Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Men civilise (women), women socialise (men)

Um, I ruffled a few feathers...

:-)

Not unusual, by any yardstick.
What disappointed me in the case though, is that I did it twice in quick succession, once online, and then (not having lerned anything from that episode), repeated my mistake in real life.

So I am full of mea culpas as I take a step back and retract my words...

Or rather (hello Hamster!), I rearrange my words to reflect better what I really meant to say :-)

Hahahaha, I know exactly what someone here (mentioning no names) would say to my little hamsterisation exercise :-)

I said once that women civilise men. Whilst that sounds amazingly inflammatory to my now educated ears, I think it is worth explaining where I was coming from.

In a woman's world (to which I wholeheartedly belong even if I like to distance myself from the seedier aspects of Planet Feminine), I have to say that every man is viewed like this (below), due to some programming in the recesses of the female brain:



Every. Man.

No matter if he is your father, brother, boyfriend, husband, the guy in the motorbike repair shop, the doctor in the nearest paediatric department, your cousin twice removed or the pizza deliverer.

Every man looks like this in our minds.

But this is not necessarily a bad thing, lol.

This image is quite enticing if Mr. Caveman happens to be to our liking.
I know, little comfort to the unwanted cavemen out there.
What can I say, I sympathise.



Because women instinctively see men as somehow raw, or unrefined (and believe me, this property of masculinity is one that women are naturally programmed to respond to, and are therefore drawn to, which is why 'jerk' or 'A-hole' Game seems to work so well on women who operate in terre-à-terre mode - sorry, I just cannot translate this phrase - it conveys so much of the meaning I actually intend when left in French), there is a uniquely feminine drive to refine men - i.e. shape them to our liking, and more importantly, to make men useful or profitable in some way, to us.

Hold your horses! It's not as bad as it sounds!


Now, this system works very well, if:

1) The man is aware of this need in a woman, but is able to circumnavigate it in a way that he chooses. He takes things in his stride. He lets her 'use' him, when it pleases him, and is firm when he knows she is at or close to his personal boundary. In other words, he is an alpha who is able to dodge or simply refuse to respond to ALL of her 'fitness tests'. This is also good for the woman, because she sees him as 'strong' (necessary for her attraction to him, and in many ways is a way for her to be civilised by him - see below). It is a two-way street which works beautifully when both parties do their part and are in sync.

2) The woman actually has good intenetions towards said man. She needs to influence him in some way such that he provides and protects her (and any small people that pop up from nowhere :-) but at the same time she also realises that there are certain needs of his which MUST be catered for. It is not all about her. Ditto as in 1) above.

3) She is selective about who she plays this game with. She does not feel entitled to use all the men she encounters in this way. If 3) is the case, then  2) cannot be true of her.
Selectivity is an important aspect of this dynamic.


My mistake was the use of the word 'civilise'.

Having drawn you a picture of how women view men (from a psycho-social standpoint only, I have to swiftly add!), you can see (I hope) why I use the word 'civilse', no?

Tarzan and Conan the Barbarian are in serious need of civilising, no?

But alas, I show my ignorance of the wider world view.
I have come now to understand that the word I was looking for was 'socialise'.

I often trip up on words even though I love the field of philology. My usual excuse is that I am polylingual and direct translations from one language to another do not always work and I end up saying something I did not mean.

But there is no excuse for this howler!

Which is why I come on bended knee (figuratively speaking). Hence the mea culpas.
This mistake was borne out of ignorance, and I am glad I have learned this.

The only influence a woman need have on a man is one on a social scale.

This is one advantage women have over men. We are much more social creatures than men, even the most extrovert of men.

This is why, (despite the headache that comes with having a woman around! - hey, I understand your pain :-), men who have women around them are more socially involved (in general) than not. They thrive better in 'society'.

Politicians know this very well, for example.

Yes, groups of men have fun on their own - true enough.

But whatever it is, it could be socially 'improved', I think, by the presence of women (and I am not referring to the sexual sense at all). OK, it is better to have no woman around at all, than an unpleasant one, but let's stick to normal, pleasant, feminine women just for this post.

Groups of women can happily socialise all day without a man present. Women will socialise with whoever is around, until oblivion arrives :-)

This is one area where women really do not require a man's presence. Social interaction comes naturally to most women, even the shy/quiet/introverted ones. Rarely is a woman born without this 'switch', and rarer still is this switch never turned on at some time around puberty.


What women absolutely need from a man, though, is civilisation.

Women can easily go feral without the 'control' of a man, or men.

And I know I will get shot for this, but it is an observation that anyone who has eyes to see, has got to have made at some point in their life!

Men may look 'unsocial' and 'unrefined' to female eyes, but most men are born with the 'civilisation' switch which replaces the 'social' switch in women.

And, like in women, this switch gets turned on fully, when boys become men. But one can definitely see traces of this even in young boys...

The reason why women 'own' society is precisely because we hold the social key in life.
It is why in the SMP, a man's 'black and white' life can be made 'colourful' by a woman.

The reason men 'own' civilisation is due to their own unique traits which make them prone to building and creating the Framework for civilisation.
It is why women who 'break free' of men don't do well in life, and become caricatures of failed humanity. (I say this with regret, but it is nonetheless true).


It really is that simple when seen from a neutral standpoint with no emotional overlay.

And... it helps to get the terminology right.

My specific thanks to the man in real life who took offense at my mistake and corrected my language when it comes to this topic.

It is, I think, an important point to have smoothed out in my mind.

It means I get to correctly see men and women as they should be viewed, each with unique, but different and complementing strengths.

For it takes diferent skills to civilise, as it takes to socialise.
For the world to function correctly, both aspects of human life are needed.

No shame in having more of one than the other, or none of one and all of the other.










41 comments:

Bob Wallace said...

Since men created civilization men civilize women. Women pretty much determine the comfort level of the home.

Look at what women have done away from the authority of men. Tens of millions of abortions...I'm sure you can figure out the rest.

Spacetraveller said...

Completely agree, Bob.

Women definitely cannot civilise men, not even their own sons. It takes a man to do that.

But women can socialise men very well. And I daresay, previous générations of women have been very successful at this.

And for sure, men cannot socialise women. If a woman does not learn that from other women, she cannot expect to learn it from a man.

Abortion is a heinous crime against humanity. I don't even understand why it ever became legal.
Because it's a woman's body?? Quoi?? What about the child's body?

(And I have my Catholic hat off when I say this).



metak said...

If we didn't have women "socialising" men, there would be no marriage, men would be mostly mgtows enjoying their care-free lifestyles, pursuing their interests fully like N. Tesla did, no drama, no 'games', etc. etc.
So in a nutshell, when men create civilization they get feminism, open hypergamy and all that in return, and when women socialize men it's some form of traditionalism + chivalry + parts from feminism etc. etc.???? :-)

Lose - Lose situation, if you ask me...

"The reason why women 'own' society is precisely because we hold the social key in life.
It is why in the SMP, a man's 'black and white' life can be made 'colourful' by a woman."


Call me a-hole but it's starting to get even trough my thick skull that this is far more likely to be that 'key'. :-) ˇˇˇˇ

http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-10-22/one-colombian-town-women-say-no-sex-until-their-demands-are-met

The more things change the more they stay the same... :-)

btw ST, oblivion has already arrived... :-)

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

Your first statement is absolutely correct.

To women, the MGTOW thing is, to use the wrong word 'uncivilised', but actually what is meant (as I explained in the post) is 'unsociable', which it is, from *society's* point of view, and remember that it is women who rule society, which is why it is women who get to dictate what is 'sociable' or not.

When men create civilisation (as indeed they have - no complaints there :-), they deserve something better than what they are getting right now. They deserve, indeed NEED the right kind of socialisation that feminine women can provide, and I agree that is sorely lacking in large sectors of the 'civilised' world.

How ironic that in parts of the world where men have achieved the pinnacle of civilisation, the women are not correctly 'socialising' said men, and in parts of the world where there is hardly any 'civilisation' to speak of, the women are the best socialisers.

Should that tell us something about how the world works??
I dunno.

Maybe this is a wider piece of evidence as to why 'Asshat Game' works!

Is the key for men to continuously pull a string in front of women like some cruel kids do to cats? Forever NOT give her what she wants (i.e. in this case 'civilisation') and she responds with 'socialisation' in the hope that the man will give her 'civilisation' one day?

I dunno. It is for every man to decide for himself how he wins this war.

But the Columbian story you link to is interesting though, and I think it partly answers the question I just put to you. Sometimes, if you push a woman too far, she responds not with more 'good stuff' but she comes at you with 'bad stuff'.

These women are doing what some famous ?greek ?roman character did many centuries ago. She encouraged all the women to go on 'strike' to get the men to do something or other she wanted. Can anyone help me out? I think her name began with L...

But personally, I disagree with this strategy.

I think it is correct when UNmarried women do this, yes. Because an unmarried woman has no business 'rewarding' a man who has yet to prove his commitment to her. So I don't see it as any sort of 'punishment' to men when an UNmarried woman does this. In fact, she SHOULD be living life like this anyway, until she marries.

But women who are already in sexual relationships with men? Especially married women? I call foul play!
Sex is part of the 'contract' she has with the man. To withhold it at will just to extract some favour from him is wrong, I think.
This is NOT the correct way to socialise a man. This kind of strategy breeds resentment, and good, kind women don't do this.
And I think it is also morally wrong.

The corrrect way to socialise him into doing something is to be patient, but by all means to show her displeasure in a clear way that he would understand (i.e. verbally, logically and with clear information to support the complaint).

For example: That road needs to be fixed Honey. You and your mates need to do it. Maria Sanchez in the next village died in the ambulance on her way to hospital to deliver her fourth child because the road is unsafe. Do you want that to happen to me one day?

No threats, no bullying, no manipulation, no bitching, no withholding of sex, food or affection. Just a clear petition and a gloomy picture of the conséquences of not complying.

It will be done. Somehow, it will be done. Guaranteed.

Am I naïve? Absolutely!
But I have enough evidence from real life to see that the above tactic is better than the Columbian women's tactic.
So I am happy to revel in my naïvety :-)

metak said...

"Your first statement is absolutely correct."

Thanks ST, now I'm depressed... :-)

The story I linked is merely one example that received some publicity. Before that there were Texas women, etc...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivian-norris-de-montaigu/texas-women-stop-having-s_b_3527188.html

ST, what you've described is in so many ways a horrible thing to do.
- "Do this and that cos you wouldn't want something bad happening to me, your sister, etc... would ya???" :-)
--------- and by bad, it could be actually anything ---------

That's the first step...
... and this emotional manipulation eventually escalates to tears and lack of 'love' is mentioned...
... finally, it all climaxes with withholding sex.

Text book. :-)

"Should that tell us something about how the world works??"

Et tu, Brute? When men put the civilization into place the inevitable happens. Women always choose Big Daddy Gov as a replacement husband and a father for their children from different fathers. It's just the way it is, ST. You can drink and hope you'll kill that part of the brain that cares before you run out of braincells... :-) ... just a suggestion... :-)

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

I agree that if taken to the level you posit, then this tactic is not OK.

But simply mentioning that a person who urgently needed medical help died as a result of the road being unpassable to my mind is NOT manipulatve.
OK, that person happens to be a woman, so it is possible for the one making the plea to use that fact to her advantage, yes. But using this fact does not nullify the process. Especially if mentioned just ONCE.

May I ask how YOU would have advised the Columbian women? Any other men want to chip in too?

Hm, I am very aware that this is an unfair question, because I am asking men how to 'socialise' other men! This is a task best left to women, I think...

But if you, Metak, have a complaint about how a group of women are going about this task (in this case Columbian women), then your opinion is highly and expeditiously sought, Young Sir!


The Texas article you link to was meant to be a satire, as the author herself says in the first comment. So it doesn't count :P

I think you might be onto something with your last paragraph: where there is civilisation, ALL women benefit, but where is none to little, only the women who are the 'nearest and dearest' to the responsible men in that civilisation prosper. The other women left out in the cold, so to speak, of course want in on the sweet deal, and so there is more 'socialisation' going on :-)

Makes sense, no?

Remember, 'socialisation' is nothing but a strategy for women to get what they want out of men, but in so doing, a) the man doesn't mind if he is still treated with respect and b) both parties should end up winners.

Both a) and b) are missing in the modern form that 'socialisation' takes, and that's why there is a problem.

Normally, 'socialisation' ought to be quite a 'normal' process, accepted by both men and women.

metak said...

I have to say that you're really patient and forgiving when it comes to my goofing off and such, ST... I do appreciate it, even though I don't deserve it at all... :-)

I think I've summed up quite accurately the attitudes (not nearly as harsh as those men at mgtowforums) that men inside of manosphere have about those two articles. I've been reading mgtowforums and other sites here and there, for a few months now and it's enough to make you sick, I tell you... even tried that "don't give a s*it and a-hole attitude" and it's just BS... also, amazing how much of bad energy it attracts... :-) It's so hard to be an a-hole and not to care, ST!

To me, this story and your post, are demonstrating the whole 'mechanism' of interaction between 'civilizing' and 'socializing' aspects. Although the story itself is mostly just sad for many reasons. We have, I would dare to say desperate women, trying to somehow improve the conditions for pregnant women, their unborn children and also for everyone else who might need urgent medical help. I was also surprised that this aspect was almost completely ignored and it was just about the "sex-strike" for men and how manipulative women are etc.. So, when women see a problem that needs to be addressed (bad road) they used their 'social' skills and appealed to men to do something about it. I don't know exactly what's the situation in Columbia (guerrilla war etc.) but if men care about their families then they would use their 'menskills'-social+civilizing to come together, assess the damage, make a plan and fix it. Everyone will benefit from it, not just women. In many ways this is how civilizations are made. Men using their skills to make sure their families would be safe and provided for. Family, is what drives most men and brings them greatest joy and pride in life. Blasphemy!!! Right??? :-)

What would I tell them? Nothing probably, don't have any details... but like I said before when I see something like this happen in a third-world country I honestly do believe that things are so screwed up that this is final attempt to do something about it.

lol ST, just ignore that last paragraph or even better, delete my previous posts. :-)
Listening to Stardusk's videos on youtube can be really depressing and makes you wanna play Russian roulette with six bullets inside the cylinder... :-)
Just call me a Young Fool, ST and you won't have to go to confession afterwards... :-)

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

It's not that I am being patient with you, it's about having a discussion :-) but thanks for your nice words anyway :-)

Yes, what is not being discussed a lot is 'why is the road not fixed??'

Why do the women need to do so much 'manipulating' to get something done in the first place?

But it is not for ME to answer. That is for you men to answer for yourselves.

If you notice one thing on this blog, it is to concentrate on what WOMEN are doing - the good things and the bad things. I don't concern myself with what MEN should be doing. That would be...
scandalous.
Any reference to men in any of my posts is purely...coincidental. Hahahahahaha!
(Stop rolling your eyes, Metak. It is true!)

Anonymous said...

Men don't need to be civilized or socialized(Way to Hamster). WE are NOT the Problem. YOU Women are, your Female Nature; Obscene insatiable entitlement, extreme hypergamy, Solipsism, and Briffault's Law. Supposedly, God made women to compliment, support and help men. But the truth is, you women are Parasites, a Cancer, a Bane on Man's existence. You see us only as ATMs, Sperm Donors, Utility that benefits you. NOT fellow Human Beings. Not people with emotions, hopes, and dreams. Just disposable males...

As a 31yo Catholic Filipino-American Male(never been married, no kids) who has made VERY smart financial decisions and uses Game. No Woman will EVER get my MONEY and SPERM.
To my fellow Man out there, GO YOUR OWN WAY. One Night Stands, Spin Plates, Prostitutes, or Going Ghost are our only viable options in surviving in this Feminist, Matriarchal, Man-Hating society.
Men, focus on yourselves, make self improvement your priority, NOT women. Focus on your own health(healthy diet, exercise/muscle building), education, job/career, acquiring wealth off the books, self sufficiency, preparation of natural disasters, economic/social collapse, zombie apocalypse, etc. and your own personal interests and hobbies. Learn Game/PUA/Seduction to get what you want from a woman(if you want it) on your own terms, NOT hers. If you choose to interact with women MAKE them EARN EVERYTHING/ANYTHING from you. NEVER EVER waste your own resources on a woman who hasn't earned it. NEVER Marry, NEVER Cohabitate and NEVER Impregnate.

To you and all your sisters everywhere. "You Reap What You Sow." When artificial wombs and female sexbots are invented, YOU women will be TRULY irrelevant. You and all your sisters TRULY deserve to die old, alone and childless for all you've done. But that's not for me to decide, only God.

One shot, One Kill
Swift, Silent, Deadly
Always Faithful, Always Forward

MGTOW
John Galt

Spacetraveller said...

Hello John Galt,

Welcome to The Sanctuary!

Hey, you are FILIPINO-American?
Some might say you are in the best of both worlds, Sir!

To make your money and live a comfortable lifestyle you remain the US and get all what a Western country has o offer, materially speaking. To get the best women possible, you nip back home and pick a nice girl.

It is the general concensus that women from your (original) part of the world are the best women IN. THE. WORLD.

Anyhow... I just thought I'd point that out to you before a male reader jumped in and said something like 'What's a Filipino-American guy got to complain about where women are concerned?'

You speak as if I am unaware of the problems of the modern SMP.

Can I persuade you that I do understand where you are coming from?

Interestingly, there is nothing you say which I disagree with, John. It's all true.
But your rant is not in keeping with the gist of THIS post.

I never said that men need to be civilised (or socialised for that matter). I am saying that women WILL socialise and men WILL civilise, because that is their respective natures. The opposite sex may resist this, but that won't stop us doing what we do best, each of us :-)

And in some ways, we do WANT what the opposite sex has to offer. Some might say, indeed, NEED (but I am not actually saying it so openly, just vaguely so, so as not to offend the sensibilities of the 'resisters' like you, lol).

'Socialising' has nothing to do with what modern women are doing. Socialising men is what ALL generations of women have done in some form or another since the dawn of time.
What modern women are doing is anything BUT socialising men, in fact.

If anything, we are encouraging men to stay away from the 'social frame'. You describe well the social consequences of that for women themselves, and also for men. Basically, everybody gets unhappy and unfulfilled.

And yes, the task of 'righting' the problem does fall to women. I agree with you on that.

Look, you are disenfranchised. I get that. Your reaction is not at all surprising, and neither am I berating you for it.

I am just pointing out that there are certain aspects of female traits which are not 'bad' if you think about them in terms of the benefits to men. To 'socialise' a man is to bring him certain benefits that he would not otherwise have.

Of course, you need a woman who knows what she is doing to achieve this, granted. But women can and do learn from each other ('the herd') and also from men (they get 'civilised' by men).

Spacetraveller said...

So what are you doing to 'civilise' women?

I hope your method is not to rant at them in real life as you do here!

You say you use Game. That's great! I am a natural fan of Game, and I daresay, lots of women respond favourably to it.

Bu if your Game is consistently composed of 'dark Game' then you will only get a certain kind of woman to 'stay' (and I mean the kind who is into all sorts of weird stuff).

But if you mix it well enough, your message will be heard, because the women you attract will be with you for solid reasons. To get any message across (especially an 'inter-gender' message), it is first important not to drve your audience away!

So do your bit, John Galt. Civilise women ('cause we need it) but first don't scare us away with too much dragon-fire :-)

One more counter-rant to you, John Galt.

As a Catholic, you think sexbots and artificial wombs are a good thing? You think THIS is the way to go?
If you do, then...how disappointing!

It is one thing to berate women for all their ills (and there are many, I admit). But to conceive (excuse the pun!) of completely separating the procreative and unitive functions of sex in this way...is doing EXACTLY what the fembots want!

By agreeing with this nonsense, you may be 'rendering women obsolete/irrelevant', sure, but you are also furthering the feminist cause.
(Afterall, from the people who brought you 'chaos in the SMP, the home and in your life' what better way of totally destroying humanity than to have Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World' come to life where no-one belongs to a family - in fact there is no such thing as a family - and we are all born in some weird cocoon in a cold, hard scientific lab, born to slavery to corporate Kings who care nothing about you, just the service you render to them precisely because you have no other affiliations but them - hence the need to eradicate 'family').

;-)


If you think what we have now is a nightmare, just wait until YOUR vision come to light.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Not even the fembots whose vision started this slow descent into Hades.

Spacetraveller said...

Congratulations, my Catholic friend, you just got into bed with the enemy.

I hope you get out of that bed before the bed engulfs you.

You see, my friend, there are places that your 'hate' takes you that you wouldn't otherwise go to without that hate.

In your 'hate' of modern women, you end up doing something far worse than they.
How on Earth do you think these women got to where they are now?

Yes, hating on men!

And instead of civilising them properly by clipping their wings in full flight, you want to complete their (vicious) cycle for them?

Don't do it, John Galt! You are way better than them. YOU have the means and the know-how to avoid sexbots and artificial wombs and find a sweet, lovely young thing (Filipino or otherwise)to build a beautiful family with, in your own village, on your own terms. Why sit there and complain about women you don't want, when there are women you DO want right under your nose?

Leave the sexbots to those who really need them! Why is a man with Game even thinking about such things?
You do what's best for YOU and leave everything else to burn along with the old village!



Now how's THAT for a counter-rant?
Feel free to rate it.

I give yours 8/10 by the way :-)

Look, mate, jokes apart, you have a lot you can offer women your age and younger.
Don't sit there with your arms folded and rant.
Do something to prevent the nightmare you propose. Civilise us. Game a woman (X) into submitting to you (and happily so). And then all her herd friends will wonder how she got to be so happy and fulfilled with you, when they are so 'unhappy' with their beta guys...guess what, they will start asking X questions...'Who is that John Galt, how come X lets him get away with his 'controlling behaviour' and seems HAPPY to do so?'

You start feeding X some titibits of your ideals to pass on to her friends...
If they are sensible women, you would have successfully 'civilised' them. And their men would also benefit... and so it goes.

Better than sexbots and artificial wombs, no?

Enbrethiliel said...

+JMJ+

Oh, my! What have I stumbled into today? =P

I have read Bob Wallace's blog as well, and he pointed out once that if you want to see what a civilisation of all men and no women would look like, examine a men's prison.

As for my own thoughts on the subject, I think that men and women were created to be together, which means that the model of the family (which lets men and women relate to each other as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, etc.) can never be taken out of the equation. But if we leave them in the equation, what does it mean?

Spacetraveller, you may be interested in some angles introduced to me by a friend who has studied the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas in great depth. Let me try to get at what I think is his main principle with respect to relations between men and women, by quoting some of the comments he has been leaving on my blog. Recently, I have been blogging about old-time radio dramas, two of which I will not identify because I shall spoil their endings in order to make my points. Both stories have protagonists who encounter strange, threatening creatures (who are either invisible or in the dark) whom they sometimes try to kill in order to save their own lives. They only stop when they realise that the creatures are female! And then they even go on to take care of them!

I asked, at the end of my post on the second story, whether it bothered anyone that the creatures were shown mercy only because they were female. (Given that the first one was practically a child and the second had initially rescued the protagonist from another danger, shouldn't they have also received mercy if they had turned out to be male?) My Thomistic friend replied: "It is neither chivalrous or chauvinistic, but instead simply decent and proper behavior of a man towards a woman." He did not, however, answer my question about what to do for male creatures. =P

And then later I blogged about another play in which the woman is a wicked stepmother type who turns out to be a werewolf. My friend mused: "Women make good monsters because they have a depth to their cruelty that men don't possess. And unlike the princess Snow White, the peasant children can't talk their way out of their fate begging for mercy because they're up against a woman and not a man." (Did you notice the implication that men are more rational? ;-) LOL! But can you guess what he said when I asked what faerie tales expose in male nature?)

Based on the above and other interactions with my friend, I'd say that his base principle is that men and women are designed (by God, of course) in ways that make certain modes of behaviour toward each other only right. To go against those is to struggle to the point of self-delusion and unhappiness--especially if you are a woman, but also if you are a man.

Before he and I discussed such things, I had related thoughts after seeing a "Monster Shark" movie which begins with a cast of nine men and four women, and ends with a cast of four men and four women. I think sparing the women was a deliberate choice on the filmmakers' part, because they wanted the characters to be heroes and not merely survivors. (You want the ultimate survivor? Try a cockroach.) And like it or not, when the women are lost, the men look less heroic. I don't think this is a cultural construct; I think everyone understands it deep down inside, and that men who take advantage of women secretly know themselves to be cowards.

Anyway, thank you, Spacetraveller, for leaving a comment on my blog. =) I had been worrying that my recipe for "Eggs in Purgatory on the First Saturday after Their Deaths Because They Wore Scapulars on Earth" was unappetising to everyone! LOL!

Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

If game is the only thing keeping society together, God help us all. Seriously. Women weren't meant to ONLY be under the control of game, hence the existence of mother hens and the like. A proper functioning society will have a positive stabilizing peer pressure among women. In essence, it's not just the man's problem to fix.

The fact is, no matter how rock solid a man is, he cannot maintain continuous frame for years on end with no slip up.

I think it's obvious John Galt is from a MGTOW website, has found yours, and is making assumptions about you that IMO aren't entirely accurate. The thing is, there are many men like him out there. It's a product of our culture today. You know the general situation. Society trains boys how it thinks women will respond. Those boys grow up to find things aren't as they were taught. Many can't adjust to the reality they see. More than a few of those become bitter about being lied to. One of the things I like most about you, ST, is that you have sympathy for this.

Rationally, I'm a firm believer in the Catholic ideal of using morally acceptable means to fight to instill justice. I don't see how men as a whole can become good enough at game to pacify the destructive potential in most women.

Ceer said...

An idea about why asshat game works comes from the fact women prefer dominant men. In our culture, since men are taught to supplicate to women, women see any man willing to be a jerk to have some internal fortitude. That instinctively sets off her gina tingles, making her asshat bait whether she knows it or not.

Game awareness for Catholic women should involve them becoming aware of this fact. Just as relationship awareness for a man would involve him becoming aware he's attracted to beautiful women. Do you see the parallel?

Also, I like your ability to acknowledge your limitations in that you don't always say things quite right. That's a human failing related to the fact you're trying to develop your thoughts. Nothing to be ashamed of, even doing so in public. Opening your thoughts up to public criticism allows us to help you think in a different direction that may not have occurred to you.

Spacetraveller said...

Enbrethiliel,

"Oh, my! What have I stumbled into today?"

And with that subtle turn of phrase, I think I have just been socialised!

:-)

OK, I admit, perhaps I was a little hard on John Galt. He just expressed what he felt, and I tackled him a little too heavily.
I apologise.

E, I know what you mean about men's prisons. I agree with Bob, because, believe it or not, I have been in a men's prison (no, I am NOT a gangster's moll, lol). It was to do with work...
It is a nightmare. By the way, it is even worse in a women's prison! My mother taught french in a women's prison for a while, and the tales she brought home were horrendous.

This concretely demonstrates that where the 'balance' is missing, there will be problems...



Our innate natures make us both likeable and (very) tedious to the opposite sex :-)

But that is the way God made things.

We can all use our talents for good purposes, and then the pitfalls of our respective natures can be minimised, I think.

As you allude to, the Achilles' heel of every man is that he does care (in one form or another) for women, especially vulnerable women. Especially one that he finds attractive (sexually). It is part of his masculinity. Nothing wrong with that.

Part of female nature is the urge to nurture, (albeit some women nurture the wrong men and then chaos ensues...). Again nothing intrinsically wrong with that.
So John's rant reaks of 'something not right'. But we all know the reason for this. Women in general have lost their standards, and this is the kind of reaction (from men) that ensues. I don't blame him in the least.

However, John would serve himself better by seeking to make things better for himself by bypassing all the bad things that surround him and seeking the good things from where he undoubtedly could find it.
Now ...if he tells me that there are no good women in South East Asdia, then...Houston, we have a REAL problem ;-)

E, you also mention that your friend said something about the depths of cruelty that women can reach which is almost impossible for men to attain.
I have no doubt that this is true. A woman scorned and all that...
Again I say, how can a man (or indeed society) provide an antidote to that? Ceer alludes to this point - it cannot be solely a man's job. Older women HAVE to keep the younger women in check. Game can only go so far. There have to be penalties in place to bring this tendency to feral behaviour in women to heel. One of the problems of this modern life is that there are no punishments for bad behaviour. And more and more women are being left to run wild, so to speak. Well this is a massive failing of society. One of the solutions to this is to 'self-police' as I suggested in a previous post. But to 'self-police' requires that you do have some discipline to begin with, and the obligatory sense of morality. So it is a vicious cycle...


Ceer,

"If game is the only thing keeping society together, God help us all. Seriously. Women weren't meant to ONLY be under the control of game, hence the existence of mother hens and the like."

Absolutely, Ceer! To hear me talk, one could easily make the assumption that I think Game is the 'be all and end all' of life in the SMP. No. I like what Game offers a man, but I also think there needs to be a lot more going on in the dynamic than HIS Game.
So I join you in saying, if all a woman responds to from a man is Game, then the relationship between her and the man is doomed when he can't Game her anymore. And there will always be a limit to how much Game a man can spit...

Yes the Mother Hens are crucial to this game. But where are they? Are they the post-divorce cougars we see about or are they the wise, maternal, patient women who are telling their daughters to do good, NO MATTER HOW HARD IT IS, because that is the way for a woman to be?

And the older men...

My next post is about THEM...

Spacetraveller said...

"An idea about why asshat game works comes from the fact women prefer dominant men."

Nothing wrong with that. It is natural, and this is how the female is wired.

The problem is THIS (and you say it well):
"...since men are taught to supplicate to women..."

Men were systematically taught to kill a part of their own masculinity, in this war against humanity that is commonly known as 'feminism'.

Thank you for your civilising of me, Ceer. I believe it was indeed your feathers I ruffled when I said 'women civilise men'. I am glad I found the right word to use in this context. It took me ages, but at least I got there in the end :-)
Merci infiniment!

Anonymous said...

First off, don't ever, EVER, tell ME what to do. I'm a MAN and you're a WOMAN. I LEAD, YOU FOLLOW, understand?? If you don't like it, GTFO, IDGAF.
You're just a traditionalist who is whining and crying because it's not the 1950's anymore, that men aren't chivalrous anymore, that you can't sit on your ass at home all day, have babies, while your MAN works himself to death for 70 hours or more a week. Your man will most likely die on the job, of old age or illness before you or get killed in some war..MORE male disposability.

Women are women no matter what they are or where they come from(Female Entitlement and Hypergamy is a universal constant). My parents are from the PI, I was born and raised in the US. Filipino-American women are basically the same as AmeriCUNTS. A Native born Filipino woman brought to the US will transform into a HYPER-UBER-ENTITLED-MATERIALISTIC-AMERICUNT version of the local variety from the FemiNAZI indoctrination, Misandry, and ridiculous laws. To them I would be like a WHITE KNIGHT and their ticket to US citizenship.

Several years ago on one of the visits to the PI with my parents, one of my aunts joked that she'll find me a "Sexy Filipina Girl" to marry. My Mom basically said she didn't want some opportunistic slut to marry me and then leave me once we were in the US. Her and ALL my Aunties had a big laugh about it. My Mom is REDPILL as FUK! *sigh* I Love You Mom, You're the only woman I'll ever love.

Even if I succeded in the herculean task of finding a woman who is Marriage and Mother Material on this GODFORSAKEN planet, Marriage in this country is akin to a woman holding a gun to my head with her finger on the trigger. She can squeeze that trigger WHENEVER SHE WANTS. I've seen it happen to TOO MANY family members, friends, classmates, coworkers, teamates, acquaintances, complete strangers who thought they found themselves a fucking Unicorn! THEY WERE WRONG! EPICALLY WRONG!! I REFUSE to put myself in such a VULNERABLE POSITION!

Be honest, you hate MGTOW don't you, it terrifies you, shatters your soul doesn't it?? Knowing that there are several men(our numbers are growing exponentially) out there who are marriage and father material just checking out of the SMP. Less and less, dwindling numbers of men like me, who understand women, can make you tingle, ace your shit tests, highly intelligent, highly self motivated, witty, humourous, physically fit, athletic, excellent dancer, able to aquire vast amounts of wealth, were ONCE committed to the idea of marriage and fatherhood, but not anymore...

you want be married and have kids, but you have neither right?? How does it feel?? How does it feel that your future prospects are just utterly abysmal?? Remember those feelings, because what you feel doesn't even come close to the PAIN, MISERY, and SUFFERING YOU and your sisters have inflicted on MEN. You and your sisters WILL PAY for what you've done, Men will be AVENGED SEVENFOLD! In this life or the next, Karma's a Bitch ain't it??

One Shot, One Kill
Swift, Silent, Deadly
Always Faithful, Always Forward
0372

MGTOW
John Galt

Anonymous said...

You're an ENTITLED Traditionalist! I don't have to do SHIT to civilize women!! What have you and women done to EARN MY HELP?? WHAT?! Thats right, NOTHING!! FUK OFF!!
Tell you what, if you do a good job sucking my cock and your cunt is tight and wet enough when I bend you over and FUCK you GOOD and HARD until you're RAW, Crying, Physically, Mentally, Emotionally spent and I'm adequately satisfied, THEN MAYBE, just maybe I'll consider civilizing you. ;)

At best I think my looks are slightlty above average, but I have had plenty of women tell me I'm cute/handsome. I'm only 5'6" tall and weigh 160lbs, my weight can fluctuate between 145-160lbs and my body fat percentage can fluctuate between 6-8%. When I'm 160lbs and 6% body fat, I Look Absolutely Shredded, FUK YAH!
My Game is excellent, I can SMASH women who are 8's and 9's(1-10 scale). I wouldn't expect you to understand Game, you're a WOMAN, I've yet to see a woman EXPLAIN let alone TEACH Game to a Man. If you truly understood Game in its simplicity you would know that Game basically takes characteristics of the "Dark Triad"(Narcissism, Machiavelliansim(manipulation and exploitation of others), and Psychopathy) and applies them to oneself making them attractive to women.

The point of Sexbots and artifical wombs is to render Innate Female Value to 0. Meaning they would finally realize their evil nature and try to make themselves into creatures of high value as possible. Now when i think about it, I don't think thats gonna happen with a creature thats as Solipsistic and Entitled as Women.
A possible future like "Brave new world" doesn't concern me. I won't be alive or be too old for it to matter. I won't have any decendents since I'm not planning to Marry and have kids anymore. For everyone else, IDGAF, it's time I start thinking of myself for once.
The Human Race is Royally Fucked! We've had our time on this planet, maybe its coming to an end. Perhaps a new species will rise after us, hopefully they'll prove themselves worthy of Gods Grace and he won't create a creature even remotely resembling a woman.
God has cursed Man or maybe it's just one BIG SHIT TEST of faith, like he did with Job..or we are really living in the endtimes. Jesus, please save my family and friends, they're good people. Leave the majority of women to be raped by Lucifer and his Legions for eternity, it's what they deserve.

You'll forgive the late reply, I have a life, a duty, a comittment I made to this country, whether its valued or not. I gave my word and my word is golden. SEMPER FI OOHRAH! But I wouldn't expect a WOMAN to understand concepts of Honor, Courage, and Comittment...Sacrifice...
Military Service doesn't align with MGTOW philiosphy, but the Marine Corps/MARSOC is one the few bastions of Masculinity(even though feminazi entitlement has infested the Military) where I can ACT like a Man, TALK like a Man, FEEL like a Man, and BE a MAN. Put simply, A WARRIOR.

One Shot, One Kill
Swift, Silent, Deadly
Always Faithful, Always Forward
0372

MGTOW
John Galt

metak said...

@ "John Galt"

WTF dude? How 'bout some basic respect towards the author of this post, as a... you know HUMAN being??

You talk about male disposability when in fact you, as a soldier, participate and equate killing other MEN with Masculinity?????!!!! THE FUK!!! That has to be some serious brainwashing going on... Men, like yourself, have caused and are causing more damage to other men and everyone else than women ever did.

Disturbing comment to say the least. just wow

Anonymous said...

Respect is EARNED, NOT GIVEN. All i see is some Traditionalist WOMAN whining and crying about a situation her and the rest of her gender created and trying to extend the proverbial "olive branch," because shes desperate for marriage and children. Men are just doing what they got to do to survive.

First off, I AM NOT A SOLDIER! I'M A MARINE! There's a difference, LEARN IT! You useless, nasty , civilian.

Yes, Military Service is the Epitome of "male disposability." I stated before that Military Service does not align with MGTOW philosphy. But to be fair, I VOLUNTEERED, I wasn't forced. I chose of my own free will. In contrast, MOST militaries around the world have some sort of conscription(NO Choice to serve)(we have selective services aka "the draft." But hasn't been enacted since the Vietnam War, even if it was enacted today, it wouldn't mean anything, too many of America's youth is overweight or obese rendering them ineligible).

Yes I have killed people and I'm EXCEPTIONALLY SKILLED at it, because I'm very very well trained. But let me be clear, I have ONLY killed people who were a threat to me, my fellow Marines, other allies and INNOCENT CIVILIANS. For the past 7 years its mostly been Muslim Jihadists who want to kill everyone/anyone who is NOT MUSLIM even including Innocent Peaceful Muslims who refuse to participate in Jihad. You know these types of Muslims, the ones that just go to a public market place to buy groceries only to be killed by some douchebag suicide bomber screaming "ALLAH AKBAR!!" YOU have NO IDEA WHAT I HAVE BEEN THROUGH TO FUCKING SURVIVE! Just so i could go back home in one piece and see my parents and friends again and my teammates to see their wives and children again. TO NOT render their wives as WIDOWS. TO NOT LEAVE THEIR CHILDREN FATHERLESS, to live like a normal human being with dignity.

From now on I will refrain from posting. It's obvious that no one likes or wants to hear what i have to say. I won't speak where no one will listen. You may have silenced me, but you haven't changed me or anyone else. Congradulations, your shaming worked. Metak, you're a bluepill, white knighting, mangina and a traitor to ALL Good Decent Men who have SUFFERED and DIED under this Feminist, Matriarchal, Misandrist Regime. Good Day.

Semper Fi

One Shot, One Kill
Swift, Silent, Deadly
Always Faithful, Always Forward
0372

MGTOW
John Galt

metak said...

That's the 'manosphere' version of respect and I didn't had that on in my mind.
I mean some basic respect and appreciation for humans, Creator's children, etc. some humanity perhaps? Have we really fallen that low as a species that something basic as that needs to be earned?

You can put any label on it (soldier, marine, what ever) and it will still be the same thing. Don't care. I'm just another useless civilian that barely got out of country on time before the war started... how unfortunate...

Yes, most militaries around the world do have some sort of conscription, but there is always a choice to say NO. Young people in Israel are refusing it even though they're jailed for it.
This is the only way to stop this madness and not to send men to die in some stupid wars off conquest. It has to stop!

Who wants to listen how you wish that majority of women should be raped by Lucifer, etc.???

I'm not shaming you. I know exactly what you're talking about and if it will make you fell any better you can call me how ever you wish. As a refugee I got used to many things. :-)

Good day to you too Sir. :-)

metak said...

Just so I don't forget...

I love you too, man! :-)

Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

I think that John Galt has a certain point that's useful to the conversation. It is in fact a reasonable and rational response to be angry at the way women as a gender have behaved over the last 100 years. Since women have gotten the vote, Preborns have lost the right to a natural shot at birth, hand in a marriage moved away from the party that wants fidelity, taxes have skyrocketed to pay for government subsidy to women, and both the overall birth rate and child legitimacy have plummeted.

As Dalrock said, the case for anger is substantial.

As a Catholic, you think sexbots and artificial wombs are a good thing? You think THIS is the way to go?

Allow me to answer these questions. As a Catholic, I understand that sexbots are immoral due to the fact they divorce sex from the marital relationship.

As far as whether or not I think they're a way for society to go...that's a whole other complex answer. What's going on right now is effectively an epidemic of relationship disease brought about by removing age old advice away from young women, turning them feral. Men from their part are now learning from the resulting demand, and giving women the cads they so desperately crave.

A driving factor is women's intrasexual competition where feminists peddle a hate based ideology to other women foolish enough to follow suit. Said women affected by this ideology poison their own words, attitudes, and actions, preventing them from scoring a man up to their potential. Men, almost uniformly repulsed by this behavior, are either threatened into helping to spread it or too busy holding their noses to combat it effectively.

For men, the problem is that there is almost no organization to reverse what is going on. It's a calculation between the evil of sexbots and the evil of preborn murder plus the destruction of the family plus the abuse of miseducating children. This situation makes sexbots seem like not such a bad idea. The seductive argument goes like this: "They've abused their power, let them loose that power at any and all cost up to that of their abuse."

At the end of the day, I don't know where I stand at the moment. On one hand, how can I trust God with feminism destroying society? On the other, how can I support something I know is wrong that may end up further harming society? Oh, and I have a duty to future generations to not screw up their society for them.

@ John Galt

The point of Sexbots and artifical wombs is to render Innate Female Value to 0. Meaning they would finally realize their evil nature and try to make themselves into creatures of high value as possible.

I suspect your hunch about female solipsism winning out is correct. It will rather take a massive red pill aware female generation for women to realize their fallen nature.

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

Thanks for your 'whiteknighting'. I appreciate that, Mr. Civilian!

:-)


Ceer,

Yes, I do agree John Galt has a lot of truisms to impart to the rest of us.

But what a way to say it!!!


Thanks for explaining the dilemma men face regarding sexbots and artificial wombs.

"For men, the problem is that there is almost no organization to reverse what is going on."
Voilà, Ceer. This is the biggest key to solving the SMP crisis. It is up to women to change back to normal, because it is women who strayed off the straight and narow path in the first place. This is my belief and you confirm that.

Men are not utterly helpless in this, mind. But it is the women themselves/ourselves who need to change our collective behaviours, whether it is men who 'civilise' us into doing so, or if we somehow just listen to our true feminine natures and do what comes naturally from our feminine spirits.

From my own point of view (and I understand that on this precise topic, my view does not in fact matter an iota, given that I possess a real womb and whatever else a sexbot may provide - so why would I even rate an artificial womb - do you see that I am more likely than you to find even the concept of an artificial womb or a sexbot a touch repulsive? - simply because I have the real one to 'compare' with?) it is straightforward in that it represents a sort of 'failure'. John Galt believes that these artificial inventions wiil somehow 'compete' with real women. D'you know, somehow I think not! He grossly underestimates the 'nature' in humanity. To put it into context for men, the equivalent is for a woman to indulge in a fake 'relationship' with a cardboard cut-out of a famous actor or pop star. The other parallel is the special kind of single mother who used a sperm bank. At least a real, live father (albeit absent) is a human being who one day the child can go find (and he/she WILL feel that desire to know their true origin, guaranteed). But some untraceable sperm bank depositer? How unimaginably sad for all concerned...

I think I shall let this subject drop now. I guess I am not the best person to discuss it sensibly (AKA logically) anyway. I only dipped my toes in the waters when John Galt brought it up. I suspect the emotional overlay makes me a disqualified participant in this discussion. I have to say that also, the moral implications are holding me back. For I believe that both inventions are forms of biblical 'onanisms' which displease God greatly. I shll look further into the 'theology' of the matter before I come unstuck :-)


Spacetraveller said...

John Galt,

Yes you are a man, and you lead. True. So I gave a 'suggestion' which you didn't like. No problem. Not all my suggestions are palatable :-)

By the way, there are certain things a man might lead a woman into which are not good. In those circumstances, she is right not to follow. Those circumstances might be rare, but they exist, and it is up to every woman to recognise those when they show up. So your assertion that 'men lead, women follow' is usually correct, but may I just add 'not always' ...sorry for the detour... but I had good reason to drop this in...)

I got a distinct feeling your words were some sort of 'war cry' and I was tempted to ask what your profession was.
So I am pleased you provided that information without me asking.

This sort of language... "One Shot, One Kill, Swift, Silent, Deadly" makes us civilians squirm a little in our seats, I have to say. Perhaps you are oblivious to the effect of such words because for you it is 'bread and butter', but I promise you, they make the rest of us a little nervous. Just an observation.



I have the utmost respect for soldiers/military sailors/airforce personnel.

I am sorry you feel it is a thankless job. As Danny (another military sailor) says, yes, the American military seems to be infiltrated by feminists and the lives of the military personnel have been deemed disposable. Again I sympathise.

I am not sure what you mean by 'traditionalist'. I thought it would have been rather a good thing to be a 'traditionalist' but you don't seem to be of that opinion. The opposite of 'traditionalist' does not however seem palatable to me, so indeed I stand accused of the charge of 'traditionalist' which I prefer as it seems the lesser of two evils...

Just out of interest, John, which would you prefer? The kind of woman who wants to be at home and have children (and this would necessitate that her husband work jolly hard, yes, to support her and the large family they will have, which, if I am not mistaken, you see as 'entitled') or the one who insists on working even when the children are young (which I suspect though cannot be described as 'entitled', might not be to your taste either?) Are you clear on which one you prefer? May I know which one? (Just to file away in my mind - for posterity :-)

You say you have no wish to 'civilise' women. Lost opportunity methinks. Simply stating your 'preferences' might go a long way, at no extra cost to you. You never know who might be listening in whose preferences match yours...



Spacetraveller said...

Just for the record, I do not hate MGTOWs. Where did you get that idea from, John? Everyone has the right to do with their own life what they choose.
Sure, I was a bit puzzled by it because as a woman, I could not conceive of the idea of shunning marriage which happens to be the bedrock of society - of which I am part, whether I like it or not. So I set out to learn more about this movement. Now that I 'get' that men don't need marriage as much as women do, I am reconciled with the concept. My only reaction now is

1) part disappointment on behalf of the men who may NOT deep down want this, but are forced to live it out, (an example of such a man is 'Mark Minter' who I am sure you have heard of...and

2) part hope that things will turn around for precisely those men who really want to marry but cannot find the right women to marry. So happy days for 'Mark Minter' who got what he wanted in the end, a woman he felt he could successfully marry.

For those who are MGTOW because they see it as the absolute right path for them, and it has nothng to do with the low availability of marriageable women, I say Amen to that!

I do not advocate marriage AGAINST the wishes of unwilling men. I would hope that if a man marries, he gets something good in the deal. If that is NEVER going to be the case for him, then Marine, you and I are on the same side: All aboard for MGTOW!
I sincerely believe that each party should get something out of every transaction. Assuming that things CAN be better than they are, I had the perception that MGTOW were somehow 'shortchanging' themselves. But of course, I could be completely wrong...
But somehow, I just don't want to believe that I could be wrong though - that the value of marriage is down to zero, or near-zero.

God forbid. (Ah yes, my 'woman-hat' is definitely on now, I'm afraid, John :-)

So I hope I have cleared up my position for you. Rightly or wrongly, these are my views on MGTOW. It is definitely not 'hate'. This is the absolute wrong word for my views on MGTOW, if I may say so.

Any other word, mate, but not
hate.


I am REALLY sorry to hear of your sad experiences with Filipino women. There is a post on this blog about foreign women, and several (Western) men, like you, seemed to have found success with foreign-born women. I am sorry this is not the case for you.

So, I have double sympathy...the military makes you feel disposable, American women are not to your standard, non-Western women are a step away from American women when brought over to America...

As you say, you are a MAN.

You will find your own solution. I hope I am permitted to at least accompany your solution with prayers and good wishes for its success.

Good day to you, Marine, and thank you for your input.

I wish you success (and God's grace!) in whatever you do with your life. I have every confidence you will find a way.

Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

From my own point of view... it is straightforward in that it [sexbots] represents a sort of 'failure'.

I agree. Both morally and biologically.

To put it into context for men, the equivalent is for a woman to indulge in a fake 'relationship' with a cardboard cut-out of a famous actor or pop star.

The beta in me wants to view it more like the dad substitute, which is the government subsidy of single motherhood. Can we agree this is much more common and dangerous than cutout rockstars?

the moral implications are holding me back. For I believe that both inventions are forms of biblical 'onanisms' which displease God greatly.

I think the moral implications are why having this discussion is a good idea. Before you go dark on the issue, hear me out on one issue that may help you in your thoughts.

these artificial inventions wiil somehow 'compete' with real women. D'you know, somehow I think not!

In a way, you are correct and incorrect at the same time. Men crave emotional intimacy that can only be given by a woman. This is the side of the marital act that says nothing will replace a wife.

On the other hand, we know for a fact that pornography is pervasive. Men currently engage in it in vast numbers even though it doesn't provide the real life personality. Due to the behavior of women in our cultures, can you see how many men would prefer the lack of personality over a horrible personality?

Sexbots, inheriting this niche, can be combated in the same way. Can be done effectively. Think about it.

Spacetraveller said...

Ceer,

"...view it more like the dad substitute, which is the government subsidy of single motherhood. Can we agree this is much more common and dangerous than cutout rockstars?"

Of course! Actually, what a clumsy error on my part to miss out the best and most common analogy possible!
The example I gave is more esoteric and probably only applies to teenage girls :-)
Sorry.

The moral implications for me are similar to the moral implication of abortion, for example. I clam up when such topics are being discussed because they make my skin crawl. However much people wnat to dress up abortion as some sort of 'choice', all I see is dead babies. I cannot see beyond that, so I can't have a sensible discussion about abortion. The same principle here with sexbots and artificial wombs. All I see is sexual depravity and a science lab, and severe-looking men in white coats - all very 'clinical'...the mental image combined with my(shall we say), Catholic-developed sense of morality are preventing me from viewing this topic from a cold, hard, logical point of view. This is what I mean by 'it is holding me back'.

But for the sake of progress, I shall try and stay focused. I shall try and get that mental picture out of my mind and continue with the discussion. Lead me where I should go on this!
:-)

Spacetraveller said...


Yes pornography is pervasive. True. By the way, pornography is also a problem for some women (not many, admittedly, but female porno addicts do exist - and I don't mean the 'emotional' kind either, I mean the real, physical sexual kind).

But it is also widely accepted that there is a 'problem' when this escalates to frequent use.
No-one is sending you to psychiatrists if you sleep with your wife every night. But this is what will happen if you are viewing porn every day. That's the difference. In both cases, there is sexual release, no? But whilst one is seen as healthy, normal, 'as it should be', the other is seen as 'sad', 'desperate', 'creepy' and 'not so good for you'.

This is what I mean by 'failure'. Something has gone wrong already with pornography. With sexbots, that 'something wrong' has been magnified/escalated to a whole new level of sad. If a person can lie with a sexbot, why not animals? Why not children? Why not corpses? Why not other inanimate objects?

See? My awful mental image is coming back with a vengeance now :-) Seriously, my imagination can run so wild on this topic that I end up scaring myself! As the french say, c'est dingue!
Ceer, I have thought about it hard. And here's another consideration: what you describe for pornography only makes sense for younger men who, let's face it, do have a need for a certain itch to be scratched, so to speak. I get that, and I have every sympathy. As Bell and I used to say in earlier blogposts, until someone injects 20 times the testosterone levels we have running through our veins, we cannot judge men. So I am not judging men here. I am just concerned for the sexual wellbeing and ultimate happiness/psychology of the man, which stems also from the moral standpoint (I am a believer that self-esteem and morality are linked). What happens when he gets to a certain age where the physical act is less important than the emotional connection he builds with another human being (i.e. when he becomes more like a woman)? This happens from about age 50, I believe, as testosterone levels start to drop and men have a change of sexual priorities?

Such a man would have had a lifetime of liaisons with inanimate objects. That must be psychologically damning and soul-destroying, no? Am I seeing this 'like a girl'?
Can you reassure me that a man can rationalise it away as 'just how things are in the modern world'? (Gosh, would that not require a massive hamster??) Morally, will he not hate himself when indeed his mind becomes more 'feminised' in later years, and his sense of guilt trebles, especially if he is Catholic?

:-)


I guess the guilt is not quite as bad as a woman who has had an abortion, (because afetrall, in using a sexbot, at least no-one died) but is it not morally unpalatable to the man himself what he has allowed himself to get used to?

Of course there are also the social implications - let's not forget those!
On 'man planet', is this not 'omega' status behaviour? If it is true that every man secretly wants to be 'alpha', then sexbots are not the way to attain the dizzy heights of alphadom, surely!

Honestly, try as I might, I really cannot see any benefits of sexbots to a man. I really can't. Surely this disqualifies me from this debate, no? :-)

Hahaha, OK, I am still trying to worm my way out of this one, but I guess you will just sit on me until I have the discussion!
:-)

metak said...

You see ST, how screwed up everything has become when you're called white knight, bluepill, etc. just for saying "hey, women are humans too...". :-) Oh well, blue is my favorite color anyway... :-)

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that some men inside the manosphere are giving other men horrible advice when it comes to anger. That's why you can see so many men (especially American men) everywhere on-line complaining how bad AW are 24/7, with so much anger. They don't deal with the problem and they themselves suffer the most because of it. Internet, where all is closely monitored and stored for processing is the worst place to 'vent' out. There is always someone waiting to harness all this anger for some malevolent purpose and it's creepy to say the least. Looking how Police state is getting out of control over there, I wouldn't be surprised if 'manospere' became a 'hate crime' or new extremism.

I'll never show any 'respect' for the military or anything simmilar! I remember when I was in Cividale del Friuli watching all those names of men who died and it makes you sick. Men killing men like it's some stupid game. Repsect is the last thing to think about. We need to stop it, not 'respect' it!!

http://files1.caprionline.it/article/1029_Fogliano_Redipuglia/image/1_l.20091209221925.jpg
http://www.turismofvg.it/ProxyVFS.axd/file.jpg?rnode=11641&stream=popup&ext=.jpg
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/orie0704/034.jpg

I'm surprised that you're surprised, ST. :-) If a man believes that women are merely walking incubators and a warm hole... (sorry :-) then he's only one step from where we're today. Artificial womb and sexbots. It's dehumanizing, but on the other hand also funny as hell. At least for me 'cos I'm weird. :-) Can you imagine this situation, ST? Single men going to some sort of clinic or something because they want a child. They make their 'deposit' and then come back months later and child is waiting for them. blah blah... Men are apparently avoiding even being seen near a child nowadays let alone doing all that work on their own when a relationship with another adult has become too hard. I can already see men waiting in lines for it. :-) So screwed up... not even mentioning the science involved in it all. Then there's the energetic and spiritual component that is very conveniently ignored in spite of everything we already know. The bond between the child and a mother that is created during the pregnancy can not be reproduced artificially in any way. I wonder what kind of 'side-effects' would that cause to the child. Men are angry that women removed fathers from children's lives and pointing to all the damage it caused, but here we are and they want to do the same thing. It's a very sick and twisted form of revenge if you ask me and it happens when 'male' wersion of hamster gets loose without any consciense, disguised as 'intellect'.

Spacetraveller said...

Metak,

I think 'whiteknighting' has become an overused term...

You know my history with the military. I do think they deserve respect.

Horrible, the picture you paint of artificial wombs.

You're not helping, Metak! I am trying to stay focused to have this discussion!
:-)

Anonymous said...

Lysistrata. By Aristophanes.
I love you, Space Traveller. Keep blogging.

Mac

Spacetraveller said...

Lysistrata! Yes, that's who I was trying to remember!!!

Bless you Mac!

And thank you :-)
You are a sweetie :-)

Anonymous said...

SPOILER ALERT: The women's sex strike fails: too many strike breakers. :)

Mac

Spacetraveller said...

Mac,

*shaking my head*

This does not surprise me! On Planet Woman, there is no equivalent of 'bros before hos' as you gentlemen have on Planet Man.
So we undermine our own cause.

One could say that the current SMP is one big (failed) Lysistrata moment.

Except that in this case, it requires UNMARRIED women to keep their legs crossed, and would have been socially, morally and intrinsically right.

Lysistrata wanted MARRIED women to renege on a contract they had already signed, so she was socially, morally and intrinsically wrong. So I don't exactly shed tears that her plan failed :-)

But I am most definitely losing sleep over all the young women who are throwing their futures away by 'giving it away for free'.


Live Free or Die said...

As someone who refuses to get married or have kids,

I think it is great.

Spacetraveller said...

LFOD,

"I think it is great."
Do you mean the failed Lysistrata ploy that is the current SMP??

If so, I can't say I blame you, particularly. But in all fairness, it is not helping the overall picture...

Women are not getting what they need, and men are not getting what they want.

Epic fail all round...
And the non-Lysistratas are the ones to blame :-)
But the Lysistratas are also suffering :-(


Live Free or Die said...

@ Spacetraveller,

Yep, I was referring to the current SMP.


Just like in nature or in business:

Adapt or die.

Anonymous said...

MAC
What is it all about, dear Spacetraveller,
That you've called the women hither in a troop?
What kind of an object is it?
SPACETRAVELLER
A tremendous thing!
MAC
And long?
SPACETRAVELLER
Indeed, it may be very lengthy.
MAC
Then why aren't the women here?
SPACETRAVELLER
No alpha male's connected with it;
If that was the case, they'd soon come fluttering along.
No, no. It concerns an object I've felt over
And turned this way and that for sleepless nights.
MAC
It must be fine to stand such long attention.
SPACETRAVELLER
So fine it comes to this—the SMP saved by Woman!

Spacetraveller said...

Mac,

:-)

I didn't know we had a poet in our midst!

Heh heh, keep it coming :-D