would start to worry that your part of the world is unusually outlying in its lack of nice women.
So please don't tell me that :-)"


You're taking this personally. No, there's no lack of nice women and I newer said that...


"For that matter who exactly is a 'bad boy' and who is a 'nice guy'?"

In this short story: 'bad boy' is the one that gets to sleep around and fool with those women I described earlier... 'nice guy' is the 'lucky one' that gets to marry her... :-)


"My point about the way you as men see women is this: don't be 'disappointed' in women. Because that is reducing your drive to go get one of your own. Know that in amongst the rubble are good gems. They are just harder to find than normal. But you don't want 'easy to find' anyway, do you?
You want 'hard to find, easy to keep' rather than 'easy to find, hard to keep', surely!


Sure there are gems but some men just give up quickly I guess...

just visiting said...

@ST
I think Grasshoppers comment gives you chills because it was so honest. It denotes sadness, and a certain vulnerability that connects in a way that a hundred angry or bitter rants never will. No shields in the way. I think a lot of the men we encounter in the sphere have transmuted that sadness into anger...because it feels better to a man. Anger is strong, its fiery, it feels like action can take place. Unfortunately, it can be harder to find connection in understanding because we get our shields up.

I'm going to present a situation to the men to show another side of the smp. There's an assumption that many men have that if a woman is a certain age, and not married, that she must have been carouselling,especially if she is not a virgin.

Now, let's look at the average secular woman in the smp. Le'ts say she's fairly nice probably non religious or some religious background, and she's looking for a boyfriend. Chances are very likely that she will have to have sex at some point in order to even buy a ticket in the relationship lottery, let alone the marriage lottery. This version of carousel light devalues her in your eyes, but she may not see any other way around it. The search for a mate may very well make her unmarriagable in the eyes of many men.

The pill pretty much did away with chastity except in stronger religious circles. We see this effect on the average man and woman in the smp.

How to solve it, sigh. I can only think that a return to chastity or early marriage, but I don't see much attempt by society to go in that direction. As ST has stated, at least the men have longer to look, and can marry younger women.

Sad men and women all the way around.

Spacetraveller said...

JV,

You make a lot of sense in what you say.
Yes I can see now that Grasshopper's comment was more honest than I am used to, or that I would expect from a man in The Manosphere.
You are right - at least anger/bitterness is an emotion which has been 'doctored' in some way. Unbridled honesty like Grasshopper shows is more harrowing.
So I thank him.
And... I exempt him from my next tirade as I go after trigger-happy Metak with my semi-automatic...
:-)

Metak,

"Mamma Mia! :-) Pull yourself together woman! :-)"

Hahahahaha!
Spoken like a man. I like that :-)
OK, so you managed to disarm me at the first hurdle but I still have a bone to pick with you, young man.

"I wasn't even thinking about that... I was referring to those kind of women that have lots of sexual partners early..."

Why do these women concern you? Does your mother know that you are concerning yourself with these women? :-)


"You could see something "nice" in this situation but I certainly CANT. Are you kidding me??? 10 years just look but don't touch... I've heard many stories about evils of woman but this one beats them all.. :-) This story reminds me of arrogant princess that said to ordinary men if he waits 100 days in front of her house she would go out with him... 99th day the men stood up and left... :-)"

This is my biggest beef with you, Metak.

How on Earth is this woman going to be any different from the women you describe above unless she insisted on doing what she did?

Am I the only one seeing a disconnect here?
To borrow your own saying, Deity in the sky with many names, help us out here, please!

You lament that there are no decent girls anymore, I tell you about one decent girl who is a virgin upon her marriage past her 30th birthday and you wrinkle your nose at me.
What gives?!

But in many ways I don't blame you. As I have heard many times before, a man wants a woman who will be his wh*re and his only, no-one else's.

But how will you distinguish one woman from another if you get to sleep with them all?
Explain it to me like I am a 6 year old... Again.

In the example I gave, notice that the woman had no say in when they got married - like I mentioned she was a trad. Catholic. And in any case, men are the gatekeepers of marriage, or so I keep hearing.
I should clarify also that when they met, they were both medical students, so the first seven years were taken up by their studies, culminating in both of them qualifying as doctors.
Then another 3 years...
And she waited patiently...
I do believe had she 'given in' he might have simply been the first stop on her personal 'carousel'...

What's the deal with your displeasure at her decision not to engage in premarital sex?
Not worthy of your respect? Why not?
She certainly earns mine!
And for that matter so does he!


"You're taking this personally. No, there's no lack of nice women and I newer said that..."

I will neither deny nor admit to 'taking this personally'.
But I want to understand further. What's your definition of a 'nice girl'?


"In this short story: 'bad boy' is the one that gets to sleep around and fool with those women I described earlier... 'nice guy' is the 'lucky one' that gets to marry her... :-)"

Hm. The problem I have now is that in light of what you said earlier, this now sounds hollow. Instead of enlightening me, you have managed to confuse me anew.
And now I don't know what to think anymore :-)


"Sure there are gems but some men just give up quickly I guess..."

And with that, I give up the ghost...

metak said...

@ST

"Why do these women concern you?"

They don't really concern me personally... I was just trying to give my take on Grasshopper's comment. They do annoy me and it seems that their numbers are increasing rapidly... :-)

"Does your mother know that you are concerning yourself with these women? :-)"

You deserve a spanking on my knee for this one... hahahha :-) My mother already tried to sacrifice me as young male virgin to God... (priest?) she lost her influence... :-)

"How on Earth is this woman going to be any different from the women you describe above unless she insisted on doing what she did?"

I'm just saying there's a reasonable balance... why should we put female sexuality so high and male sexuality so low...?

"But in many ways I don't blame you. As I have heard many times before, a man wants a woman who will be his wh*re and his only, no-one else's.

But how will you distinguish one woman from another if you get to sleep with them all?
Explain it to me like I am a 6 year old... Again."


I'm really going to spank you like you're 6 years old... Again! :-)
A man generally doesn't want to share his woman with other men and I assume it goes the other way also...? She doesn't have to be a virgin... as I said it's important that there is no Santa Clause's list of names of guys she slept with... maybe even Elf's??' :-) Get it? :-)

"And for that matter so does he!"

Maybe in your eyes... not mine. You don't get it how that affects man... How can he be close to her and not lose his mind for all those fuc*ing years... :-) look but don't touch -> man goes to hooker :-)
Either marry sooner or go your separate ways... but don't waste your life waiting for something! :-)

"But I want to understand further. What's your definition of a 'nice girl'?"

Well wouldn't you like to know... :-) No, I don't expect her to be a virgin... I'm not.. I just don't want to guy number 11 or something like that... :-) NO, not my wh*re. Just mine...

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

"They do annoy me and it seems that their numbers are increasing rapidly... :-)"

Alright, I admit, this is a worrying trend...

"You deserve a spanking on my knee for this one..."

Nice one, Sunshine!
I was about to fall for this one by saying, 'Look here Mister, if anyone deserves a spanking..." but no. I see where this train is heading ...
:-)

"My mother already tried to sacrifice me as young male virgin to God... (priest?) she lost her influence..."

Poor Mum. She does her best to raise a good boy and 'suggests' he serve the Lord in the best way possible...and this is the thanks she gets...
:-)

"I'm just saying there's a reasonable balance... why should we put female sexuality so high and male sexuality so low...?"

Am I the only one who finds this slightly disingenuous?
Metak, you can have all the sex you want. But marry her first. That's all there is to it.

"...as I said it's important that there is no Santa Clause's list of names of guys she slept with... maybe even Elf's??' :-) Get it? :-)"

Yes I do. But in fact you are making my point. If she sleeps with you before she is sure you will stay with her for life, or a significant part of both your lives, how will she know that you will indeed stay?

Do you understand the catch-22 situation you are subjecting the good women your age to?

(Actually, I am sure you do, but you are just 'goofing off' with me now, which is absolutely fine. I just want to pin you down for the sake of clarity).


"You don't get it how that affects man... How can he be close to her and not lose his mind for all those fuc*ing years..."

Well, I could understand if I tried hard enough. But in all fairness to me, I would need all my ovulatory days rolled into one for quite a while to fully appreciate your physiology.
So consider me a poor subject for this experiment...

I do get it, Metak. I really do. It may well be that the man found other 'outlets' shall we say, for his urges, who knows. The point is, that she, in standing her ground, was able to give him something no other man has.
Wouldn't that be something if more men had this...
Besides, you might think he is complaining, but perhaps he is not. (Stop the sniggering!)

"Either marry sooner or go your separate ways... but don't waste your life waiting for something! :-)"

Agreed. But I hope your words are directed at him, not her, given his role as 'gatekeeper of marriage'.
Notice that whilst she withheld sex, he withheld commitment. This way, everyone is happy (or miserable, whichever way you prefer to look at it. 'Tit for tat' at its very best :-)

"No, I don't expect her to be a virgin... I'm not.. I just don't want to guy number 11 or something like that... :-)"

Well, you have very right not to be guy number 11.
Some men don't even want to be number 2. And I understand that too. Each to his own.
But you just have to remember that whilst 'quality' to you means being the best man you can be, 'quality' to a woman means to her, to be the best woman she can be. For some, this may well include chastity until marriage or bust.
Yes, there should be other qualifying traits, I agree!

All I am saying however is, don't be the guy who is so used to fleas he doesn't recognise a butterfly when he finally sees one.

metak said...

@ST

"Am I the only one who finds this slightly disingenuous?
Metak, you can have all the sex you want. But marry her first. That's all there is to it."


My point was that both of them (characters from your story :-)) were idiots... :-) sorry... The Two-headed Idiot :-) apparently saw something in her that kept him around for 10 years (I'm ignoring sex here) and One-headed Idiot was willing to wait...
I ask my Deity in the sky why did he made them so stupid...???? :-)
Answer from Deity: I made his lower head bigger... :-) My bad... :-)


"Yes I do. But in fact you are making my point. If she sleeps with you before she is sure you will stay with her for life, or a significant part of both your lives, how will she know that you will indeed stay?"

Women and your need for security, stability... If a man wants to leave he'll leave even if he's married... Only constant in life is change... but I can see how my manly arms could be mistaken for security, stability... :-) :-)


"The point is, that she, in standing her ground, was able to give him something no other man has. Wouldn't that be something if more men had this..."

No comment! ;-) Don't know how it is for "women to deal with it"...


"Agreed. But I hope your words are directed at him, not her, given his role as 'gatekeeper of marriage'.
Notice that whilst she withheld sex, he withheld commitment. This way, everyone is happy (or miserable, whichever way you prefer to look at it. 'Tit for tat' at its very best :-)"


Again.. if that was hers 'attitude' from the start and he knew... I don't get it... why wasting all those years...

Bellita said...

@ST
Your male friend's case is really tragic because he has never got a foot in the door and might never.
Unless she uncharacteristically 'changes her mind' when her (SMP) value drops, and then she will become a reluctant bride for him...


I honestly don't know how their friendship is going to turn out, ST.

But while I was trying to guess, I remembered an interesting perspective from my best friend . . .

You know the way some men say that they feel no guilt for sleeping around a lot or keeping "harems," inasmuch as the women put up with such arrangements? (At HUS, Susan once told the story of a girl who gave up her virginity to a guy who was leading her on while he had a girlfriend she didn't know about. A real "pump and dump." And all the male commenters said that while the guy was a jerk, they still put the responsibility on the girl for trusting him. Gatekeeper of sex, etc.) Well, my best friend said something similar about our male friend . . . that inasmuch as he was willing to let her ask him for guy advice and cry on his shoulder about other relationships (be her "emotional tampon," in Manosphere terms), she feels no guilt in treating him that way. It's still his choice to be very committed to her in a way that is inappropriate for a platonic friend who knows he has no chance.

Bellita said...

@Metak
You don't get it how that affects man... How can he be close to her and not lose his mind for all those fuc*ing years... :-) look but don't touch -> man goes to hooker :-)

How about how it affects a woman to be close to a man for all those "fudging" years and never get to the altar? She doesn't have a "hooker" equivalent, you know. ;)

Grasshopper said...

@B… Genuine humility is in fact having a low opinion of oneself.

Now you may have a personal preference for someone with a high opinion of himself. That is your choice of course. But that is as far as it goes.

One’s opinion of himself (or herself) – be it high or low – is not a determinate or indicative factor in that individuals prospects for success in life. I know some very successful people who are remarkably humble and some good for nothing bums who think the world of themselves.

A woman may think she is “trading up” because her new man thinks more highly of himself then her old one did of himself – but in fact she is not actually ‘trading up’ – she is simply aligning herself to someone more suited to her personal preferences.

Mr. Thinks Highly of Himself is no better than Mr. Humble. No better. They are simply two different types of people both created by God in His image, fearfully and wonderfully made, etc.

Grasshopper

Grasshopper said...

@ Metak…. You pretty much nailed my meaning dude!

@ ST’s - I would add that a woman who has had too many boyfriends (or suitors or orbiters or whatever you wish to call them) – regardless of how many she may have been sexually active with – tends to make her jaded. Spoiled maybe – conceited maybe. I can’t think of the best word to describe right now.

Relationships too easy to come by and too often had tend to make one less appreciative of a good thing and less likely to stick with it when it does arrive. The same can be said of men who can too easily draw a woman.

Grasshopper

Grasshopper said...

@ST…in response to your other post….

See my reply to B above. Your personal preference may be for a man who thinks himself a king – OK that is your choice. But I then have to ask WHY?

The same qualities viewed from another perspective can be termed as arrogance or conceit. Not pleasant to be around. But that is just my preference of course.

Why do you think a veggie mindset is so … well … inferior? Honestly I don’t get this in women. What suits their personal preferences must therefore be good and virtuous for all and what does not suit their personal preferences must be either be scorned or at best charitably helped.

I do not view steak guys as superior to me at all – just different. It is women (and their hampsters apparently) that ascribe (undeserved) superiority to the steak guys.

I'm not sure if I covered all of your questions – if I missed something let me know.

Grasshopper

Grasshopper said...

@JV…
You are a remarkably perceptive woman to see sadness in my post. I was not aware (consciously anyway) it was there or came through in my words until you called it out. My sincerest compliments.

To answer your question – a woman’s sexual history is not a big concern to me as apparently it is to many in the manosphere. As you put it – it’s a ticket into the relationship lottery.

I assume any women I might get involved with has some sexual history – she is not a slut nor a virgin. She has had sexual feelings and has acted on them in some way as I have too.

What is important to me is fidelity – once I am together with her. That is a non-negotiable.

Grasshopper

Bellita said...

@Grasshopper
Genuine humility is in fact having a low opinion of oneself.

No. It is having a realistic opinion of oneself. False humility may not be as bad as arrogance, but neither is it a virtue.

Now you may have a personal preference for someone with a high opinion of himself.

Is it really just black or white? If I'm not with the Communists, I must be with the Fascists?

Your paradigm of arrogance vs. humility made no room for the possibility of false humility. That's where it broke down. Have you really never met people with such terrible self-esteem that they sabotage themselves? Further down this thread, I brought up the case of my male friend who doesn't think he can attract any woman, and so does not even try. And it's not just men who are crippled like this. When I was teaching in a girls high school, I found myself playing therapist to a student who thought she was so unlovable that she kept cutting herself. Why? Because her boyfriend had dumped her and she believed no one would ever love her again. Would you really tell me that she is "genuinely humble"? I'd say she is just as deluded as someone who thinks he is the Second Coming.

One’s opinion of himself (or herself) – be it high or low – is not a determinate or indicative factor in that individuals prospects for success in life.

The man I mentioned to you happens to have a very successful career and the respect of his peers. I had no idea how low his self-esteem really was until after I ended the courtship and his first reaction was, "I'm sorry to have offended you." (The irony is that he didn't offend me until that very moment. My concern for people with pathologically low opinions of themselves is that those opinions turn into self-fulfilling prophecies.)

Mr. Thinks Highly of Himself is no better than Mr. Humble. No better.

I have to disagree. Mr. Humble is far better than Mr. Thinks Highly of Himself. (His problem is that inasmuch as he lacks "sizzle," he might not be as attractive. But I don't think you're talking about attractiveness here.)

Mr. Humble is also better than Mr. Thinks He's An Offensive Loser.

Bellita said...

@Grasshopper
Why do you think a veggie mindset is so … well … inferior? Honestly I don’t get this in women. What suits their personal preferences must therefore be good and virtuous for all and what does not suit their personal preferences must be either be scorned or at best charitably helped.

I didn't see this until after I had written my previous comment, or else I would have replied to it there.

I actually agree with you that this is not about virtue, but merely attractiveness. And attractiveness is less a mark of good character than a really impressive talent, which is neutral. (If I said otherwise, then I went too far and would like to apologize and retract whatever statement that was.)

But if the problem is that a virtuous man is not seen as attractive by women, then a woman who is sympathetic to him will want to do for him what she would do for a virtuous female friend who is also having trouble attracting the opposite sex . . . That is, she will give him a "make over"! And she will start with his "veggie mindset" because she herself has a "steak mindset" . . .

I do not view steak guys as superior to me at all – just different. It is women (and their hampsters apparently) that ascribe (undeserved) superiority to the steak guys.

I believe Badger was the one who came up with the pizza analogy I will borrow now . . . When a woman wants to commit to only one pizza for the rest of her life, she is going to make dang well sure that it is the BEST pizza she can get. And she is going to assume that the man who committed to her likewise thinks that she is the BEST pizza he could have gotten.

But for a man, there is no such thing as "the best pizza": all things being equal, pepperoni pizza is neither superior nor inferior to anchovy pizza. It's just, as you say, different. And so he may be really disappointed when he finds out that his perfectly good "toppings" are ranked lower on some arbitrary feminine hierarchy than some other man's "toppings." (The equivalent disappointment for women is embodied in the Manosphere mantra There Will Always Be Another Woman.)

So when any woman tells a man to be the best he can be . . . that is, to be steak . . . or at the very least, to sizzle . . . it is because she knows the way other women think. And she sincerely wants Mr. Veggies to have as much of a chance as Mr. Steak.

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

"Women and your need for security, stability..."

Yes, it's remarkably like men's need for sex, isn't it?

"Again.. if that was hers 'attitude' from the start and he knew... I don't get it... why wasting all those years..."

Ah, perhaps I misled you by bringing in the words 'tit for tat'. I admit that was unfortunate on my part. I don't think that's how she was thinking. I think she is just a principled woman who wanted to live according to her morals. I don't know her very well, I admit, but the little I do know of her suggests that this might well be true.

I really don't think either of them is idiotic at all, but I guess you were joking when you said this, so I shan't hound you on this point ;)

Bellita,

"And all the male commenters said that while the guy was a jerk, they still put the responsibility on the girl for trusting him. Gatekeeper of sex, etc.) Well, my best friend said something similar about our male friend..."

In many ways, perhaps this is only fair. Everyone is responsible for his or her own actions, yes, although one has sympathy for those who seem hard done by. And of course the 'wrongdoer' in cases like this do have some responsibility, but that's up to them to correct.

"How about how it affects a woman to be close to a man for all those "fudging" years and never get to the altar? She doesn't have a "hooker" equivalent, you know. ;)"

Hahahahahahaha!
Too funny.
Bellita for the win!

@ Grasshopper,

"Genuine humility is in fact having a low opinion of oneself."

Grasshopper, I have a big problem with this statement. I can see where you are coming from, but this statement is unfortunately too depressing for words!
But in the context of what JV noticed, I fully understand. I only wish your departure from this state of mind is swift and complete.

I really love Bellita's comment to you, especially the part about 'false humility'. Lessons in there for me also, I have to say.

"What is important to me is fidelity – once I am together with her. That is a non-negotiable."

Well said. At the end of the day, that's all that matters.

Bell again,

"But if the problem is that a virtuous man is not seen as attractive by women, then a woman who is sympathetic to him will want to do for him what she would do for a virtuous female friend who is also having trouble attracting the opposite sex . . . That is, she will give him a "make over"! And she will start with his "veggie mindset" because she herself has a "steak mindset"..."

+1. This is SO true!

"I believe Badger was the one who came up with the pizza analogy I will borrow now..."

The food analogies are getting hilarious!
And they are making me hungry to boot. By the time this post is laid to rest I shall have put on some extra weight :-)

"So when any woman tells a man to be the best he can be... that is, to be steak.. or at the very least, to sizzle...it is because she knows the way other women think."

Cosign this.
Gentlemen, if we the ladies seem to be pushing you to display some confidence face à face other women, it's really because we know that you won't have any chance with them without it, and knowing that you guys are better than the the empty vessels out there who are getting all the girls, we want you to beat those guys.
We have gained tips from you men about how we can get ahead in our own quest for our repective Mr. Rights, so this is our 'thank you' to you in return.
Honestly, we don't mean to be obnoxious b*tches even if it seems that way on this thread ;)

metak said...

@Bellita

"How about how it affects a woman to be close to a man for all those "fudging" years and never get to the altar? She doesn't have a "hooker" equivalent, you know. ;) "

I can only speak for myself and probably for a large part of men too... but newer women...
Like I said they were idiots... both of them... sorry ST... :-)
He might as well be her bi*tch I don't care...
You're still missing my point which was that he apparently saw something in her and stayed with her for 10 years while getting sex somewhere else... She was a good virgin for him and he was probably regular in local whore house...

"But if the problem is that a virtuous man is not seen as attractive by women, then a woman who is sympathetic to him will want to do for him what she would do for a virtuous female friend who is also having trouble attracting the opposite sex . . . That is, she will give him a "make over"! And she will start with his "veggie mindset" because she herself has a "steak mindset"..."

Of coarse he's not attractive to her... Like they say what you put out is what you get back...


@Grasshopper

"You pretty much nailed my meaning dude!"

I know where you're coming from... and that sadness you were describing before... It's easy to let those kind of negative emotions to take you down the rabbit hole... That's why meditation is so useful to a men.. don't you ever give anyone but yourself the remote controller for your thoughts, emotions,...

@ST

"I think she is just a principled woman who wanted to live according to her morals."

I can respect that... what i still don't get was that they were both ignoring the big pink elephant in the room that's blocking the tv... 10 years wasted...

"Gentlemen, if we the ladies seem to be pushing you to display some confidence face à face other women, it's really because we know that you won't have any chance with them without it, and knowing that you guys are better than the the empty vessels out there who are getting all the girls, we want you to beat those guys."

While you may use word like confidence I can only say let your balls lead the way... :-)
'Confidence', 'romance', and other crap is just you letting your manly energy to be the guide...
and of coarse the occasional spanking when she gets out of line.. right @ST? :-)

Grasshopper said...

@B…
“…So when any woman tells a man to be the best he can be . . . that is, to be steak . . . or at the very least, to sizzle . . . it is because she knows the way other women think…”

I appreciate the sincerity and good intentions of women who do this. No one women or group of women can speak for or represent women as a whole however. There is a wide and diverse range of female preferences.

There would be nothing worse from my perspective than trying to be steak and getting turned down for it by a woman who sincerely and genuinely likes veggies.

Well OK one thing would be worse. Trying to be steak and actually getting the girl. I mean how long would I have to keep up the steak charade? Or the pressure to be always in steak mode just to keep the relationship alive and well – what fun is that?

No. Women's preferences be damned. I’d rather just be who I am at all times and in all situations with all people. I do have many qualities women claim to like and want in a man. And a determined woman can surely find some rejection worthy quality in any man on the planet if she looks hard enough.

@ST…. “…Grasshopper, I have a big problem with this statement...”

Humility is not a quality I wear on my sleeve to attract women. It is something woven into many parts of me. It comes out at times and in certain situations. You’ve known me how long and just now you’re realizing I’m humble?

I was raised in church as I thought you were. There is much in Christian thinking and doctrine about humility being a virtue. That was a strong influence on me at a young age and a big shaper of the adult I am now.

I can’t unweave humility out of my personality and character just in an attempt to attract women. You may see this as defeatist – and frankly I don’t care. You are missing the point entirely.

Grasshopper

metak said...

@Grasshopper

"Humility is not a quality I wear on my sleeve to attract women. It is something woven into many parts of me. It comes out at times and in certain situations. You’ve known me how long and just now you’re realizing I’m humble?"

Women just don't get it... more you accomplish, better you become, more you expand in your thinking, growing... it only makes humbler!!! :-)

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

"You're still missing my point which was that he apparently saw something in her and stayed with her for 10 years while getting sex somewhere else... She was a good virgin for him and he was probably regular in local whore house..."

Actually, your point is not lost on me at all. Where we fail to agree is, I think, on our differing views on what is a 'win' and what is a 'fail'.
The reason I think you and I are not seeing eye to eye on this is from your use of the word 'wasted' when referring to those 10 years they were dating...
See, the truth is, I don't see those years as 'wasted'. And I bet this woman didn't either, otherwise she would have changed her situation somehow. But you see the lack of sex for 10 years as an untenable situation, so for you, it's a horrible place to be. Given your biology, I see where you are coming from.

Let's suppose you are right that he was getting sex elsewhere whilst she was busy saving herself for him.
It still doesn't make her a fool. Now, I agree that suppose she found out before they got narried that he was cheating on her, she may have had a case for not going ahead with the marriage on the grounds that this man is a high risk for infidelity.
Too high a standard?
Yes.
But remember that this woman has high standards for herself too. So she wouldn't be demanding of someone else what she doesn't demand of herself. And, he always had the option of dumping her if he found her standards too high.
The man did marry her afterall. So you are right, despite his not having access to her body before marriage, he still saw something (worth keeping) in her.
On that we agree at least.
Cause for celebration :-)

"'Confidence', 'romance', and other crap is just you letting your manly energy to be the guide..."

All the above are, in fact features of my feminine energy at play. If I were being led by my 'manly energy', I wouldn't be attracted by a man's 'confidence' or his ability to provide, or his strength, physial or otherwise.
I therefore do not accept your reproach here, because it is not accurate, I'm afraid.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

I get the feeling you may have got the wrong end of the stick on my last comment addressed to you. It's not humility per se that I have an issue with. How could that be, in any case? I have a lot of respect for humble people - of course I do.
And I do respect your humility, and I do agree it is not to be used as a tool to attract a woman (because then it becomes part of that same 'false humility' that Bellita talks about - and in any case a high quality woman will be able to detect this).
My one issue with that line from your comment that I quote is about your definition of humility. It cannot be about having a low opinion of oneself.
No, Grasshopper, what you describe is the definition of self-pity.
One can be humble and still have a (reasonably) high opinion of oneself.
I believe we crossed swords accidentally here. I really don't believe you meant to say that humility is about having a low opinion of oneself. Or rather, I hope not!
I hope it was just a wrong choice of wording there. If so, hey, it happens...easily forgiven and forgotten.

By the way, I am also a believer in the idea that humility and confidence are not mutually exclusive concepts. This did not materialise out of a vacuum. I see this in real life too. In this regard, I actually agree with Metak when he says,
"...more you accomplish, better you become, more you expand in your thinking, growing... it only makes humbler!!! :-)"
and it makes me sad that he believes this is something a woman would not 'get'.

One of the most confident men I know is also one of the humblest people I have ever met.

To choose a non-earthly example, I am reminded of Jesus washing the disciples' feet at the Last Supper...what a great example of the highest-placed man ever (the son of God himself) washing mere mortals' feet.
And yet I would never have imagined that Jesus had a low opinion of himself. His humility never included that.

I hope I have made myself clearer this time around. If I accuse you of misunderstanding my earlier comment, know that I do take some responsibility for this in not being clear myself, in the first place.

metak said...

@ST

Hello everyone.. My name is Metak and I'm Enter-holic... :-)
- Hello Mentak...
I have this problem... when I write a comment I don't bother to check it for mistakes.. I just press Enter... (shedding a tear... :-) )
it's terrible... and it's affecting those close to me... :-)


"All the above are, in fact features of my feminine energy at play. If I were being led by my 'manly energy', I wouldn't be attracted by a man's 'confidence' or his ability to provide, or his strength, physial or otherwise.
I therefore do not accept your reproach here, because it is not accurate, I'm afraid."


It is accurate if you're a man. I should be more specific in my comments... Romance can be provided only by men... sorry but women suck at it... they know how to enjoy the fruit, but little about growing the fruit...

Spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

"Your personal preference may be for a man who thinks himself a king – OK that is your choice. But I then have to ask WHY?"

There was a time when I thought I could 'wing it' with just about any man, as long as he was good, kind, had a means of earning a living, clean, Godfearing, etc. I say thank God I was never tempted to proceed with this attitude.
I was born a feminine child. Then I went through some sort of weird confused phase (which turned out to be temporary - again, thank you, Sweet Jesus). Now I am back in the feminine mode (hat tip to the good Lord once again).
When I was small, I watched 'The wizard of Oz'. Even at that young age, the character 'Cowardly lion' gave me hives. From then onwards, any man who behaves in a non-manly manner continues to afflict me in this manner. Probably the same way you might react to a heavily tattooed 400-pound woman with torn jeans hanging halfway down her bottom and sporting a Marines crew cut and smoking pot whilst uttering four-letter words at small children attending their catechism class on a sunday afternoon.
(Metak, is this a fitting example of my exaggeration skills, much?)

Hahahaha!

Actually, back to 'The Wizard of Oz', I am so glad I picked this example!
Of the 3 male characters who followed Dorothy to Emerald City, the least attractive one to most women, I am willing to bet, is Cowardly Lion because he lacked courage (read: confidence). The other two who lacked a brain (Scarecrow) and a heart (Tin Man) respectively are not great choices, but they are still preferable to Cowardly Lion in a woman's eyes, because he is the least likely to see himself as king.

Remember there was a thread on this blog somewhere where JV said something about if the men are all weepy sissies, the women should prepare to die, or something to that effect?
She may have said it in jest, but I can tell you that this is very much a woman's reality.
If her femininity compels her to 'submit' to a man, she really needs to be confident that he has her back as well as his. As a man, you will never be subjected to this fate. I say 'thank you Jesus', on your behalf.
Because Grasshopper, talk about relinquishing control of everything you have power over, to someone else (a man) - figuratively speaking, at least.

That man should see himself as a King. Because it is only in seeing himself as a king that his woman can be a Queen.
It is very easy for a woman to see a man as king when he already sees himself as such.
A good woman, once she has done this even once before, will continue to do this, even when the sparkle on his crown gets tarnished, as it invariably will.
But you really cannot expect a woman to do this for a man who won't do this for himself. For then she has nothing to work with. And then she really needs to employ the services of one furry creature known to you as the Rationalisation Hamster to do all the delusional hard work for her.
:-)
Does this answer your question to a satisfactory degree?

;)

@ Metak,

Ah, thanks for that clarification. Now I see what you were trying to say, and it does change things somewhat.

For what it's worth, I agree that romance is not something that women are good at.
Which is precisely why we seek it from men.
;)

Metak, I heard there was a new 5-star restaurant opening downtown...
*playing with hair*

:)

metak said...

@ST

hahhahha :-)

We could go there and rest-our-ranting... ;-) pretend that we're 'normal' and try to hide our extremism... but it wouldn't work I'm afraid... :-)

Manly energy would just take your hand, get you closer and while looking in your eyes say: "Let's go. I have something very special planed for us..."


p.s. I dare you to imagine what I wrote with funny Indian accent.... :-)

Bellita said...

@Grasshopper
There would be nothing worse from my perspective than trying to be steak and getting turned down for it by a woman who sincerely and genuinely likes veggies.

Let me be clear. When I make a distinction between "steak" and "veggies," I am speaking entirely about mindset and making the assumption (just for the sake of this analogy) that veggies are inferior to steak. And in that case, surely you can see why it would be self-defeating for a man to think of himself as the inferior choice! (It's a different story if the man is a vegan, of course!)

You say that you don't see things in terms of inferiority and superiority. You are neither vegan nor carnivore. ;) I do get that. But the point is that a woman is looking for the BEST pizza. And while it goes without saying that there is a diverse range of female preferences, I'm not talking about whether a woman prefers "steak pizza" to "veggie pizza." She wants THE BEST.

(It almost hurt to write "steak pizza." :P ST is right that the food analogies are getting ridiculous!)

Women's preferences be damned. I’d rather just be who I am at all times and in all situations with all people. I do have many qualities women claim to like and want in a man.

And I wish with all my heart that you will find a woman who thinks that you are indeed her BEST pizza. :)

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

"We could go there and rest-our-ranting..."

Hahahahahahahahaha!
You are utterly unstoppable, you!

*standing ovation*

"Manly energy would just take your hand, get you closer and while looking in your eyes say: "Let's go. I have something very special planed for us..."

Hey, I said Romance, not whatever else you had in mind (!) :-)

"And I wish with all my heart that you will find a woman who thinks that you are indeed her BEST pizza. :)"

I second this Bellita!
An extra large Deluxe Veggie Pizza with extra layers of mozzarella cheese and mushroom...

And in keeping with the spirit of this post, I DEMAND a front row seat at his wedding...

Hey Metak, forget the 5-star restaurant...fancy a takeaway veggie pizza instead?

Um, on second thoughts, what with your 'manly energy' about, perhaps we better stick to Plan A...

;-)

Bellita said...

@Grasshopper
I had to leave the computer for half an hour, which cut short my reply to you. Here is the rest . . .

And a determined woman can surely find some rejection worthy quality in any man on the planet if she looks hard enough.

That hamster spins both ways. ;) A determined woman can find something to qualify even the worst jerk on the planet if she is in love with him. (Translation: if she thinks he is THE BEST.)

Granted, you're right that a man does not have to think of himself that way. But it's useful to know how women think, I'm sure.

I can’t unweave humility out of my personality and character just in an attempt to attract women.

I don't think that's what we're asking you to do. To me, that would be no different from a woman getting breast implants just in an attempt to attract men. She would be better off trying to find a man who likes her breasts the way they are. For her to think there is anything wrong with her natural body (assuming she is not obese!) is her own version of the defeatist mindset ST and I are talking about. She should stop thinking of herself as "veggies" that should undergo surgery to become "steak." Instead, she should think of herself as "steak" that already has "sizzle" for the right man.

What we seem to have forgotten here is that the original paradigm was not "steak vs. veggies" but "steak + sizzle"! :) That's why I think all men should think of themselves as steak: already wonderful catches for a very lucky woman . . . but perhaps just in need of more strategic "advertising"! And I think this original paradigm is closer to yours, in which things are neither inferior nor superior, just different.

There is much in Christian thinking and doctrine about humility being a virtue.

You have not addressed my comment about the student I had who had such "a low opinion of herself" (which is how you have defined humility here) that she would cut herself with razor blades in the bathroom. Is she practicing a Christian virtue?

My point is that even virtues can miss the mark horribly. My favorite example . . . If you are so aware of yourself as a miserable sinner--which we all arguably are--that you bring a laundry list to the confessional with you each time you go . . . which is probably on a daily basis (Hahahaha!) . . . then the priest will very likely tell you that you are committing the sin of scrupulosity! (We can't win, can we? :P)

metak said...

@ST

"Hey, I said Romance, not whatever else you had in mind (!) :-)
Um, on second thoughts, what with your 'manly energy' about, perhaps we better stick to Plan A..."


Get your mind out of the gutter woman!! Please! :-)

And from now on NO STEAK, PIZZA OR VEGGIES for me! :-) Last thing I needed was to look at the woman and see slice of pizza... ;-)

Let me define for you what is 'manly energy or man-likes-you energy'. It's simply doing what feels natural and good... (taking her hand... than you start playing with her hair a bit... you're the "ONE" :-) that knows where you two are going but you keep that for yourself and give only slight hints...")


"Hahahahahahahahaha!
You are utterly unstoppable, you!"


Yea I am... Your future husband will have a hell of a job competing with my sense of humor... :-)

Spacetraveller said...

"Get your mind out of the gutter woman!! Please! :-)"

Me?
How come all of a sudden I am the one being accused of all sorts..?
I am the innocent party in all of this...
;-)

"And from now on NO STEAK, PIZZA OR VEGGIES for me! :-) Last thing I needed was to look at the woman and see slice of pizza... ;-)"

Pavlovian programming...
Hahahahaha!


"Yea I am... Your future husband will have a hell of a job competing with my sense of humor... :-)"

Not short of a healthy dose of confidence, I see...
:-)

Spacetraveller said...

Bell,

"My favorite example . . . If you are so aware of yourself as a miserable sinner--which we all arguably are--that you bring a laundry list to the confessional with you each time you go . . . which is probably on a daily basis (Hahahaha!) . . . then the priest will very likely tell you that you are committing the sin of scrupulosity! (We can't win, can we? :P)"

Slightly off-topic, but what would be even worse in this scenario is if the priest turned round and said to one: 'Hey, don't worry about it - I have done worse than this!' which is precisely what hapened to someone I know!
And the effect on her was to stop going to confession for a while because she kept thinking, 'well, if the priest has done worse...'.
I wonder if the priest was joking and she didn't 'get it'?
But then again, are priests allowed to joke around in the confessional like this?

Bellita said...

@ST
My own "worst" confession was when I confessed something I was truly sorry about and Father said, "Stop dwelling on the bad things! Think about the good things!"

The answer I arrested before it slipped past my lips: "You expect me to bring 'good things' to the CONFESSIONAL???"

Thank goodness the sacraments work ex opere operato! All the same, I never sought him as a confessor or spiritual director ever again.

Spacetraveller said...

"You expect me to bring 'good things' to the CONFESSIONAL???"

Hahahaha!
How I would have loved to have seen the priest's face had you said this!

Oh why oh why did they send me to 'scrupulosity central'?
Why can't I just have a normal flock who are just grateful to have their sins forgiven like in the old 'fire and brimstone' days...
Hahahaha!

metak said...

@Bellita

'Hey, don't worry about it - I have done worse than this!'

hahahaha :-) That's the kind of priest I would be... ;-)

What is it with Cat-holics and confessional? Are you really that 'naughty'? ;-)

@ST

"I am the innocent party in all of this... ;-)"

"Hey, I said Romance, not whatever else you had in mind (!) :-)"

What I had in mind didn't even came close to what you were obviously thinking about... :-)
I should've written: "Let's go. I have something very special planed for us... and to be clear keep your panties on because I'm saving myself for marriage... :-)"

"Not short of a healthy dose of confidence, I see..."

Well my numerologist says that I'm very special person... I just hope he and I are on the same page... Not retard kind of special... ;-)

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveler said...


"This is how The Manosphere defines hypergamy, at least this is my understanding of its definition:
'Woman marries up, and keeps looking out for even higher status men and will trade up at the earliest opportunity that suits her, i.e. when first man is no longer of use to her'.

And this is mine:
'Woman seeks the highest status man she can get and stays with him because it is in her best interests and that of her subsequent progeny to remain a unit with said high status man'."

But you're failing here, immediately, to understand the key point. Most every man I've ever known is aware that women look for the high status man, but of course, different women look for different status criteria. Some look for the 'bad boy' and some look for Mr. Rich Man. Some look for the alpha and some look for the beta, some say it's all Greek to them. Most men, I'd wager, do not care about that particular point, but that there are large numbers of women who pick that low hanging fruit, divorce the first husband to go off with another, higher status male. I have no doubt that there are plenty of men who would agree with me on this. We used to have a running joke about the first wives club, so much so, that it became a Hollywood movie. Now, it seems the first husbands club has been formed, but won't ever make it to the big screen because many of those first husbands are in debtor's prison for failing to pay child support.

(One of the many twists on the old fashioned patriarchy rules that we're supposed to dislike.)

Yet, you acknowledge that the whole trading up trope is rather sad and silly. Then you point out:

"Assuming she is a normal woman, with good character, a 'trade up' to a different man, after a few kids with the first man doesn't even make sense."

Wow, really? Tell me, what is 'normal'? Is it what the majority of women do? Statistics do not lie, and 3 out of every 4 divorces in the USA and UK are initiated by the female in the relationship. It's difficult, to say the least, to figure out reasons for divorce... but to say that women are hard wired to join forces with men... well, the numbers just don't add up, Miss Spacetraveler. You've spent the past few months pointing out that you (and other women posting here) are outliers. Now you generalize YOUR attitudes and beliefs to all women. Can't be both.

I believe this issue is perhaps the single largest producer of Red Pill men on this Earth. Feminism has freed women (theoretically) from the stigma of divorce, and therefore freed them to trade up... and that low hanging fruit is now in constant danger. Lots of people online disparage men for stepping away from such mind games, and refusing to play the game. That's fine, but if women suffer no stigma for leaving a marriage, why should men suffer a stigma for refusing to enter a marriage based on false premises, eg 'til death do us part'?

The Navy Corpsman

P.S. And, by the way, why are there so many articles appearing in mass media lately, asking the question "Where are all the good men?"

Give you three guesses.

Anonymous said...

P.P.S.

Humility is just that... the act of being humble. I'm damned good at doing some things, and pretty horrible at others. Recognizing such things in yourself is a good start to knowing your own mind. I could care less about steak, sizzle or vegetables. Never did.

What is bad, is when lack of humility produces conceit, or too much humility produces an inferiority complex. One can be confident without conceit, and still humble.


One can be pragmatic without inferiority yet still be hopeful, lively, positive, secure, self-assured, spirited, undoubtful, upbeat, sanguine...

How we present ourselves to the world, is how we want to be perceived. There is nothing wrong with humility, nor with confidence... in moderation, for both. The hard part lies in knowing that point where it works for you.

The Navy Corpsman

metak said...

@The Navy Corpsman

"I believe this issue is perhaps the single largest producer of Red Pill men on this Earth. Feminism has freed women (theoretically) from the stigma of divorce, and therefore freed them to trade up..."

I know I'm goofing off way too much with my comments.. but you're absolutely right on this one. I know it's really bad idea for men to get married when all the laws are against you...
Women can see only their side... and blame it on men. "Why won't he commit? bla bla..."

Statistics here in Slovenia are showing interesting trend:

14.230...... marriages 1979
9.776......... marriages 1989
7.716......... marriages 1999
6.703......... 2008
6.542......... 2009 -- all time record! ;-)

and divorce rate has been somewhere around 2.200 all the time... it would be nice if I had more data like who initiated the divorce...

Spacetraveller said...

@ NC,

"But you're failing here, immediately, to understand the key point."

"...but that there are large numbers of women who pick that low hanging fruit, divorce the first husband to go off with another, higher status male. I have no doubt that there are plenty of men who would agree with me on this."


I am not sure which point it is that I have failed to understand. I did acknowledge that The Manosphere's definition of hypergamy is based on their reality, and therefore it is real, at least for the men who have experienced it.
My own point is that it is counterproductive to a woman's ultimate happiness, and I am racking my brain as to why it happens.
Hence my repeated assertion that it doesn't make sense.
My own definition of hypergamy however, is consistent with female nature and female goals where the SMP is concerned.


"Wow, really? Tell me, what is 'normal'? Is it what the majority of women do?"

This question is really easy to answer because you have given me a big clue as to why you asked it.

No, for me, 'normal' definitely does not mean 'the majority'. 'Normal' in this sense means 'non-pathological'.
Does this clear up the point of this post for you now?

As you know, I have a tendency to tie myself up in knots when trying to waddle through a difficult or sticking point. As you correctly note, this is one of the most difficult sticking points in today's SMP.
So no wonder I am all over the place trying to figure out my thoughts on it!
Excuse-moi for the confusion that ensues :-)

Metak,

"Women can see only their side... and blame it on men. "Why won't he commit? bla bla..."

You know what?

Reading this line of yours, something occurred to me.
Things may seem rough now, but it is clear to me that we as humans haven't 'bottomed out' yet.
You know what's worse than young women of childbearing age bemoaning the lack of commitment from men? (Even if said women have 'brought it upon themselves'?
I'll tell you: Women of childbearing age who don't bemoan the lack of commitment from men.
The very worst of the human experience will be when women who could have babies choose en masse not to, ala the film 'Children of Men'.
That would be indicative of a total and utter absence of femininity, womanly nurturing/mothering instincts.
If/when that happens, I hope to be long dead and buried.
Be grateful that women are still women even if, only just, and are thus even bothering to ask the question 'Where are all the good men?'.

It could get worse. Much worse.

However...I promised at the top of this post not to get into lugubrious thinking. So I shall retreat from this horrible Apocalyptic imagery and switch my thoughts to the rather delightful utopia that is our current SMP :-)

metak said...

@ST

"Women can see only their side... and blame it on men. "Why won't he commit?"

You may disagree with me on this one ST but so what...? It became a trend in this country to just live together and have a family without involving church or government... it's working I guess. ;-)

"Be grateful that women are still women even if, only just, and are thus even bothering to ask the question 'Where are all the good men?'."

yes, yes... I shall turn towards them, go on my knees and start praying... Come on ST stop with the 'victim' card...

"I'll tell you: Women of childbearing age who don't bemoan the lack of commitment from men."

This is bothering you because you're religious... can't you accept that not everyone is religious..?


"The very worst of the human experience will be when women who could have babies choose en masse not to, ala the film 'Children of Men'."

Here we go with the extremes again... ;-) I would really like to see that day... just for fun! ;-) maybe those bitter men are right when they say that it's a good idea to invest money in vibrators, cat food ... ;-)

"It could get worse. Much worse."

Extreme till end... at least you're consistent. ;-)

just visiting said...

@ grasshopper

Thank you for the compliment.

just visiting said...

Well, fear based decisions usually have a way of bringing what you are trying to avoid into your realm. No easy answers.

Committed relationships are best for children. Always have been, always will be.

Husbands, love your wives
wives, respect your husbands
Husbands, have a purpose. And be in the moment when you're with your wives.
Wives. BE love and BE in the moment.

Lol. I sound like a fortune cookie.

Grasshopper said...

@Metak – “…Women just don’t get it...”

Thanks dude! Bro’s before ho’s.

@ST…. “…I believe we crossed swords accidentally here…”

No worries we’re still good.

@B… “…You have not addressed my comment about the student I had who had such "a low opinion of herself…”

B there have been so many comments in this thread it’s been hard to keep up with all of them.

I suspect there were stronger factors that drove that student to cut her wrists not humility or religion or low self-esteem. I can’t really be more specific without knowing a whole lot more detail about the girl, her family background, her religious upbringing, relationship history, etc.

Even before you or ST called out my definition of humility yesterday I was thinking that I could have worded it better. True humility in the biblical sense is seeing others as better – not seeing oneself as worse or worthless.

So how did a thread about hypergamy turn into a discussion about humility?

Only in the Sanctuary!

Grasshopper

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

"yes, yes... I shall turn towards them, go on my knees and start praying... Come on ST stop with the 'victim' card..."

Don't take away my guilty pleasure! :-)
But I do do have a point, though, no? Even if it's just a minuscule one?

"This is bothering you because you're religious... can't you accept that not everyone is religious..?"

But...religion doesn't even come into it, here. I am speaking purely from a social standpoint.
I accept that not everyone is religious, and even if they were, not everyone would share my religion.
Honestly. I don't wish to impose my views on anyone else who doesn't share them. But I like to make my own views clear, no matter how extreme :-)

"Extreme till end... at least you're consistent. ;-)"

Hahahaha...
Why thank you. Consistency is a virtue. (Did I just make this up, or is it indeed a virtue?)


"Husbands, love your wives
wives, respect your husbands
Husbands, have a purpose. And be in the moment when you're with your wives.
Wives. BE love and BE in the moment."


JV, you are always the voice of reason in amongst the chaos around you.
This little gem of yours joins the rest that are tattooed into my brain.

@ Grasshopper,

"No worries we’re still good."

Cool, Grasshopper!
*hugs*

"So how did a thread about hypergamy turn into a discussion about humility?"

I am wondering the same thing!
:-)

dannyfrom504 said...

My next post will be dedicated to you Pet. Lol.

metak said...

@ST

"But I do do have a point, though, no?"

Short: No. ;-)
Long: Even if you're speaking from a social standpoint I was trying to tell you that couples are having families and living together without marriage. Surprising it's not just because men are refusing to get married but also more and more women don't want to... is that a good thing? Let me be extreme: HELL YES!! ;-)

My fortune cookie (JV) said before that committed relationships are best for children and so on... You can have that kind of relationship without marriage. Now you can send me to hell! ;-)

But I did had a laugh about you trying to apply logic and reason to women's behavior... ;-)
"Hypergamy" starts at early age... at school it's the boys that come from rich families and have fancy cars...

In almost all cases women marry up and in a lot of cases they go for better deal (divorcing first sucker and start sucking another... more money). just an observation...

metak said...

and one more thing...

You can't talk about hypergamy without even mentioning Briffault's law! ;-)

Bellita said...

@Grasshopper
I suspect there were stronger factors that drove that student to cut her wrists not humility or religion or low self-esteem. I can’t really be more specific without knowing a whole lot more detail about the girl, her family background, her religious upbringing, relationship history, etc.

I'm glad you're being fair to her, Grasshopper. Now I'm going to ask you to be fair to me.

First, let me confess that I only brought her up to challenge your earlier definition of humility, which is now off the table. In reality, I don't think humility was her problem any more than you do. Nor do I think humility was my former suitor's problem.

It seems that the only reason we're discussing the H-word is that I shared the latter's graceless reaction to my turning him down, which I interpreted as him projecting his own crippling feelings of inferiority onto me, and you took that to mean that I prefer to date men with "high" opinions of themselves. No offense, but that doesn't make sense.

First of all, if you look at the timeline, I didn't see that side of him until after I had ended the courtship. It wasn't a factor in my decision.

Secondly, if we're both going to agree that thinking of oneself as worthless is not actually true humility, then even if I had rejected him for feeling he was offensive, it still wouldn't have been because of a preference for men who have a "high" opinion of themselves. To rephrase another question I asked you, just because I'd rather not date a Communist, does it immediately follow that I have a preference for Fascists?

All I'm saying is that I don't think it's helpful for people to think they are "veggies" IF they also believe that the superior option is "steak." Drop that condition, and the perception of oneself as "veggies" becomes completely neutral. But I don't think either my former suitor or my male friend who is someone's lonely "beta orbiter" have that neutral mindset. In fact, I know that the latter (and I suspect that the former) wish desperately that they were "steak."

Now remember that we haven't even defined "veggies" and "steak." They're simply variables which sometimes have the value V>S and sometimes have the value V<S. And at other times, V and S are neither greater than or less than each other, but simply "different." Yet inasmuch as a woman thinks that one of them is indeed superior--and it doesn't have to be the "steak"--she is going to make her decisions accordingly. If she likes Mr. V more, telling her that he is "no better" than Mr. S and that they are simply "two different types of people both created by God in His image" isn't going to change anything. And if she does marry Mr. S, she will always feel that she is settling. You'd do better to get her "hamster" to believe that Mr. S is indeed the superior man.

Bellita said...

I messed up the formatting in the last paragraph. :( It should read:

". . . variables that sometimes have the value V>S and sometimes have the value V is less than S, and sometimes V and S are neither greater than or less than each other . . ."

Bellita said...

Odd. The formatting didn't show up earlier but shows up now.

Okay, I'll stop thinking aloud here . . .

Spacetraveller said...

@ Danny,

:-)

Thanks Your Maj.
Would you agree with what JV, Bell and I are saying? Not having much luck with Metak lol.


@ Metak,

"Surprising it's not just because men are refusing to get married but also more and more women don't want to..."

Correction: Women are taking whatever they can get from men. No woman would choose cohabitation over marriage if given that choice. Of that I am certain.
Marriage is the ultimate 'validation' for a woman by a man she loves.
I think what's happening nowadays is that a lot of women are trying to convince themselves that they 'don't want marriage' to make the bitter pill easier to swallow. The bitter pill being that they are not being offered the option of marriage anyway. They are unceremoniously entering into the role of 'wife' with no celebration to mark this occasion.
And it is sad, and they feel bad about it. But no-one wants to hear their complaints. So they shut up and put up.
And this 'self-talk' of 'Who needs marriage anyway' is a face-saving manoeuvre.
Don't make the mistake of interpreting this as evidence that these women do not want marriage.
But I am sure you already knew this, Metak. You are just yanking my chain again :-)
Yank away, I forgive you in advance.

"...is that a good thing? Let me be extreme: HELL YES!! ;-)"
Oh I am sure men don't exactly mind this unexpected but happy consequence of feminism lol. And of course you will take full advantage (not that I blame you - maybe if I were a man I would be tempted to do the same...).
But...this same scenario hurts your chances of finding a good wife when you are done with 'sowing your wild oats'...because all the women are in cohabitation arrangemnts, at least that's how it will look, to you.

I never heard of Briffault's law!
Thanks for mentioning it.

But I wonder where this came from?
Who is/was Briffault?
Is this another invention of The Manosphere?
;-)

"You can have that kind of relationship without marriage."

I don't disagree that there are committed relationships out there that are not married relationships.
However, studies have shown that marriage is superior to cohabitation in terms of stability and longevity.

@ Bell,

Sorry about the problems you have been having with the formatting on Blogger...

metak said...

@ST

From Wikipidia: Robert Briffault was a novelist, historian, social anthropologist, and surgeon. He was born in Nice, France of a French father and a Scottish mother. After the death of his father, Briffault and his Scottish-born mother immigrated to New Zealand. In May 1896 he married Anna Clarke; the couple had three children, Lister, Muriel, and Joan, born from 1897 to 1901. Briffault received his MB, ChB from the University of Dunedin in New Zealand in 1905 and commenced medical practice. After service on the Western Front during World War I, he settled in England, his wife having died. In the late 1920s he married again, to Herma Hoyt (1898-1981), an American writer and translator. He can be seen as French, Scottish, New Zealander (Kiwi), English (Pom), or, by marriage, American (Yank). The point of this is to state the credentials of the author and to show that this law has been there for many years; we just needed to find it.


BRIFFAULT’S LAW:

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.

There are a few corollaries I would add:

1. Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2. Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

3. A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).

Bellita said...

@ST
Oh, it's not your fault! It was a Blogger bug that seems to be fixed now. :)

Spacetraveller said...

@ Metak,

Interesting...

Thanks for the info.
What I am trying to figure out is, where did Briffault get his observations from? I can't imagine that in the 1920s hypergamy was a big issue like it appears to be today.

Briffault's thoughts remind me of saints like St. Augustine who simply believed that women were 'lesser' creatures than men and were incapable of higher function.
Briffault states that women are incapable of love, but I wonder how he defined love? It seems to me that he sees love as 'loyalty', which would be typical for a man, as his worst nightmare is disloyalty ...And a woman would define love as 'togetherness' as her worst fear is abandonment ...

Is this another example of male-female communication breakdown which leads to outrageous declarations?
:-)

Not that my rantings are any less outrageous than his of course!
Hahaha!

metak said...

@ST

"Correction: Women are taking whatever they can get from men. No woman would choose cohabitation over marriage if given that choice. Of that I am certain.
Marriage is the ultimate 'validation' for a woman by a man she loves.
I think what's happening nowadays is that a lot of women are trying to convince themselves that they 'don't want marriage' to make the bitter pill easier to swallow. The bitter pill being that they are not being offered the option of marriage anyway. They are unceremoniously entering into the role of 'wife' with no celebration to mark this occasion.
And it is sad, and they feel bad about it. But no-one wants to hear their complaints. So they shut up and put up.
And this 'self-talk' of 'Who needs marriage anyway' is a face-saving manoeuvre.
Don't make the mistake of interpreting this as evidence that these women do not want marriage.
But I am sure you already knew this, Metak. You are just yanking my chain again :-)
Yank away, I forgive you in advance."


Are you kidding me???? ;-) What is the ultimate 'validation' for a man by a woman he loves?
If they're trying to convince themselves that they 'don't want marriage' to make the bitter pill easier to swallow I couldn't care less. I'm not responsible for their 'hamsters'. ;-)
Besides they're already swallowing much more than just 'pills'... (this would be funny if it wasn't true... ;-( )

...and we're back at the start again... nothing ever happens if a man doesn't do it... I didn't even realize how powerful we are... we're in charge of our own happiness and apparently on our way we have to 'marry' a woman so she could finally 'get some happiness'... ;-)

just visiting said...

And there lies the rub. Lol.
I think there are a lot of men who are quite capable of being happy without marriage. And that's something that is just mind blowing to the average woman.

But I disagree with the sphere that most men will be quite content to die old and alone. Especially the player types. I've had more than a few in my life, either as friends or relatives. They, more than betas can't handle not being validated on a constant basis. Old and alone hits them far far harder.

Bellita said...

@Metak
What is the ultimate 'validation' for a man by a woman he loves?

I'm going to assume you're still capable of rational discussion* and bite. Okay, Metak, what is the ultimate validation for a man from the woman he loves?

*referring to your reply to me in the "Anti-social or Just a Normal Male" thread

consideredcarefully said...

JV said:

"I think Grasshoppers comment gives you chills because it was so honest. It denotes sadness, and a certain vulnerability that connects in a way that a hundred angry or bitter rants never will. No shields in the way. I think a lot of the men we encounter in the sphere have transmuted that sadness into anger...because it feels better to a man."
__________________________

I concur.

It is quite unpleasant.

Imagine being four years old and waking up on Christmas morning. You're stoked, and go hauling down to the Christmas Tree, fixin' to tear into some presents.

Except the tree isn't there, nor are your parents.

You notice a reeking homeless man sprawled out on the couch. Wide-eyed, you broadcast a silent appeal for answers...

"Oh, yeah. Forgot to tell you, kid - none of that was real. Santa Claus doesn't exist. He never did."

You begin to cry, and ask for your parents.

"Parents?" the homeless man says,"I dunno. Welp, guess I'd better head out...."

You sink to the floor in shock. You watch the homeless man step onto the porch. Just before shutting the front door, he turns.

"Oh, yeah. Kid...hey, kid! Almost forgot to tell you - the Easter Bunny's dead. Later."



Reality, it turns out, is not what you thought it was. You realize in fits and starts that a lot of work, pain, and effort you've put forth made your situation worse.

By the way - this new Reality, the way things actually are....it looks terrible. Nowhere near as nice as the old version. You've got a lot of work to do, too.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Metak,

"...and we're back at the start again... nothing ever happens if a man doesn't do it... I didn't even realize how powerful we are... we're in charge of our own happiness and apparently on our way we have to 'marry' a woman so she could finally 'get some happiness'... ;-)"

Don't make me stoop to the level of begging lol.

Women need men in a way that men perhaps don't need women.
This is why 'relationship management' is 'woman's work'.

But men as they age do need women in a way they perhaps won't admit, and certainly don't verbalise, as JV alludes to.

Women just face this ugly truth earlier in their lives due to the biological clock thing. But I don't think men completely escape it, although they can get stoic enough to cope better than a woman.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Dogsquat (considered carefully),

How depressing :-(

But I get your point.

metak said...

@Bellita

I have to admit that using "Only a woman would write anything positive..." was uncalled for.. I do apologize for that one. When I started reading about royal family my already sky high blood pressure went space high... ;-) Anyone that has done some research besides what he gets from 'whore mainstream media' can see completely different picture...


"I'm going to assume you're still capable of rational discussion* and bite. Okay, Metak, what is the ultimate validation for a man from the woman he loves?"

I was actually wondering and asking myself that question and first thing that popped in my mind was: don't bother me so much with that stupid ceremony... (circus-wedding) ;-)

As you can see it's quite simple for me really... but ST would say that I'm 'faking it'... ;-)
I can't even imagine wasting my time on such a trivial things like wedding...

Bellita said...

@Metak
First of all, thank you for your apology. I do like discussing things with you and am glad I still can. :)

I can't even imagine wasting my time on such a trivial things like wedding...

For what it's worth, this reminds me of the same Japanese friend I mentioned in the other thread, who also said to me: "After I'm married, I think I'll only have sex with my husband three times a week."

I was incredulous. She didn't even have a boyfriend yet, and she was planning that far ahead?! To make a long, albeit interesting discussion short, the root of her reasoning was this: "Sex takes time. I could be doing so many other things with that time."

And the reason I'm sharing that with you is to make the point that some things we wouldn't want "to waste our time" on in relationships may actually be more important to the other person than we think! ;)

(By the way, that friend is married now, but we've been out of touch so long that I don't dare remind her of this and ask how her plans worked out!)

Bellita said...

PS -- My friend even said: "If my husband really loved me, he would be okay with three times a week."

To which I retorted, "If you really loved him, you would be okay with dropping that limit!"

I'm not a fan of the "If you really loved me" argument, whether it's "If you really loved me, we'd have a church wedding," or "If you really loved me, you'd have sex with me before I put a ring on your finger,"
or whatever, really. What the person actually means is, "This is what I'd like from you to feel loved in this relationship." And that's fair enough. I just don't think it should be held as a condition over the other person's head.

metak said...

@Bellita

"And the reason I'm sharing that with you is to make the point that some things we wouldn't want "to waste our time" on in relationships may actually be more important to the other person than we think! ;)"

Of coarse... that's why it's so beyond me...

More precise answer to my earlier question would be: I've never felt anything so 'strong' towards woman that I would be able to determine what would be the 'ultimate validation'...

Spacetraveller said...

@ Metak,

"When I started reading about royal family my already sky high blood pressure went space high..."

Hey! Space high?
:-)

@ Bell,

"And the reason I'm sharing that with you is to make the point that some things we wouldn't want "to waste our time" on in relationships may actually be more important to the other person than we think! ;)"

How nice is it to have someone point this out!
Great tip, Bell.


"...three times a week".
Um, is this bad?

Bellita said...

@ST
Re: three times a week

Did you ever watch the movie Annie Hall? There is a scene in which the frame is split in two, so that we can watch Woody Allen's character with his therapist and Diane Keaton's character with her therapist at the same time. Both therapists ask the same question: "How often do you have sex?"

She: "All the time! We did it three times last week!"

He: "Hardly ever. We only did it three times last week!"

HAHAHAHA!

Spacetraveller said...

Bell,

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Too funny.

I haven't seen this film, but now I would love to watch it, just for this scene alone!

metak said...

@ST & @Bellita

She: "All the time! We did it three times last week!"
He: "Hardly ever. We only did it three times last week!"


Is this the magical part of marriage that I'm missing??? ;-) Little or no sex at all..??? ;-)

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

I KNOW I shall regret asking this question :-)

But...
Curiosity got the better of me...

Can you enlighten us?
What's the ideal 'number' (of times per week) for you?

Lord help me...

(I think it's for moments like this that they say 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions...')

:-)

metak said...

@ST

"What's the ideal 'number' (of times per week) for you?"

I was just curious... All that complaining from married men got me worried... ;-) My 'numerology' ;-) tells me of my 'exceptional sex drive';-) and on the other hand it also says how great 'husband/father' material I'm... wtf? ;-)
It seem to me that those two don't get well along together...
If woman demands commitment from man can't he demand sex in return or am I overreacting with this one...?


Briffault was married so he knows what he's talking... and to me it was describing almost all women... hypergamy + Briffault's law = nothing good for men

Grasshopper said...

@B…”…Now I'm going to ask you to be fair to me…”

For starters, in keeping with our theme of fairness, I have not heard your ex’s side of the story. I’m not buying this “crippling feeling of inferiority” thing you’re putting on him.

B you don’t have to justify ending that relationship to me. I accept that you made what you thought was the best decision for yourself.

I am having a difficult time connecting with your idea of women needing to feel the man she has chosen is superior to other men.

If I like a woman that is all that is important to me. I do not have any need to feel she is the best choice I could have possibly made or that she is superior to any other woman out there.

Grasshopper

metak said...

@Grasshopper

I smell another fellow MGTOW here... ;-)


"I am having a difficult time connecting with your idea of women needing to feel the man she has chosen is superior to other men.

If I like a woman that is all that is important to me. I do not have any need to feel she is the best choice I could have possibly made or that she is superior to any other woman out there."


The simplicity of a man... ;-)

Please don't try to 'connect' anything... go get yourself something to dink and relax... it will be more productive. ;-)

just visiting said...

Metak, you're going to have me curious about that numerology, lol.

@ Grasshopper, I'm trying to find the comment that Bellita made. (But this thread is a tad long. Which is good!!!)

I don't think that a woman has to feel that a man is superior to all others. (Though love can colour it that way, lol ) Though she does want to feel that he's stronger than her in various areas. It's about trust. Especially when it comes to the whole "surrender" thing. I think that it also helps in generating sexual attraction. It requires polarity. We keep hearing about the feminine attracting the masculine. If my masculine is stronger than my husbands masculine, I'm not going to trust him, or surrender to him completely. On some level, he's going to feel that, and problems are going to arise.

Now, there are things I can do to cultivate a more feminine energy to increase polarity, but it helps if the husband is helping with that as well.

In choosing a spouse, this is part of what's meant in choosing the best man she can get.

Bellita said...

@Grasshopper
For starters, in keeping with our theme of fairness, I have not heard your ex’s side of the story.

First of all, he's not my "ex" because we were never together. He was just courting me. Secondly, the point is not my interpretation of his parting words, because even if I were wrong about that specific case, the main point would still stand. And that point is that if SOMEONE thinks of himself as inferior, then he's got a problem.

You say that you don't think of yourself as inferior. And perhaps my former suitor doesn't think of himself as inferior, either. (I really can't buy it, though.) But if SOMEONE thought of himself as inferior, wouldn't that be a bad thing for HIM?

For this theoretical person, I say, "Think of yourself as superior!" You disagree, and would probably recommend: "Think of yourself as different . . . no better and no worse." But the fact that you would say something like that means that you do think there is something wrong with someone who thinks he is inferior. All I'm adding is that if he is a man, then he is doubly handicapped inasmuch as women want to find the BEST men. (It's hard to believe that someone is the best for you if he himself doesn't believe he is any good.)

If I like a woman that is all that is important to me. I do not have any need to feel she is the best choice I could have possibly made or that she is superior to any other woman out there.

I know. The "boner test," they call it. :P If he can happily imagine sleeping with you, then you're in. It might sound simple and fair to you, but it's incredibly unromantic to women. ("You mean there's no difference between me and that streetwalker?")

You might find it interesting that this is what makes women as sad as you have been in this thread. I suppose we can learn to take it philosophically, but the thought that the man you love thinks he could be equally happy with some other woman can be devastating. (I know that I statistically can't speak for all the women in the world, but I'm fairly sure that the vast majority will agree that learning this about their husbands would cut very deeply.)

I still remember a thread on a Manosphere blog in which the mostly male commenters said they couldn't see the logic in women fearing abandonment by their husbands so much that they initiate divorce after learning that the latter have strayed. If you don't want him to leave you, then why are you leaving him? The answer is that, for the woman, the adultery is tantamount to abandonment. She is no longer the best pizza he forsook all other pizzas for. Some other woman has become the best pizza he is forsaking his wife for.

It is a projection of female psychology onto men, but it explains a lot about women. Women who can't believe they got the best pizza feel that they're settling. "I love you but I'm not in love with you. I want a divorce."

Bellita said...

@JV
I don't think that a woman has to feel that a man is superior to all others. (Though love can colour it that way, lol ) Though she does want to feel that he's stronger than her in various areas.

Well, women certainly can't all share the same man who is superior to the rest of his sex! Hahahaha!

I guess what it all boils down to is that she not feel as if she settled and could have gotten someone "better."

just visiting said...

@ anyone


I think that something that is
rarely discussed is something Bellita has touched on. There are primal aspects to men that can be just as distressing to women. I suppose that in our own way, our romantic illusions become rather shattered.

But people are more than just primal instincts. It's not an either/ or situation. We aren't either rainbows and glitter and my little ponies or hypergamous whores. One doesn't cancel out the other. We just aren't one or the other. Any more than men are nice chivilrous prince charmings or sex driven polyamourous sport fekers.

Learning, usually the hard way, about the primal natures of either sex can be a bit heartbreaking. We just have to remember that we are all so much more. And that it's all part of the human experience.

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

"I was just curious... All that complaining from married men got me worried... ;-) My 'numerology' ;-) tells me of my 'exceptional sex drive';-) and on the other hand it also says how great 'husband/father' material I'm... wtf? ;-)
It seem to me that those two don't get well along together..."


You don't think the two go along well together?
Really??

I would have thought the two go perfectly well together!
But perhaps this is too much of a 'woman's view' for you...


"If woman demands commitment from man can't he demand sex in return or am I overreacting with this one...?"

No not at all. This is a reasonable trade-off, actually.

I said this before when you and I touched on this subject on Bellita' blog. This 'contract' falls on its head and dies a not-so-natural-death when a woman has had to use sex to get commitment. So when the man finally marries her, she quickly loses the incentive to please him anymore. This is one argument in support of virginity until marriage, I suppose. Because a virgin knows that she has got her commitment from a man who gave it to her 'for free' so to speak, i.e. without her having to dish out something rather expensive first. So her half of the contract really needs to be fulfilled.
So if this does not happen, then I agree that the woman is gravely at fault. And if she turns out to be frigid or something similar which prevents her from fulfilling her part of the bargain, then this is tragic...
And if she gets all hypergamous and leaves him for another man, she is being unfair and is effectively a thief (she has stolen his 'freedom' without giving anything back).

@ Grasshopper,

"I am having a difficult time connecting with your idea of women needing to feel the man she has chosen is superior to other men."

Yes, I imagine this is a major conundrum for men!
Same as the whole 'boner test' thing is unpalatable to most women... But once we understand that this is useful for a man if he is to do his part in propagating the species, we accept it without reservation :-)

Grasshopper, it is ESSENTIAL for a woman to feel this way about a man. Just take it from us...
Certainly, if you want a woman to feel it 'longterm' for you, you should see 'evidence' of this kind of thing in her. Otherwise 'hello EPL' down the line...

I think Bellita's comment to you at 7:27PM is absolutely priceless. And I second it wholeheartedly, because I know she is right. If you 'get' what she is saying, you are way ahead of other men already.

I am not going to add much more to what Bellita has already said because she pretty much covers it all...

"If I like a woman that is all that is important to me. I do not have any need to feel she is the best choice I could have possibly made or that she is superior to any other woman out there."

I have said this before, and I am so glad you confirm it for me. To a man, no woman is 'special', at least not in the beginning. By the time he chooses her for marriage though, there would be something that he sees in her that pushes him to take the plunge.
Otherwise, as Bellita says, any woman who can satisfy the 'boner test' will do.
(And I can't tell you how upsetting this can be for women!! And yes, this is one of the reasons 'ageing feminists' are so upset with men...they know that they have lost the ability to pass the 'boner test' and despise men for it...whereas other ageing women who are NOT femininists have something else they can attract men with, and as such have no need to resort to hatred...)

It's the opposite for women: from the very beginning of her attraction to him, he has to be 'special'.
She actually needs this in order to feel said attraction.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Metak,

"The simplicity of a man... ;-)"

Yes I agree it is a simple concept!
So simple in fact that women can't believe it could be that simple!
:-)


"Please don't try to 'connect' anything... go get yourself something to dink and relax... it will be more productive. ;-)"

Hm, I was about to say, 'great advice for your 'brother' Grasshopper, but actually I change my mind.

We like Grasshopper and we are answering questions he has about female sexuality/attraction triggers. Don't prevent him from listening to the answers we give him!
You are not helping him if you drag him to the nearest watering hole and get him to drown his sorrows in booze at the very time he should be listening to us lol!


@ JV,

"I think that something that is rarely discussed is something Bellita has touched on."

Ain't this the gospel truth...
Bellita has been extremely candid here...
More power to her.
And I shall join her in telling our lovely male commenters the truth about how we women think, if they really want to know.

(In exchange for intel into their minds, of course!)

Hey, no such thing as a 'free lunch', boys...not even at The Sanctuary.
Hahahahaha!!

Bellita said...

@ST
It's the opposite for women: from the very beginning of her attraction to him, he has to be 'special'.

This articulates it more precisely than I have. I kept insisting on The Best (in all caps, no less!), when what I really should have been saying was the man should be "special." Like a peacock. (Remember, ST? Hahahaha!)

Spacetraveller said...

"I kept insisting on The Best (in all caps, no less!), when what I really should have been saying was the man should be "special." Like a peacock."

:-)

Well, if we must split hairs, dear Bell, then I would say perhaps 'special' is an umbrella term which could include 'the best' or even 'THE BEST' :-)
It might be less 'the best' and more 'whatever floats my boat' but the principle is the same. That the man is superlative in something compared to other men. And in this sense even the comparative won't do. It's superlative or bust!

Bell, reading through these comments again, especially yours and Grasshopper's, something else occurs to me.

Remember on your blog where you asked for us to fill in the blank: If you want me ________.
And you and I had an almost identical answer to this in the form of 'If you want me, why?' or variation thereof.
Now thinking about this again, perhaps we are wrong to think like this? Are we not 'projecting' here?
We know that to feel attraction to a man, he has to be 'special' to us. But in asking a man to explain why he is attracted to us is to force him to see us as 'special' too, which does not come naturally to men afterall, (thanks Grasshopper for this intel!). So we are in effect forcing him to think like us, and that's perhaps a bad thing, no?

In any case, I can well imagine a man's (cetainly a man like Metak or Grasshopper!) response to our question: If you want to be with me, why?':

I want to be with her and she is asking me why?
Seriously, what is it with these (hard to please) women?!

You can just see it, can't you?
Hahahahahaha!
Maybe you and I should drop this line of thinking and just roll with it if a man wants to be with us, huh?
It would certainly simplify things, wouldn't you say?

Hm, is this what men mean when they accuse women of being 'drama queens' I wonder?

What do you think?

Bellita said...

@ST
I believe one of the men who filled in the blank was OTC, who said, "If you want me . . . then let's get started!"

Yohami's earlier answer (which was very "steak"): "There's no IF. Wanting me is a given." (Hahahaha!)

Both men were happy to be wanted at all and eager "to get started." And neither had the illusion that he was "special" in the sense that a woman in love longs to be special, although both of them knew what they were "worth." And I can see a man projecting the "boner test" mindset onto women, assuming we have a "worth test" (or the equivalent) and believing that if he passes it, then he's in. Which is not true. We have a "special test" and it's designed to filter out all men but one! :P

Thinking about this topic some more today, I realized that all the Romance novels and Romantic Comedy movies that women eat up with a spoon all feature male leads who subject women to a "special test" rather than a "boner test." So as soon as they meet the female lead, they CANNOT settle for anyone other than she. The fantasy depends on them being hardwired to be happy with only one specific woman. Because this is a woman's idea of romance.

Having said that, I can understand why Manosphere blogs do their best to combat such "Oneitis." A tenderhearted man in the thrall of an immature woman will be dragged through hell. And many men who were devastated by breakups do need to be reassured that there is hope for them . . . that There Will Always Be Another Woman. But as I was just discussing with another Gendersphere blogger (who will remain unnamed until I can ask her permission), what is arguably good advice for men who are still playing the field or testing out women they're not sure of yet . . . is not also good advice for men who are with women who have proven themselves trustworthy. More calibration is necessary.

Bellita said...

PS -- I'm starting to see exactly why men are so angry when women say, "I just want a nice guy." That's because they see it as the female version of the "boner test" that a lot of men can pass, in the same way a lot of women can pass when a man says, "I just want a cute, pleasant girl." But as Manosphere bloggers have pointed out, what women really mean is, "I want a nice guy who is also special." :P And we can't really blame men for feeling lied to about their chances . . . especially when women start defining "special" in really ridiculous terms.

Grasshopper said...

@B…
OK I’ll go that extra mile with you on this one. A man who genuinely thinks himself inferior has a problem, I’ll grant you that.

However I don’t see this as big a problem as you do apparently.
I mean so what? He may have other traits that more than make up for it in a lot of women’s minds.

It is my belief or rather my conviction at this point that women first and foremost are attracted to a man’s looks anyway. They are loathe to admit that and I really don’t expect you or any of the other ladies here to fess up to this now. In fact I’m anticipating vehement denials though hoping to be surprised.

If she likes his looks – she’s interested, if she doesn’t tough luck dude. Maybe we should start calling this the clit test or something.

If it genuinely concerns you that your man could be equally happy (sexually) with many other women – instead of focusing on how that hurts you focus instead on doing something about it. By that I mean pleasing him in other non-sexual ways. Cook his favorite foods, do his favorite things with him, build him up, etc. Be to him that one in a million girl he’ll never want to leave – boner be damned. It’s not all about sex B.

@ST… “…it is ESSENTIAL for a woman to feel this way about a man...”

It seemed to me B had that quality with that ex-suitor of hers. Yet she turned him down. In words both of you say this quality is ESSENTIAL (OK you said that not B). But in deed I saw something else. Her lack of attraction in other areas seemed to trump this being super special to him.

So this is the issue for men. We hear you ladies when you tell us what you want but we’ve found that in practice there is usually some unspoken thing that trumps whatever it is you’ve told us.

Do you understand what that is like for us? That is why I said earlier in this thread – women’s preferences be damned.

Grasshopper

metak said...

@ST

"We like Grasshopper and we are answering questions he has about female sexuality/attraction triggers. Don't prevent him from listening to the answers we give him!
You are not helping him if you drag him to the nearest watering hole and get him to drown his sorrows in booze at the very time he should be listening to us lol!"


I figured that one a long time ago... and you don't ask woman for answer, you won't get it that way... just watch her actions and you'll see there's very little in common between saying and doing... ;-)

It's newer too late to develop drinking problem among many others... ;-) I guess...

"The Boner test" says that no woman is special!!! That's the biggest realization a man can get from his other head... ;-) I won't put you on any kind of pedestal or boner ;-) if you haven't earned it. End of story.
You're setting yourself for imminent failure with you kind of attitude. That's why a wife is special to his man later in relationship. When she has time to prove herself to him...

Seriously... a PEA-COCK??? ;-)

Spacetraveller said...

@ Bell,

"If you want me . . . then let's get started!"


"There's no IF. Wanting me is a given."


Hahaha!
Typical male responses. I don't know ANY woman who would give answers like these :-)



"Thinking about this topic some more today, I realized that all the Romance novels and Romantic Comedy movies that women eat up with a spoon all feature male leads who subject women to a "special test" rather than a "boner test." So as soon as they meet the female lead, they CANNOT settle for anyone other than she. The fantasy depends on them being hardwired to be happy with only one specific woman. Because this is a woman's idea of romance."

Exactly, Bell. Exactly.
Which is why I agree with The Manosphere that Romance novels/films are very bad for women and should be viewed purely as entertainment and nothing else. Andrew (of 'The Rules Revisited') had a recent post about this on his blog.

"And I can see a man projecting the "boner test" mindset onto women, assuming we have a "worth test" (or the equivalent) and believing that if he passes it, then he's in. Which is not true."

Agreed, Bell.
And you speak none too soon - this is EXACTLY what Grasshopper does when he says, "If she likes his looks – she’s interested, if she doesn’t tough luck dude. Maybe we should start calling this the clit test or something."

I really hate to break it to you, Grasshopper, but this is simply not true (at least for the more marriage-minded woman that you seek). And it is not just my opinion, some men are aware of this. Read Danny's 'Gut check' post on his blog...

If a man's looks attracts a woman it is completely incidental rather than the main focus of her attraction. I am probably doing a poor job of convincing you, but consider this: Good-looking men tend to be confident and I bet it is the confidence that attracts a woman. A good-looking woman is not necessarily confident - if you think about it, this makes sense: a woman is at her peak of attractiveness in her teens and early 20s when she is least confident, and yet that is precisely when she will attract men the most! That should tell us that is her beauty and not any notion of confidence that is attracting the men. A very young guy who is very good-looking is less attractive to a woman than an older (but not TOO old lol) guy with a beer belly but with loads of confidence...

"It seemed to me B had that quality with that ex-suitor of hers. Yet she turned him down."

Um, again I can't speak for Bell, she'll have to answer this question herself, but my interpretation of what she said was that she felt the need to drop that guy precisely because she couldn't see him as 'special'... but his attitude after she did drop him made her realise that she was indeed right...

"Do you understand what that is like for us?"

Believe it or not, yes. I really do.
Despite our differences, though, there has to be a way for men and women to get along.
Individuals do manage it. So must we if we choose not to turn our backs on each other.

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

"I figured that one a long time ago... and you don't ask woman for answer, you won't get it that way... just watch her actions and you'll see there's very little in common between saying and doing..."

Yes, I agree that in real life, of course that is what a man should do. But given that Grasshopper is not looking to actually date me...

"It's newer too late to develop drinking problem among many others... ;-) I guess..."

Hahahaha!
Stop it with your pessimistic outlook :-)


"That's why a wife is special to his man later in relationship. When she has time to prove herself to him..."

You are agreeing with me, Metak! I do say a lot that a woman can only become 'special' to a man after a long time. The woman sees him as 'special' way before he sees her as special. I have always said this!

"Seriously... a PEA-COCK??? ;-)"

I didn't invent this Game concept, Metak. You guys did :-)

metak said...

@ST

"But given that Grasshopper is not looking to actually date me..."

Are you sure?? ;-) Maybe he's got weird fetish for older women like me... ;-)

I am going to hell... ;-)


"Stop it with your pessimistic outlook :-)"

Me drinking...? Because of a woman...?

You don't need Mayan calendar to tell you that it would be the end of the world... ;-)


"You are agreeing with me, Metak! I do say a lot that a woman can only become 'special' to a man after a long time. The woman sees him as 'special' way before he sees her as special. I have always said this!"

Most women think somehow along these lines: "You mean if I want to be treated like I'm 'special' I have to be special?? That's too much work... I'll just use my boobs to cloud his judgement... ;-)"

Grasshopper said...

@Metak
“…I smell another fellow MGTOW here…”

Yes – a lot of what I see and read about MGTOW really resonates with me. I think it does with a lot of men in all walks of life all over the world. Really interesting what you posted about the marriage trend in Slovenia. And so cool how you’ve got ST’s number. It’s been fun seeing you two go back and forth.

@ST… “…You are not helping him if you drag him to the nearest watering hole…” said ST to Metak.

My dear ST read Metak’s advice again really carefully – he did not say anything about downing a beverage.

Or maybe that really was a typo. Either way good advice!

Grasshopper

Bellita said...

@Grasshopper
Be to him that one in a million girl he’ll never want to leave – boner be damned. It’s not all about sex B.

Sigh! I never said it was. Give me a little credit, please.

If I seem to focusing too narrowly, it is because I'm not sure if you realize that even women who are secure in their marriages still feel a bit threatened when their husbands look at other women. Why is a man considered a cad--"shamed," the Manosphere might say--for glancing at a scantily clad miss while in his wife's presence? He's wired that way, he's not doing anything immoral, and his actions are not an indicator of cheating. But the woman's perception is that she could be dumped for that other female, and it terrifies her. So she finds a way to make that behavior unacceptable . . . or she finds a way to trash the other woman. Again, I statistically can't speak for all women, but I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find one, no matter how happily married, who isn't threatened by a more beautiful female.

Is this irrational? Sure. But it's also as "irrational" as a man admiring other women when he is (presumably) married to the woman he wants.

It seemed to me B had that quality with that ex-suitor of hers. Yet she turned him down. In words both of you say this quality is ESSENTIAL (OK you said that not B). But in deed I saw something else. Her lack of attraction in other areas seemed to trump this being super special to him.

I'm really not sure what you mean by the first part, but I want to address the last sentence. You're so close, Grasshopper! SO CLOSE! Even assuming that I was special to him (which I wasn't; he was courting other women at the same time), he wasn't special to me. See the difference?

This is what two friends of mine (a man and a woman) were arguing about recently. Both of them have been going through dry spells in their romantic lives. My male friend said (and I agree with him) that he has it worse because he gets no attention from women at all, even the ones he finds unattractive. My female friend said that they are completely equal inasmuch as she only gets attention from men she isn't attracted to. (The rude implication is that unattractive men might as well not exist. :P) In other words, the woman wants to be special to the man, but the man has to be special to the woman. If you want to make this about looks, go ahead. But he has to be special.

(Interestingly, this man and woman are the "beta orbiter" and the best friend I mentioned earlier. The irony is so sad.)

We hear you ladies when you tell us what you want but we’ve found that in practice there is usually some unspoken thing that trumps whatever it is you’ve told us.

I'll admit that I was just like that before I found the Manosphere; but these days I will readily mention that unspoken thing. In fact, I've mentioned it many times in this thread, first with the imagery of "steak" and lastly with the description "special." Neither of which, I grant, is very helpful. But then again, you've already damned women's preferences, so it shouldn't matter. ;)

metak said...

@Grasshopper

There's a 'dink' where it should be 'drink'... ;-)

ST immediately thought about alcohol... ;-)

Naughty woman... ;-)


I was trying to tell him not to waste too much time and energy with that kind of crap... ;-)


"And so cool how you’ve got ST’s number. It’s been fun seeing you two go back and forth."

It has been fun... two arrogant extremists trying to figure out the secret behind male-female relationships... fail miserably along the way... ;-)

just visiting said...

The boner test says no woman is special. But common manosphere wisdom claims no woman is special period. Ever. Even in marriage. Even recomending breaking up with a perfectly good girlfriend with further potential to prove to a mans self that there's always another woman. So, something mysterious must be going on with men and how they choose from a woman's point of view. If all women are the same, even the ones who pass the boner test, pass the laundry lists, are in relationship with a man....then what? Sounds less like love and more like, "She'll do."

So. I'm stubborn on this.

There seems to be the complaint that women just bring sex and attractiveness to the table. And yet, I've seen plenty of women, some married, offering plenty more getting cheated on or left for some vapid immature woman, but hey, she's younger and hotter. And men wonder why women think that developing other traits is a waste of time. I'm not one of them, but I can see the point.

Plenty of stories in the sphere of women bringing all the things asked for to the table, and being thrown in the harem. Not necessarily knowing this. And then the kicker. Contempt. The contempt that that these women are spoken of is staggering.

So, I think a reasonable woman would realize that she shouldn't be considered special at first. But EVER? At that point the men can take their precious FRAME and stick it up their.......

So please explain the paradox. A woman is never special. Except when she is. And I'm only assuming that at some point a woman must be special, despite what is said in the sphere. Other wise, it's all lust. (And they have the nerve to say women don't know how to love.)

Lol. end of rant.

metak said...

@JV

I'll be serious for a moment.. but only for a moment. ;-)

First: stop with Star Trek terms like 'sphere' and if you start talking in Klingon in your next comment... well my fortune cookie we'll have a big problem ;-)

Second: If a man is looking for a good wife 'the boner test' is just part of a larger test that is testing women to find those that are 'different - to him, he likes that' and not 'special' yet... she's just different from the rest...

Third: When she gets to know her then can she become special to him...

metak said...

I hate this keyboard...

Third: When he gets to know her then can she become special to him... ;-)

thinking about lesbians to much... :-)

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

"Most women think somehow along these lines: "You mean if I want to be treated like I'm 'special' I have to be special?? That's too much work... I'll just use my boobs to cloud his judgement... ;-)"

:-)

Immature women think this way, yes. It might work for a short time, but I am not sure it is a good longterm strategy!

Grasshopper,
(speaking to Metak):
"And so cool how you’ve got ST’s number."

Yeah... how did he get to rattle my cage so?
:-)

I keep trying to swim against the tide with this one, and I get the sense I won't win but I keep trying :-)
Metak is a true loose cannon!
And that's why he is so fascinating to me...
I have never denied that I am totally 'Gameable'...and I think Metak is particularly good at this. The funny thing is, I still fall for 'Game' even when I know I am being Gamed to within an inch of my life :-)
You know, Metak somehow reminds me why the 'kamikaze' are so dangerous...what on Earth do you do with a person who is not afraid of death, which is the ultimate human fear?

"It’s been fun seeing you two go back and forth."

It's like 'train crash TV', isn't it?
Glad to be of service, Grasshopper.

Metak seems to be yanking my chain, yes, but I see you are doing the same to Bellita! Equally fascinating to watch you two do your own thing too ;-)
And even JV who is normally composed and calm is now upset at the whole lot of you!

Is it full moon or something?
:-)

@ Metak,

"There's a 'dink' where it should be 'drink'... ;-)

ST immediately thought about alcohol... ;-)

Naughty woman... ;-)"


I have been set up!
:-)

That's 'dark tactics', Metak. You omitted the 'r' on purpose, didn't you?
And I fell into the trap...

"It has been fun... two arrogant extremists trying to figure out the secret behind male-female relationships... fail miserably along the way... ;)"

*sigh*
Much as I hate to, I would agree with your assessment of the current situation.
Hahahahahaha!

@ JV,

Right behind ya, sista!

:-)

Grasshopper said...

@ST… “…Good-looking men tend to be confident…”

No I think women project the confident trait onto a man they find good looking. Because that is what they want him or need him to be for reasons you described.

If a really good looking man lacked confidence or perhaps to use B’s example thought himself inferior for some reason – I have no doubt in my mind there would be scores of women willing to take him on as a boyfriend and roll up their sleeves and go to work on that little confidence or inferiority problem of his.

In return of course she’d be getting Mr. Good Looking as arm candy. If you can’t even imagine a good looking man with these less than desirable traits then that actually proves my point.

Even marriage minded women I think want a good looking husband over settling for a not so good looking one.

I know you sincerely believe what you’re telling me ST but you’ll never change my mind on this. Like I said it’s not a belief it’s a conviction at this point. I’ve just seen it too often in real life.

Grasshopper

just visiting said...

Lol. I know, I know. I worry sometimes that men taking this stuff so seriously might ruin their ability to love. And I'd hate to be a woman involved with someone like that, only to find out when its too late.

Romance....Oh boy. Agreed that rom coms and novels are a weird perversion of romance. Hallmark too. Throw in the entitlement princesses who are anything but, and romance is dead, or delusional at best.

But romance itself, not the perversion, is something that touches something very deeply feminine within me. It brings out something deeply feminine within me. And I give probably more than I receive. But I'm not willing to throw romance under the bus because its been perverted by the mainstream anymore than I would give up sex because of porn. It's just another expression of love.

Bellita said...

@JV
I think a reasonable woman would realize that she shouldn't be considered special at first. But EVER? At that point the men can take their precious FRAME and stick it up their.......

Exactly. Remember the Manosphere recommendation that a man stop dating a woman if she doesn't sleep with him by the third date? (For those who are unfamiliar, sex is just a metaphor. That's the hyperbolic way of saying a man should stop wasting his time with a woman who isn't "into him" by the third date--because if she's not interested in him by that point, she never will be.) I bring it up because it cuts both ways. If a woman doesn't get a ring on her finger (i.e. isn't special) after a year of exclusive dating, then she should cut line. (By the way, the ring is also a metaphor.)

metak said...

@JV

I can't stand the kind of bull-shit romance, love, relationship... they're selling on TV.

"It brings out something deeply feminine within me."

It's a really nice reward for a men if he knows how to do it...

because...

"And I give probably more than I receive."

BINGO! ;-) more you give, more you get back...

Spacetraveller said...

"thinking about lesbians to much... :-)"

Hahahahaha!
That's disgusting, Metak.
Do Taoist monks hear confession?
Someone (mentioning no names) needs to go...
:-)

@ Grasshopper,

"No I think women project the confident trait onto a man they find good looking."

2 things:
I don't doubt that this happens, but it only happens when the woman is desperate. And it doesn't work, because for her to be attracted, he needs to display a certain degree of confidence to her. Sure, she could 'make up' that confidence on his behalf, courtesy of her hamster, but one day she will realise this is what she has done and then it's EPL time... If she was genuinely attracted in the first place, she will usually stay attracted...
Also, (and this is quite important!) most women actually select for uglier men than them due to vanity. This is true!!! It is a false strategy however, and is another example of 'projection'. If the man is uglier, she believes he is less likely to be lured away by other predatory females, totally missing the point that it is NOT his good looks that the other women are noticing in him...

"If a really good looking man lacked confidence or perhaps to use B’s example thought himself inferior for some reason – I have no doubt in my mind there would be scores of women willing to take him on as a boyfriend and roll up their sleeves and go to work on that little confidence or inferiority problem of his."

This I accept. But the trigger for this behaviour on the part of a woman is NOT good looks! You really seem hung up on the visual thing, Grasshopper :-)

If a woman realises that a man has good 'steak', i.e. inner character that she values, she may try to 'help' him along, usually indiectly. For these women, they may waive the confidence thing slightly if they are sure his inner character is satisfactory according to their own standards, but even so, they will fitness test to see that the men are not total wimps. Remember that if she is looking for a father for her children/longterm partner she needs a strong man. Her life depends on this.

"Even marriage minded women I think want a good looking husband over settling for a not so good looking one."

Yes there is a level below which most human beings will not go when it comes to physical attractiveness, and that bar is set differently for different people. But in general, the level is set far higher by men than it is by women. We are agreed on that, yes?

"I know you sincerely believe what you’re telling me ST but you’ll never change my mind on this. Like I said it’s not a belief it’s a conviction at this point. I’ve just seen it too often in real life."

I respect your real life experiences on this, Grasshopper.
With this in mind, I shall stop trying to convince you.
I promise.

metak said...

@ST

"Do Taoist monks hear confession?
Someone (mentioning no names) needs to go..."


hahahaha My favorite Taoist monk was the one that spent most of his time in brothel.. ;-)

"That's disgusting, Metak."

MISOGYNY!! I tell you... ;-)

Spacetraveller said...

@ Metak,

Alright, Catholic confession then :-)

"MISOGYNY!! I tell you... ;-)"

It's not the lesbians I have a problem with, Metak.
It's your fantasizing about them that I refer to :-)

So in this sense you could accuse me more of 'misandry' than 'misogyny'.

Although I do both in equal measure.
Hahahahaha!

Grasshopper said...

@ JV … “… so please explain the paradox…”

A woman I am seeing is special to me because she is the one who said yes. I may have asked a dozen girls out that week because they passed the boner test but the other 11 said no.

So she is special because she is the one willing to give it a try with me. She is the one sitting across the table from me at the café or next to me in the theater. Where are the other 11?

She had other suitors no doubt – but she picked me. She is obviously then the most discerning woman on the planet or you can say …. special.

I know women don’t like this but men have to hedge their bets when pursuing them. If I forsake all others to pursue that one special woman before she says yes – where does that leave me if she decides to say no?

It leaves me starting from scratch with other women in my social circles who I’ve been ignoring while I pursued that One Miss Special. How might they react – OK now I’m good enough for you? After she turned you down – now you want me?

Given that - How on earth do you expect a guy to convince one of them SHE is special?

It’s a lose – lose situation for men. Do you see that?

I can’t answer the other part about men being unfaithful. I have always taken the commitment I made to my steady GF’s seriously and never strayed with any of them. To be fair none of them ever cheated on me either. Cheating is something I can’t comment on because I have (thank God) never experienced it from either side.

This too is another thing – people of both genders say they want fidelity – but relationships between two faithful people still crash and burn. Go figure.

Grasshopper

metak said...

@Grasshopper

"Given that - How on earth do you expect a guy to convince one of them SHE is special?"

If I was a woman ;-) hahahha ... I would tell you that you don't convince a woman, you show her... and then you ask me: But how? and before I can even answer you, ST, Bellita and SV jump in and say: "You marry her!" *plus Bellita roles her eyes again* ;-)

Grasshopper said...

@B… “…You're so close, Grasshopper! SO CLOSE!...”

And that is where I shall leave it my dear. I have enjoyed chatting with you on this topic and look forward to chatting with you again on another topic.

Given ST’s observation… “.. Metak seems to be yanking my chain, yes, but I see you are doing the same to Bellita!...”

Not sure if you feel this way too B – but if you’ve felt I’ve been yanking your chain then I apologize.

If we are straying into chain yanking territory with this one then time to give it a break.

Grasshopper

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

"If I was a woman ;-) hahahha ... I would tell you that you don't convince a woman, you show her... and then you ask me: But how? and before I can even answer you, ST, Bellita and SV jump in and say: "You marry her!" *plus Bellita roles her eyes again* ;-)"

Hahahahahahaha!!!
Bingo!

"Not sure if you feel this way too B – but if you’ve felt I’ve been yanking your chain then I apologize."

Um...
Grasshopper, of course I can't speak for Bell about how she might feel about you yanking her chain, or even, if she feels that you are indeed yanking it from her point of view...

But, I never complained about Metak yanking mine... I merely agreed with your observation that he 'had my number'.

(And why do I get the feeling that even if I complained, he would yank it even more anyhow...)

Did I not mention 'loose cannon' before?

:-)

metak said...

@ST

Me, yanking? Are you yanking me..? ;-)

Maybe I need new introduction to my comments? Like - There's no need to hide your women I come in peace... ;-)

"Did I not mention 'loose cannon' before?"

That's me! ;-) I use humor to discuss about pretty much everything. You have to reevaluate your beliefs and convictions... and correct them accordingly.
I would be perfect teacher... ;-)
p.s. fortune cookie I don't throw markers ;-)

Spacetraveller said...

"Maybe I need new introduction to my comments? Like - There's no need to hide your women I come in peace... ;-)"

Metak, you don't fool me...
If I have a daughter and I see you coming, she's getting locked up in the nearest high tower!

"p.s. fortune cookie I don't throw markers ;-)"

Markers - no.
Hand grenades - yes.

Hahahaha!
:-)

metak said...

@ST

"Metak, you don't fool me...
If I have a daughter and I see you coming, she's getting locked up in the nearest high tower!"


Now you're just flattering me. ;-)

"Hand grenades - yes."

Good thing for me that I'm a man so I can throw them safely far away from me. ;-)

just visiting said...

@ Grasshopper

Thank you for a very thoughtful response to my question. Cheered me up when I was feeling a little down.

@Metak and ST

Markers -no
grenades -yes

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper and JV,

"I know women don’t like this but men have to hedge their bets when pursuing them. If I forsake all others to pursue that one special woman before she says yes – where does that leave me if she decides to say no?"

Thanks for this, Grasshopper, because it explains further to me why any one woman should NOT be 'special' to a man at the beginning...
But JV's comment below:
"So, I think a reasonable woman would realize that she shouldn't be considered special at first. But EVER?"
and Bell's reaction to it tell you (and me) that women do not mind not being 'special' at the beginning. In fact I think it even helps to build attraction for a woman because the very fact that he does not see her as 'special' gives him that whole cool, aloof and slightly detached attitude that makes him 'alpha' whether he intends this or not. And as you know, some women are suckers for this presumed display of confidence. It is always better if the man has good character within, as well, of course...but this good character only gets to be 'visible' to a woman when he shows that initial confidence, same as a good woman gets to dislay her inner good character later, to a man, only after she has been 'noticed' by him because of her beauty.

But I also believe there should be a 'beta' phase in which he does see her as 'special' at some stage and he shows it in no uncertain terms such that she gets to witness his real interest in her.
Without this, how is she to know that he is really interested in her and not just any woman?
A wise woman would in fact be well advised to look for this. If a man does not pass through this phase with her, she would be foolish to continue to be with him.
This is my biggest gripe about the character 'Connie' in the film 'Firelight' that I talk about in the post 'Thanks but no thanks!'
Connie was silly to think Charles loved her when in 10 whole years he had never so much as danced with her...

Now I know you have no problem with showing your interest to a woman, but Bellita's and JV's gripe (and I toss in my own gripe as well) about this is that The Manosphere is advising men to 'keep it moving' and NEVER see any one woman as 'special' enough to settle down with. Ever.
I think that is bad advice.
Because then you end up with men with no sense of permanency in their lives...everything is 'replaceable'.
Such men may become deeply unhappy even if they don't admit it.
I do agree though, that given a choice between a bad woman and a life of aloneless, even I (if I were a man) would probably choose the latter (actually, especially I lol!).

But we are not talking about such a stark choice here. There is a continuum of women, from very bad to very good...even if the majority are very bad, there are still some good ones left.
To see all women as 'not special enough' forever is to deny oneself a huge part of the human experience. And I wouldn't wish that on anybody...
But of course we all make our own choics in life...
And then we have to live with them...

Bellita said...

@Grasshopper
Not sure if you feel this way too B – but if you’ve felt I’ve been yanking your chain then I apologize.

Not at all! :) I've enjoyed this thread. And I hope you don't feel that I was yanking your chain, since I have been taking you seriously.

A woman I am seeing is special to me because she is the one who said yes. I may have asked a dozen girls out that week because they passed the boner test but the other 11 said no.

Even before you wrote that, I was reminded of the ending of one Jane Austen novel. (Not saying what it is, only in case people here don't like spoilers--but if you want to know, google the quote in the following paragraph.) After the male lead has declared his love, complete with Grand Gesture, and proposed to the female lead, both of them now a state of perfect "felicity" (Hahahaha!), Austen reveals that the only reason the male lead even gave the female lead a second thought at the beginning was that he had heard from his sister that she had a massive crush on him. No other reason!

And Austen jokes that even she knows it is "dreadfully derogatory to an heroine's dignity," but that although it's a new thing in fiction, it's a common enough thing in real life! :)

If I forsake all others to pursue that one special woman before she says yes – where does that leave me if she decides to say no?

I do get this. And I'm NOT trying to convince men to place all their bets on one woman during those early stages just because the characters in Romance novels and movies do it. I brought those up only to explain why the "boner test," while reasonable and fair from one angle, is actually deeply saddening from another. As JV has said, it hurts when the reality about the opposite sex shatters our romantic illusions about them--and this is so whether the opposite sex is female or male.

This might seem ridiculous to men, but it's really hard for a woman to let go of the desire to be special from the very beginning . . . probably just as hard for a man to believe that women can't just settle for a good man who isn't "the best." (Heck, she can't even see him!) Even Jane Austen never married. She didn't want to settle for a man who was just "good enough," even if she knew (based on her writing) that men "settle" all the time and wouldn't mind being "settled" for in the same fashion.

Spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

"This too is another thing – people of both genders say they want fidelity – but relationships between two faithful people still crash and burn. Go figure."

I know!
Isn't this such a pity...

But I would still prefer this to one where there is cheating left right and centre...
For in the scenario you describe above, at least both partners have basic respect for each other.
That's a good place to start, in my book. If things go awry, at least both partners remember the other with a degree of fondness... which can be useful if there is ever to be a reconciliation at some point further down the line.
And even if there is no chance of reconciliation, at least shared respect and good memories...

That's already something to be grateful for. Most other break ups (amidst cheating and other horrible things) are bitter and soul-crushing...
The acrimony is often palpable when one is around either party. It is truly sad to witness...

Spacetraveller said...

"(Heck, she can't even see him!)

Bell, I can really sympathise with men for not being able to get their heads round this one...
Afterall, they 'see' most women - because in fact they have to, because they are the 'hunters' and moreover they 'see' most women in equal measure, as women don't stand out, one from another, to them (most women, except where they are very obese, for example, are beautiful enough to attract at least some attention, especially when young)...until they get to know one woman well enough to judge whether she could be 'special' enough to them or not.

In all of this, just having the knowledge of the mindset of the opposite gender really helps to lessen the disappointment our own (unfulfilled) expectations might cause due to the other gender reading from a different script we ourselves are not privy to :-)

It never helps to say to the other gender, 'Here, read from my script instead of yours!' because in fact, they can't. They are biologically programmed not to.
So it is better to understand why they act the way they do, and make adjustments accordingly, thus allowing for their 'failings'.

Knowledge is power, as they say.
Which is why I find these discussions interesting and educational at the same time, as well as fun!

I too have really enjoyed this thread.

Bellita said...

Re: "seeing" the opposite sex

There was a discussion in one of Bb's threads about men's physical preferences. Of course, these will vary from man to man, but the two things that the male commenters agreed on were . . .

a) the range of women a man can be attracted to is MUCH wider than the range of men a woman can be attracted to

and

b) men's tastes are more idiosyncratic than women's, meaning that a woman has a better chance of finding a man who thinks she is drop dead gorgeous if she is "weird" looking than if she is average looking. (More hope for me! Hahahaha!)

So even if there is a "clit test" as Grasshopper says, it's not the female equivalent of the "boner test" inasmuch as it is more of a disqualifier than a qualifier.

Lokland made a similar point in one of the HUS threads. He said that a man will qualify nearly any woman unless she reveals a trait that's a non-negotiable turn-off for him. On the other hand, a woman will disqualify nearly any man unless he reveals a trait that's the holy grail for her. (Hahahaha!)

Spacetraveller said...

Bellita,

This is all so so true...

:-)

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveller said...

"My own point is that it is counterproductive to a woman's ultimate happiness, and I am racking my brain as to why it happens.
Hence my repeated assertion that it doesn't make sense."

My mistake, I thought you were attempting a hamster dance.

"I'll tell you: Women of childbearing age who don't bemoan the lack of commitment from men."

They don't have to. The government will step in to take his money from him, so that a woman can raise a child without anything other than the ATM-like presence of the biological father. Again, feminism has taught the past two generations of women that they don't NEED men for anything. Meanwhile, I keep smelling fishy bicycle seats everywhere I go.


metak said...

"It became a trend in this country to just live together and have a family without involving church or government... it's working I guess."

It's all over the world, now. Don't think for a second that your government or mine will stay out of such relationships. Co-habitation will become what we used to call 'common law spouse'.

Spacetraveller said...

"What I am trying to figure out is, where did Briffault get his observations from? I can't imagine that in the 1920s hypergamy was a big issue like it appears to be today."

It's always been around, the difference now is that women are part and parcel of the workforce in many countries. Now women can support themselves without a husband. Yet, hypergamy is still quite rampant, even within the women who make large amounts of money. This is why I reacted the way I did to the "Rich Man" post. Equality, my ass.


just visiting said...

"And there lies the rub. Lol. I think there are a lot of men who are quite capable of being happy without marriage. And that's something that is just mind blowing to the average woman."

Indeed so. Exactly so. And apparently, from what I have read all over the interwebs, women's minds are being blown in ever increasing numbers. Lots of fish riding bicycles of late.

Bellita said...

"To which I retorted, "If you really loved him, you would be okay with dropping that limit!" "

Very VERY well said. Her mind was obviously in 'shit-test' mode. 'If he loves me'.... Bah! As if love is proven through such childish thoughts. Better that she never married, unless of course she grew up after stating that she does not like sex.


Spacetraveller said...

"It's the opposite for women: from the very beginning of her attraction to him, he has to be 'special'.
She actually needs this in order to feel said attraction."

Actually, most all men learn this at an early age. The PUA websites/blogs are ALL about being that 'special guy', without any need for commitment to a long term relationship or marriage. We know that women want 'special' as well as to be thought of as 'special', but many many men don't know how to go about either...


Spacetraveller said...

""There's no IF. Wanting me is a given."

Hahaha!
Typical male responses. I don't know ANY woman who would give answers like these "

Really? I knew hundreds of them, still know lots of them. Lots. Princess Entitlement, anyone?


Bellita said...

"If a woman doesn't get a ring on her finger (i.e. isn't special) after a year of exclusive dating, then she should cut line. (By the way, the ring is also a metaphor.) "

Agreed. 100% agreed. But, again, I'm old fashioned. If my wife died tomorrow, I'd be line-cut every six months, assuming I even wanted to date again. And, if I DID date again, I'd at least be honest upfront and make it clear that marriage is NOT going to happen. No need to string anyone along (get it... cut line, string... never mind)

The Navy Corpsman

metak said...

@The Navy Corpsman

"It's all over the world, now. Don't think for a second that your government or mine will stay out of such relationships. Co-habitation will become what we used to call 'common law spouse'."

I never thought government would just sit back and watch... if anything government (it doesn't matter which one) is preparing for more feminazi like laws.. here they are already trying to increase age for retirement for men in name of 'austerity measures and shit' even though it's already higher than for women... dealing with women in any way has apparently became a serious hazard for man's health. ;-(

Spacetraveller said...

@ NC,

"My mistake, I thought you were attempting a hamster dance."

Danny insists EVERYTHING I say is hamster-driven :-)

"It's all over the world, now."

It sure is. Even in countries one wouldn't expect, like in the Far East...

"And apparently, from what I have read all over the interwebs, women's minds are being blown in ever increasing numbers."

Yes, I humbly concur. Quite the shock to the system...

"Typical male responses. I don't know ANY woman who would give answers like these "

Really? I knew hundreds of them, still know lots of them. Lots. Princess Entitlement, anyone?"


NC, it is the language that I refer to. This is definitely a man's language, not a woman's. An entitlement princess will have the same idea of desirability in mind, but will not use this type of language. She is more likely to say, 'I'm gorgeous, I'm desirable, how dare you not desire me?'
In the man's case he is showing cockiness/confidence. In the case of Entitlement princess, there is an air of chagrin to her words...
(Normal women will say 'I am desirable' and leave it at that).


"No need to string anyone along (get it... cut line, string... never mind)"

Hahahaha, good one!
These quick-witted quips are coming thick and fast in this thread, aren't they?
(get it...line...string ...thread...never mind).

;-)

Bellita said...

@SC
NC, it is the language that I refer to. This is definitely a man's language, not a woman's. An entitlement princess will have the same idea of desirability in mind, but will not use this type of language.

If I remember correctly, it was Metak in another thread who referred to the arrogant princess who might as well have said:

"If you want me . . . stand vigil under my window for 100 nights!"

She's still assuming that wanting her is a given, but then she makes the man work to be wanted back.

Spacetraveller said...

Bell,

Exactly!
For Yohami, it is simply a statement he makes. It is his 'frame' that a woman wants him.
For EP, it is more like seeking proof of an assertion that SHE has made! And if she is proved wrong, as in Metak's example of the men leaving on Day 99, she is upset!
So in her head, she has arrived at 1+1=3 whereas for Yohami, it's not 1+1= anything, it's just 1...

:-)

Hamster spin on the part of EP perhaps?

Grasshopper said...

@B… Glad we are good still. ST knows you better than I do and I thought maybe she saw something in one of my posts to you.

@ST… “…The Manosphere is advising men to 'keep it moving' and NEVER see any one woman as 'special' enough…”

As a man I can understand this of course. It is a Rosa Parks type strategy to effect social change.

“…Such men may become deeply unhappy even if they don't admit it…”

Well no I don’t think so. If anything it was the deep unhappiness or dissatisfaction with the status quo that led us to not giving up our seat on the bus so to speak anymore.

Grasshopper

Spacetraveller said...

Grasshopper,

"If anything it was the deep unhappiness or dissatisfaction with the status quo that led us to not giving up our seat on the bus so to speak anymore."

Understood.

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveller said...

"
NC, it is the language that I refer to. This is definitely a man's language, not a woman's. An entitlement princess will have the same idea of desirability in mind, but will not use this type of language. She is more likely to say, 'I'm gorgeous, I'm desirable, how dare you not desire me?'
In the man's case he is showing cockiness/confidence. In the case of Entitlement princess, there is an air of chagrin to her words...
(Normal women will say 'I am desirable' and leave it at that)."

Language, semantics.

Let me give a small bit of advice to those who actually are looking for it:

I never cared if she wanted me, or not.

That was the sum total of my 'alpha' behavior. I was, and with the exception of my wife, still am, outcome independent. I was, and with the exception of my wife, still am, ugly as a horned toad squirting blood from an eye.

Yet I still managed to have several very serious relationships, a couple of which I was probably cut loose from, after refusing to get married. So be it. There was always another woman, somewhere. I wasn't looking for 'special', I wasn't really looking all that much at all, when I met my future wife. I've already spoken of that meeting, and I've since concluded that I was looking, but I didn't know what to look for.

Youth. Wasted on the young.

I wonder if you asked Yohami about that statement... are they wanting him, or just sex with him?


Bellita said...

"She's still assuming that wanting her is a given, but then she makes the man work to be wanted back."

Exactly.. nailed it in one. There is a world of difference between confident and cocksure, sanguine and entitled.

And then Spacetraveller said...

"For EP, it is more like seeking proof of an assertion that SHE has made! And if she is proved wrong, as in Metak's example of the men leaving on Day 99, she is upset!
So in her head, she has arrived at 1+1=3 whereas for Yohami, it's not 1+1= anything, it's just 1...

:-)

Hamster spin on the part of EP perhaps? "

Woman, single, seeking validation of personal conceit.... or,

Man, single, seeking admission of horniness from single woman...

Semantics, again. Slightly differing targets, very differing end games.

I've never thought of myself as a 'good catch' although I know at least one woman that disagrees with me. The point is, you cannot force someone to love you, to think of you as a special snowflake... all you can do, is be a person who can love and be loved in return. It all sounds so effing random, and it is, but aside from arranged marriages, it has been random for some 5000+ years. Sure there are selection forces at work, criteria to be met, but all the pretty phrases, (she set her cap for that man) and all the advice in the world does not amount to a fart in a dust storm when it comes to reality.

If you cannot see yourself as being capable of loving, or being loved, you will never find love, no matter how hard you try. You still might get married, but it won't be the same.

Life is too short for me to spend it trying to MAKE things work that might never have been. I'd rather spend my life knowing that things work, but I want them to work BETTER, and the only way I know to do that, is to improve myself. To find where I am coming up short, and figuring out how to fix it. In the end, all I can do, is fix myself, where I see faults. And maybe, hold the line in other places where I am doing ok.

The Navy Corpsman

Anonymous said...

metak said...

"I never thought government would just sit back and watch... if anything government (it doesn't matter which one) is preparing for more feminazi like laws.. here they are already trying to increase age for retirement for men in name of 'austerity measures and shit' even though it's already higher than for women... dealing with women in any way has apparently became a serious hazard for man's health. ;-("

Indeed. So men get to be austere and sacrifice, while women still get to claim they don't make as much money as men. At the risk of sounding repetitive:

Equality, my ass.

I say we force equality, true equality onto all those that spout such nonsense. I'd like to see how 'special snowflakes' do, while mortar shells are falling all around them, and their pals are lying in the dust, covered in blood.

Actually, I don't, and I admit it. I've never really known anyone that experienced combat who wished it on anyone else.

Spacetraveler, I'll not give you enough ROPE to hang me with, but to keep acCORD, I shall offer a STRAND of hope:

Don't listen to my YARNS, but LACE together your own BRAID. A FILAMENT of love is far far better than the whole cloth of comfort and security. Love with the entirety of the FIBER of your being, and know that this is the best you can do.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

@ NC,

"At the risk of sounding repetitive..."

Repetition is the father of learning lol.

"Spacetraveler, I'll not give you enough ROPE to hang me with, but to keep acCORD, I shall offer a STRAND of hope:

Don't listen to my YARNS, but LACE together your own BRAID. A FILAMENT of love is far far better than the whole cloth of comfort and security. Love with the entirety of the FIBER of your being, and know that this is the best you can do."


Oh my God, NC, I think you have exited the Earth's stratosphere and entered the twilight zone with this one!

Hahahahahahahahaha!
I shall just have to 'knucklebump' you and bow gracefully to your superior word-play skills whilst declaring: NC for the win!

What is it with you guys lately? You are all getting funnier and funnier...Ever since that Venus eclipse happened...

:-)

Love it!

Spacetraveller said...

Bell,

I took a good few days to ponder these two thoughts of yours:

"the range of women a man can be attracted to is MUCH wider than the range of men a woman can be attracted to"
and
"men's tastes are more idiosyncratic than women's"

The first is just plain fact. And it also makes sense, because as Grasshopper said, if a man keeps getting rejected by the majority of women he approaches, he really has to have a wider taste otherwise he would get rather stuck...
Having said that, a woman is indeed 'stuck' if the kind of man she wants is not forthcoming...

The second statement, if looked at purely from a beauty point of view again makes sense. There are several types of beauty. It is an immeasurable entity.
Confidence however is a binary thing. Either a man is confident or he is not. It is as simple as that.
Thanks for this. Goes straight into the cerebral archives.

Grasshopper said...

@ST...“…There are several types of beauty…Confidence however is a binary thing. Either a man is confident or he is not…”

I would suggest that there are several types of confidence too. There is the brash cocky type of confidence of course.

Then there is also the strong silent type of confidence. This type may not be in vogue as much anymore and is not the type perhaps a woman readily may notice.

While I agree with B that men are attracted to a wide range of physical beauty I think beauty is a binary thing (to use your term) also. Either a woman is good looking or she is not.

Grasshopper

Spacetraveller said...

@ Grasshopper,

Yes I agree that there are different types of confidence. But the issue is, whatever the type, a woman is aware of its presence or lack thereof.

A woman's beauty, as Bell suggested, is actually very suggestive rather than objective. No two men can agree on a woman's beauty or her 'ranking', it seems, unless she is exceedingly beautiful and as such, is almost 'universal' in her appeal. But even so...

But for women, confidence in whatever form really is binary. Any woman will detect it if it is there, whether or not it's her particular 'brand' of confidence. I think this is one way the sexes really do differ greatly.

And that explains why we have such different attraction triggers.
Another important way we differ so much is what Bellita also describes, which is that women are looking to disqualify a man unless he has something which 'saves' him from disqualification and a man will only disqualify a woman if she has something that is unacceptable to him. I see this over and over again...and I notice this is something that men in The Manosphere who have studied women well also mention a lot. It has to be true. It may not be 'right', but there we are. It cannot be helped any more than a man can help wanting to be intimate with a very attractive woman. All one can do is apply some degree of higher function, good sense and morals to the tools of Nature we have to work with.

Live Free or Die said...

I'm over a year late to the party, but this is a great site. It is nice to hear from you and Bellita about what women REALLY think and feel instead of taking what they say at face value.

Why do you think that most women tell "Nice Guys" to just be themselves and not change a thing in order to attract a woman when they know full well that "nice" isn't what a woman is attracted to?

Is it so that women can easily figure out who the real alphas are instead of having to sort through many imposter alphas?

In other words, if the majority of men knew the secrets of attraction, women would be put in a no-win situation. She risks sleeping with many imposter alphas, but yet a real alpha will walk away from her if she doesn't put out fast enough?

Spacetraveller said...

Hello Live Free or Die,

It is NEVER too late to the party at The Sanctuary, lol.
Welcome!

To answer your question, I don't think when the young women (who are actually in the market, so to speak)say this, they are trying to deceive men. I would posit that when a woman who is looking for a 'partner' (bf, husband, significant other, etc.) says it, she really means that she wants a man to be nice to her. However, (and this is what is NOT being said, causing your and most other men's confusion), that man should be a man that SHE IS ALREADY attracted to.

So Man A is nice to her. But she doesn't fancy Man A. There is nothing Man A can do to make her into him, no matter how 'nice' he is.

Man B is only vaguely nice to her. But she happens to be attracted to Man B. The amount of niceness Man B requires to make her jump hoops for him is signnificantly reduced automatically, by virtue of her attraction for him.

See the difference?

I would argue that women don't say the latter part because...
1) Most of us are actually are not aware this is how it works. Everything in life 'just happens', lol!

2) Those who know exactly how these things work will still not say it to a man because, let's face it, it's not exactly nice to say these things, is it?
We are alarmed by our own fickleness. We want to be more sophisticated than we are and when we find that we are not as sophisticated as we want to be, we shut up about it :-)

When older women (and those who frankly should know better) say these things, one should wonder whether they really ARE trying to sabotage a man's chances with a girl.

It is up to you in such circumstances to decipher whether this (older) woman is in your court and giving you advice in what she believes in in your best interests or if she is sending you up the wrong tree because she has ulterior motives. It's your call.

I hope this clears it up for you.

You MUST always verify that a woman you are interested in REALLY wants you. If not, she will ALWAYS be a reluctant bride for you. If you are not her Number one at the time you commit to her, you will NEVER be her number 1.

I know it is said that men should not listen to women when it comes to dating/relationships, etc.

But in this instance, pay heed to what I am saying. I have NEVER seen a woman 'change her mind' about a man down the line. If she didn't really love him at the altar, that stays the same forever. The divorce is just around the corner...

If she was fully attracted to you at the beginning, she will willingly 'work' through the bad patches of the relationship down the line, beccause she sees you as 'worth it' (and of course there will always be 'bad patches' in any relationship).

So this whole 'I want a nice man' thing is not really a 'fitness' test. Most women DO want nice (beta), but what they don't tell you is that before they get to 'nice' they want 'Wow' (alpha) FIRST.

You must present 'Alpha' to her FIRST, then gradually show her your 'beta' side later. That way, you and she win together. Show her 'nice' first, you are toast, mate!

Live Free or Die said...

Thanks for the response!

2) Those who know exactly how these things work will still not say it to a man because, let's face it, it's not exactly nice to say these things, is it?
We are alarmed by our own fickleness. We want to be more sophisticated than we are and when we find that we are not as sophisticated as we want to be, we shut up about it :-)


If a fat woman asked me why men weren't attracted to her, I'd tell her it was because she was fat. I'd tell her to lift weights, eat healthy and do some cardio. I wouldn't say it to be mean, but because it will produce the intended result that she wanted (to attract men). I guess this is the difference in the way the genders communicate; women more subtle and gentle while men are more bold and honest.

Spacetraveller said...

Exactly! You got it!

This is a MAJOR difference between men and women. Unfairly, women are sometimes seen as being deliberately dishonest. This is not always true. (Where this is true, the evidence is overwhelming and you see it quite clearly).

But more often than not, she is trying to be subtle (which is her true nature).

Where a woman is 'bold' and 'tells it as it is', she is often seen as brash, because both men and women recoginise this as going against the grain of female nature.

But some women don't seem to care and carry on regardless.
Because 'bold and brash' produces results.
But that is the masculine way, and usually doesn't suit a woman. Works a treat for men though :-)

A woman can usually also get her way using a feminine way. But it is more indirect, and takes work to perfect :-) But it is beauiful to watch when executed flawlessly by the professionals - ever seen a 4 year old girl twist 6 ft 4 Daddy round her little finger?
Hahahaha, I have.
I take my hat offf to these little professionals :-) If I was ever like that, I lost that skill years ago but trying desperately to reclaim it back!
Oh the irony...





Live Free or Die said...

I would be interested in hearing your opinion on this:

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/09/real_men_want_to_drink_guinnes.html

Scroll down to part IV about the Cadillac commercial.

Interesting how men and women can interpret two entirely different messages from the same ad.

Spacetraveller said...

Live Free or Die,

What an interesting ad.

I am ashamed to say, I didn't 'get' it at first. It went right over my head, I'm afraid. I had to read the author's script to 'get' that there was a message in there in the ad somewhere.
(Not very bright, me :-)

That said, when I finally 'got' it that there was a subliminal message therein, I came to the same conclusion that the author did, that this woman was using her female sexuality to get what she wants - without giving anything back.
I would wager that any other woman watching it would come to the same conclusion too. It's not that hard to fathom.
In may ways, I can sense that the makers of this ad WANT anyone watching it to come to the same conclusion.

The question for me (and this is where it might get a little complicated) is...why?

Why should we see this woman as using men - with impunity?
In fact, the sigh at the end of her escapade suggests that somehow SHE had to work hard to get to her car, i.e. that her bad behaviour was somehow 'hard work'.

She may have used all those clueless men, but she was just being 'intelligent'!
(Not cunning/deceitful/manipulative, of course). She 'worked hard' to get her way. Those men were just stupid!

This is how the media (subliminally)
We as the audience are supposed to laud this woman in some way. We are to 'high five' her as she negotiates her way to her car using other people, and they don't even realise they are being used! What a clever girl!

You can only tweak it is indeed bad behaviour if you are able to stand back from it and see it for what it really is.

Without a moral compass of some sort, it is almost impossible to do this.

And then you are successfully 'trained'.

Next time it rains and you forget your umbrella at home, you know what to do...right?

Except you might not be as attractive as the woman in the ad, and you might get a different response from men as this woman did in the ad...
What's a woman to think?
'All men are bastards'! of course!

And so on.

This type of subtle programming is more effective than the propaganda used by the Nazis.
One can easily see how an impressionable young woman without good parents is easy prey for this sort of 'education'.

Thank you for giving us an example of this reprehensible behavour by the media.

Live Free or Die said...

I was more interested in the "hidden" meaning the author said.

Why didn't one of these "men" just walk her to her car? Three guys, not one thought of this? She's under your umbrella and your natural instinct was not to protect, to help?.....

In which case her decision to leave you for another umbrella was astutely correct, odd how she and the commercial knew that. All men are good for is an umbrella because she cannot rely on men to act like... men.

Tagline: Ladies, it's all in how you get there, because you're on your own.

Spacetraveller said...

Live Free or Die,

I see what you mean (I think!) but actually, I also feel that that tagline is part of the problem...

Do you see how giving the message that 'you are on your own' somehow gives the green light for bad behaviour?

Any woman watching this advert would feel that somehow 'society had let her down' and therefore she would be fully justified to 'get one over' society.

I don't like that message at all.
Somehow it doesn't sit right with me.

If the aim is to advertise a car, why not simply make an advert which actually advertises the good qualities of said car?

Why mess with people's minds by giving subliminal messages about things which have nothing to do with the car?

Or have the days of 'innocent advertising' long gone?

Am I showing my naïve side again?

Live Free or Die said...

Do you see how giving the message that 'you are on your own' somehow gives the green light for bad behaviour?

Yes I could see that.


If the aim is to advertise a car, why not simply make an advert which actually advertises the good qualities of said car?

Why mess with people's minds by giving subliminal messages about things which have nothing to do with the car?


I thought the hidden message for women was "This Cadillac is reliable, makes you feel classy, feminine, and safe.....unlike men.

Spacetraveller said...

LFOD,

"This Cadillac is reliable, makes you feel classy, feminine, and safe."

Well, this is a good message for a car.
Wanting to be a classy, feminine and safe woman, I would have no problem going out and buying this car (assuming of course I have the means).

"This Cadillac is reliable, makes you feel classy, feminine, and safe.....unlike men."

Now we are back to the subliminal message. This is what makes the car advert disingenuous. This car company is playing on the fragile relationship between men and women to sell a car. They are pandering to the feminists, appeasing the enemy, adding to the 'where are all the good men' wail.

Does this help anyone?

No.

Not women: for they continue to see men as 'useless' and only good for stepping over to get to that posh car in the rain.

Not men: for they are being used as pawns in the battle to 'empower' women and bypass their participation in society.

So again, rap on the knuckles to this car company. They are fuelling the male-female war for profit.

Not cool.
I don't respect that at all.

Sadly they are not the only ones. Danny (from 504) has a whole bunch of adverts on his site that play this game.
We as consumers could vote with our feet, so to speak. That'll teach 'em!

(I supppose realistically, this is not going to happen to any meaningful degree...).

Anonymous said...

Well I think everyone can agree that a man's natural instinct is to find the most fertile ground to sow his seed & to keep finding new fields to plow yes?
So at some point throughout the ages Men entered into a tacit agreement with women to suppress this Natural urge & to settle down & pick one mate & to care for the ensuing offspring.....agreed?

Well isn't it time that Women met us Men halfway & suppressed their Natural urge to choose Men based on some vaguely ill defined & irrational logic that makes 'Him' "Special"?

You never say what you mean & you never mean what you say, That in itself is enough to drive a Man to despair...

fyi I took myself off the meat market years ago, I just grew tired of meeting Women who still pined away for some man in their long, dark & distant past, after all, No self-respecting man wants to win the dubious prize of "fill my lonely void", especially if a Women has wasted her youth & beauty riding the cock carousel.

Fringe Dweller

Ceer said...

@Fringe Dweller

What you're describing was the great compromise of marriage. Women don't seem to understand that pining away for your long lost badboy is as unattractive to a man as creepy behavior is for a woman.

Sexual morality of the past used to teach girls the lesson of what they were supposed to do to find a decent man, even if it didn't necessarily communicate why.

Feminine logic's goal is often to obfuscate. In that area of uncertainty created, they naturally find safety. Unfortunately, it's our job to cut through the bull in order to find out what's really going on.

If I'm not mistaken, you're relatively new. My take on intersexual relations is... at its base, men set the rules by which women play, and women set the rules by which men play. That implies a whole big can of worms.

Anonymous said...

Relatively new?, you are kidding!

Based on your interpretation of inter-sexual relations you're not even in the ball park....

I'm no blockhead when it comes to Women, their strategies & their Achilles Heel, the Women on this blog have danced around it, stroked it & even alluded to it when ST (I think) mentioned some Men were 'training' their Women, what they are talking about but won't say outright is what I call 'Deep Capture', I'm just not a douche bag who would ever use it unless I was 110% invested in the Women I was after.

FD

Ceer said...

I apologize if you figured I was insulting you, that wasn't my intent.

From my perspective, you just restated what I said with a different wording...plus or minus a few nuances here or there.

Spacetraveller said...

FD,

"Well isn't it time that Women met us Men halfway & suppressed their Natural urge to choose Men based on some vaguely ill defined & irrational logic that makes 'Him' "Special"?"

I think Ceer has already answered your question, but I feel inclined to add my two cents! For my sins, LOL :-)

First up, the confession. You have to understand that women as a rule are designed to be more indirect than you men. We HAVE to be. A woman has less of a chance to persuade a man to do anything if she directly challenges him. Don't you agree? It is also somehow more feminine to be 'coy'. One of the hallmarks of a woman steeped in feminism is the nede to be 'direct' and 'say it how it is', I notice. These women are seldom attractive to men, I also notice. Whilst there are occasions where a woman needs to be direct, these occasions are few and far between...

The other issue with what you are asking of women is that we (much more than you men) are socially conditioned to be especially coy about what 'turns us on'. I have perhaps committed a cardinal sin of womanhood by divulging so much information about the secret life of women. But I can afford to do so because you don't know me and I don't know you. A woman who is interested in you would never tell you that confidence is attractive to her. She expects you to know that already. You may not be shy about telling women to their face that you like a slim, Young, woman with a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.75 and a nice rack...but it doesn't work like that from the other side of the fence, I assure you.


"You never say what you mean & you never mean what you say, That in itself is enough to drive a Man to despair..."

I honestly agree with you!
I can see why you men are driven nuts by this trait of womanhood. I sympathise, because when I analyse this logically, I see that it is not the best way to live. But, again, deep down I sense that you recognise that this is natural in women. You won't tolerate this behaviour in another man, but you could forgive a woman for this if she makes it up to you in other ways :-)

So in summary, a woman's desire for this 'ill-defined trait' (otherwise known as *confidence* is here to stay. But as Ceer says, her obligation to the man who marries her is to stay with him and not seek replacements for him every two minutes. Which is far too rampant these days. There HAS to be a limit to hypergamy. Commitment is a good place to stop this runaway train?

"...I just grew tired of meeting Women who still pined away for some man in their long, dark & distant past, after all, No self-respecting man wants to win the dubious prize of "fill my lonely void", especially if a Women has wasted her youth & beauty riding the cock carousel."

Oh Mr. Fringe Dweller, I so agree with you on this one. I am with you on the principle that no man should take on a woman who is pining for someone else. It will ruin your life. Don't accept crumbs!

So I am pleased for you that you dodged that particular bullet. And I hope that you will find a woman who really pines for YOU and no-one else.
What I said about 'training' a woman is true. When she is (inexplicably) in love with you, she will naturally follow your leadership. It is also possible to do it with a woman who is still undecided about you, but I have to say, if she is definitely not attracted to you, it is nigh impossible. In which case the mass effect of all men on all women is what she will be subject to, and not your individual influence.

I can understand why so many men in The Manosphere insist on chasing very young women who are not yet 'tainted' by the scent of other men. But how low do you go? If thirteen year olds are already on the carousel...

It is a sad state of affairs. What can I say? Female promiscuity is such a great evil...ALL our current societal problems stem from this...


Ceer, thanks for your explanation!

Anonymous said...

I actually responded with a rather long reply days ago, but the post was lost, it was actually my fault, so never mind...

I will just say one thing, it's not likely I will ever meet anyone, I have purposely sabotaged any chance I had via a vasectomy, If my only value to a women is defined by the offspring & resources that I can provide her then I have taken that card off the table.

Spacetraveller said...

Anonymous (?FD),

Not necessarily. To a woman who wants a family, you will not be a good choice as a partner, no.

But there are other women out there. Remember not every woman wants a family, even young ones. All you need to be is honest with her, so she knows. She should also be honest with you.

By the way, vasectomies ARE reversible, if you yourself change your mind...



Anonymous said...

sorry yes it is FD

Ah no, my Vasectomy is not reversible, my Doctor was quite specific about that as he didn't want to be sued if a "mistake" ensued, he also insisted on counseling prior to it, but I have no desire to raise children or to be passing on my genes, in theory at least the Human race is assured.

FD

Ceer said...

@ FD

Don't take this the wrong way, but I find it sad that someone has to resort to destroying part of his own sexuality for self protection. Meeting a woman worth having a relationship with is very difficult in the current culture.

Anonymous said...

Ceer

It was never about self protection, I'm very independent, I've never really had a desire to raise a family, I recognized from an early age that this desire is at least in part derived from family & societal expectations, sadly many may see not raising a family as a personal failure.
Its not a selfish act either, because honestly I don't know if I'm fatherhood material, vastly better to spare the grief of a child if I am not, no?

Recognizing that I am so independent I have always striven to understand this nature about Men needing their 'alone time' or 'Man caves', Am I obsessive about my 'alone time', do I need it more than other Men or am I just more open & honest about needing this time?

I don't understand it, I just need it like I need oxygen.

What is its purpose?
Was this the one ability that gave the human race the ability to spread across the Earth?

It would seem to me that dragging a tribe off into unknown territory once they had consumed the local resources is both inefficient & dangerous, would it not make more sense to hardwire at least some of the younger Men to yearn for either adventure or alone time & have them return once this need is sated, with all the stories & descriptions of what they saw beyond that next hill?

FD

Anonymous said...

The other thing is with dating, relationships & marriage being the crapshoot they are I'm just not prepared to waste the little time I have on this Earth vetting a potential partner.

And...sadly Yes I do desire a partner as much as I need my 'alone time' & you Women think we are simple, go figure lol, we are screwed.

FD

Spacetraveller said...

FD,

Might I butt in into the conversation you were having with Ceer? For what it's worth, (not that it matters in the least, but I just thought thought you would enjoy what I have to say, lol), your decisions are just that - yours. As long as you are happy with them and you don't go moaning to all and sundry, all is fine :-)
FWIW, I think it is a good thing NOT to be a father at all cost if you know deep down that you won't be the best father there is. Likewise, women who know they couldn't be the best mums they could be should not become mothers. But that's a big ask of anyone, to be THAT noble. So kudos to you.

Being 'simple' is a good thing, I have decided :-) Much better than being complicated, believe you me! I want to be simple, but I can't! I am trapped in a complicated body! I want to get out! Help! Anyone? Anyone??

LOL!

Anonymous said...

Hi ST

Butt away, I put my remarks on a public forum, I have given up any right to assume that they be respected or not commented upon, the only thing I can do is Man up & own them even if the content offends.

FD

Spacetraveller said...

Thank you FD ;-)

What a masculine response!

This may indeed be a public forum, but still, it was a conversation between you and Ceer, so I needed permission to butt in. It's only polite.

Let me tell you a funny stiry (well, it's funny now, but I wasn't amused at the time!). When I was young, my older brother and a male cousin were discussing 'business'. I butted in. I was told, 'hey, don't you have a meal to prepare? Who gave you permission to get your nose in men talk'

LOL. He was only about 14 at the time. Nothing has changed, I assure you :-)





Anonymous said...

lol, I still say something similar at family gatherings, the men always congregate & talk about guns & hunting & as invariably happens one of the women folk will wander over & ask what we are talking about & I always respond, "hush now, that's secret Men's business", to great howls of laughter from the men & feigned righteous indignation from the women..... after all these years & the same old line :)

FD

Anonymous said...

"it is against a woman's best interests to break this bond."

Except now that isn't true. The female now uses the government to steal the resources of the hapless male. This makes trading-up a low-risk bet. This is why females vote overwhelmingly for democratic (liberal/socialist) candidates in the US. They are voting for the theft system, which benefits them directly. Rational males are slowing learning this, which is why they are delaying/denying marriage to females and spontaneously discovering MGTOW, among other strategies. The best strategy for males in this economically-hostile environment is to stop protecting females, and stop supporting females and family behaviour patterns in general. Wise males are working on themselves, building businesses, exploring the world, following their bliss; wise males treat women the way women now are, not as how they would prefer women to be (putting it very politely).

Spacetraveller said...

Anonymous at 7:45 AM,

Yes, men must do whatever they need to, to make their lives what they wish it to be given the current situation.

I still say that it is in a woman's best interest to keep her bond with the man she has chosen to be bonded to. You may think that a woman using the government to fund her life is somehow 'winning' but I hope you know this isn't true. It is at best, a short term strategy, and it is not fulfilling or edifying in any way. Women who do this come to regret it - eventually.

So, whilst I get what you say, I think the traditional values are what keep everyone happiest. It is a time-tested most efficient way of living life. That we in the modern age desert the age-old traditions does not really mean that we are succeeding. (I am using the royal 'we' here). In fact, it is plain to see that the opposite is happening.

That is why I say what I say. 'Best interests' is very different from 'what makes one happy NOW'.

Very different things indeed!