MMX2010

Not bad. My guesses aren't evidence that I'm correct, nor are they evidence that Rollo's hypothesis is correct the majority of the time. (A sample size of one never provides strong evidence of anything.) But the hypothesis is that the moment a woman feels secure in a man's commitment, she inevitably views sex as Transactional. Hence, she either directly says, "you had a long day, and you were sweet for buying me tampons today" or she silently feels, "you had a long day, and you were sweet for buying me tampons today". (Today, six months is more than long enough to make a woman feel secure; two years is way more than enough.) To me, it matters neither whether she says or silently feels these things. What matters is that the sex a woman provides when she's insecure her commitment is more passionate, emotionally intense, and eager-to-please than the sex she provides when she's secure in her commitment. The implications of this are both obvious and scary, but if they're true (and I think they're true), then they must be acknowledged regardless. The one man who most fervently acknowledges this truth and advises men on how to behave accordingly is Heartiste. Google "Heartiste dread".

The above is half-true. Procrastination can only happen in a culture which loudly dictates that you're not supposed to strongly associate your performance with your value as a person. If you fully embrace that you are supposed to make this strong association, then there's no need to procrastinate. So if you either: (1) untangle the negative, selfish justifications behind the admonition that "You're not supposed to strongly associate your performance with your value as a person." OR (2) stop caring about anyone who says, "You're not supposed to strongly associate your performance with your value as a person.", then you will instantly stop procrastinating. The second is easier than the first, but the first is more long-lasting and interesting.

You're welcome. Thanks, also, for sticking with me through Kaki's ridiculous downvoting campaign. Hopefully, she's stopped forever now. What's most interesting, though, is that women will use any means necessary to ensure that their sexual strategies are freely lived - but to do this, they must ensure that the majority of men aren't allowed to live their own sexual strategies. Since most women will use any means necessary, then it stands to reason that most FDR-women will use philosophy. --------------------- I attended my first FDR meet-up in NYC this past Sunday, and the conversation moved towards myself and my mistress. When I casually mentioned that I've been sleeping with an engaged woman for over four years, the most alpha man in the group had a very negative reaction. And the first thing he said was that he found my behavior "sociopathic". I replied, "It's interesting that you use the word sociopathic, because it reminds me of another word that I'm going to pretend I don't know exists. The word says that every man must voluntarily restrict his sexual energy, because women aren't intelligent enough or forward-thinking enough to make wise sexual decisions, particularly not in their youth. And the men must do this, because if they don't, the ENTIRE SOCIETY will fall apart. Do you know what the word is? Patriarchy." We respectfully debated back-and-forth, and he concluded that he was sure that I was exploiting a loophole that he couldn't explain. And the other three guys who were listening told me, "You should totally debate Stef about this; I'd pay you to do it." I'll keep you posted, but I am not surprised that people will use philosophy (probably poorly) to defend monogamy in a way that doesn't challenge women's sexual decisions. ------------------------ Also relevant, a one-liner from the blogger Dalrock: "Today's (Christian) Western women are trying to give as little of their youth and fertility to their future husbands, as their future husbands will allow."

It helps. But I would say that it's not up to you to determine whether the sex you have with your wife is validational. It's up to her.

I loved this video, and its characterization of feminists, but I shook my head when it described "anima non-integrated men". The sexists? The PUAS? The masculine men who look down on women? They're the ones who haven't integrated their animas? *sigh* The hipsters! The male feminists! The social justice warriors! The Hugo Schwyzers! The gender-equalists! Those are the male individuals who haven't integrated their animas, and those are the males who are, therefore, more prone to "bitchiness, emotional manipulation, gender-whinging, and trying to put the other person down." - as was described in the video. (Personally, as I become more secure in my masculinity, I become both more willing to explore martial arts and more willing to use stinging words to provoke negative emotional reactions - (where necessary, and always within good moral / philosophical grounds.) As far as both feminists and male feminists being insecure about their own genders: OF COURSE that's true. And you win by constantly targeting and firmly-but-not-viciously attacking that particular weakness, like stinging with a good left jab, over and over and over again, against someone who can't defend against it. So when battling with feminists, always make it about their looks, their unsuccessful relationships with men, their jealousy over how hot stupid women always get the guys they wish they had, their weight, their hairstyle, their tattoos (and how shallow these make them), their childlessness, and their embracing of rage - (deep-seated negative emotional energy that never leads to self-improvement) - over anger - (deep-seated negative emotional energy that leads to introspection, self-improvement, and a major change in personality). And when battling male feminists, always make it about their sad lack of success with women, their jealousy over dumb jocks getting the flat out hotties they wish they had, their inability to make decisions, their inability to either throw or take a good punch to the face, their pathetic shyness around the opposite sex, their lack of upper body strength, their hatred towards lifting and exercise, their dislike of eating meat, and their embracing of rage over anger. Because that's what it's always about. Even when it's not about that: it's about that.

The stuff that I'm talking about addresses broad sexual behaviors of many, many people. It's a generalization, which is what philosophy is for. But you're asking me for the exact opposite: a personalized conclusion, using the language of Rollo's blog. It's impossible for me (or anyone else) to provide a personal conclusion without observing your relationship. At best, I can comment on what you said: "My girlfriend's sexual behaviour is solely lovemaking. She will not participate if her heart is not behind it, and even is she is doing something as a reward- it is backed by her feelings and explicit intentions. (ex: "you had a long day, and you were sweet for buying me tampons today" -censored activites- )" That sounds, to me, exactly like Transactional Sex. So I will guess that you've been seeing each other for at least two years and have either: (1) been living together for at least six months OR (2) have been seriously discussing living together for at least six months. (The economy is so bad that discussing living together counts as much as actually living together.) Let me know if both parts of my guess are correct.

I agree with you 75%. I agree that you're here to learn, that you did ask for my opinion, and that you were using a playful-bantery tone. (Kaki: Take note that OmegaHero didn't find my question offensive, didn't downvote me, and didn't respond to my question with hostility. So when you downvoted me, you were deeming your own emotional reaction to my question as more important than OmegaHero's reaction. Meanwhile, the question is directed at him, so, of course, his opinion matters much more than yours.) But my 25% disagreement comes because you don't acknowledge this part of your original post: "We have fun and our relationship in this matter does not fall into your binary categories." That sounds like a very strong assertion: that the sexual behavior you two exhibit cannot be classified as either Validation Sex or Transactional Sex. My opinion is that it's impossible for me to comment on your assertion. If I had 72 hours of video of both yourself and your GF, (the three days prior to any sexual intercourse you both enjoy) and knowledge of your girlfriend's menstrual cycle, I could take explain to you which category that particular sex act falls under. Without that, I have no opinion.

So it's most important that we've different definitions of narcissism. Everyone on FDR is familiar with Capital-N Narcissism, the full blown psychological disorder present in roughly 6% of Americans that guarantees children will be abused and everyone who knows the Capital-N Narcissist will be miserable. I wasn't using that term. Few people, however, are familiar with TheLastPsychiatrist's definition of Little-N Narcissism, which is the term I always use. I could post multiple links to multiple articles, but the primary component of Little-N Narcissism is that your first and foremost concern is how a specific idea or understanding affects you and your relationships. Most people use philosophy in a Little-N Narcissistic way, because they use everything in a Little-N Narcissistic way. Why do you want to go to college? Why do you want to study this, but not that? Why are you attracted to this person, but not that person? What's the best part about philosophy? Why did you stay with the romantic partner with whom you stayed the longest? (Try as you might, you'll almost certainly answer those questions in a Little-N Narcissistic way. Doesn't mean your answers are wrong, doesn't mean your thought process is flawed. Just means that Little-N Narcissism is epidemic in our culture, and that you suffer from it because you're a part of this culture.) ---------------- The second thing to address is why I would make fun of you, rather than directly addressing it. By "directly addressing it", do you mean intellectually, philosophically, and objectively BUT NOT emotionally and personally? Maybe you do, maybe you don't - but I find that topics that create a lot of emotional energy are best addressed emotionally and personally first, rather than intellectually, philosophically, and objectively first. There are many reasons for this, but the first one is Little-N Narcissism. It was safe for me to assume that you were approaching this question from a Little-N Narcissistic perspective, especially because you stated, "Hearing the facts and opinions about women in a negative light in these forums makes me feel ashamed sometimes to be associated with women, especially because I realize how true most (or all) of it is.")." And even your correction, "it's not so much a concern that other people will treat me in association with other women, but more that I myself am disappointed in these women and don't want to be associated with them because of who they are, and not because of what others will think of me" is Little-N Narcissistic. (Your primary focus is on either: (1) how their negative behavior affects you and your relationships, or (2) how very strongly you want to stand out from among those women. Both of these are Little-N Narcissistic.) The second reason is because of who you are. You are a 19 year old girl just beginning philosophy. You're "supposed to be" awkward, emotionally out-of-control (most times), and mostly unable to handle interpersonal conflict. But what you did was: (1) express your frustration with me in clear language, (2) refused to personally attack me despite being frustrated with me, and (3) didn't downvote my post; instead you sought further conversation and clarification. You don't get how exemplary your behavior *IS*. You don't get how your ability to handle conflict as I described makes you better than 95% (or more!) of women-period. Not just Women Your Age. Your self-doubt is an insult to your character, and I wasn't going to stand idly by and "let you get away" with it. ------------------ The third reason is because philosophy doesn't cure Little-N Narcissism. When you say, "Maybe I'm being nitpicky here, but you WERE excusing my behavior. You even said it right in the last line that I quoted (" I was excusing my behavior and yours"). I just don't agree with you. Even if this culture DID encourage narcissism, it's not an excuse. Just like a person with a history of abuse who has difficulty leading a non-abusive lifestyle. It's difficult, but it's still not an excuse, and I wouldn't want such excuses made for myself in any situation.", I appreciate your passion for the truth and for upright moral behavior. But I don't think you realize how hard it is to reverse Little-N Narcissism. Little-N Narcissism is everywhere, even in political protests. I'm sure you've seen the pictures of dogs attacking Blacks during Martin Luther King Jr's political protests. Whether you agree with the protestors or not, they disagreed with the White power structure, especially the police and the government - and directly protested against those institutions. But last month, a hashtag BlackBrunchNYC emerged as people who disliked the Michael Brown and Eric Garner incidents gathered inside of trendy bistros where White people were eating brunch to "raise awareness" about those issues. They brought cameras to film the discomfort of the Whites eating lunch, and took selfies of themselves participating in the protests to put on facebook. Both groups are protesting, but the second group is full of Little-N Narcissists. If you knew how prevalent Little-N Narcissism was, you wouldn't expect your passionate commitment to truth and moral action to immediately cure your own (or anyone else's) Little-N Narcissism. You would, especially, realize that women without your passionate commitment to truth and moral action simply will NOT be quickly "reformed" or persuaded through passionate moral argument. And then you would realize how awkward it is to complain about the hypocrisy and truth-evasion of the feminists who lied to you your entire life. (Eventually, you'll also realize that the phrasing of my last sentence was Little-N Narcissistic, "how awkward it is to complain about the hypocrisy and truth-evasion of the feminists who lied to you your entire life". Get it? They lied to us, too.) Let me know if this helps, or has created even more confusion. My actions were complicated, creative, and worked perfectly, (in my opinion). But that doesn't mean I explained them well enough. And if you're confused, I didn't.

Quoting myself is silly, but the downvote here (and to my earlier post) helps me make a significant point. Philosophy is for everyone - not just for you. OmegaHero responded to my generalization about women's sexual responses by suggesting that my post was incorrect because his girlfriend may not be like that. Maybe he's right about her; maybe he's dead wrong. But neither of those matter. What matters is that he responded to a generalization about women's sexual behavior by considering only how it affects himself, his girlfriend, and his perception of his girlfriend. Kaki also downvoted both my entirely fair question to him about his familiarity with Rollo Tomassi's blog and my post about women's two-categories of sexual responses, without trying to contradict either post. Kaki, I know it's you. But by downvoting my posts, (attempting to shun my reputation, so that no one will take my posts about women's sexuality seriously), you're affirming the worst stereotypes about women, women's desire to feel attractive no matter what they do, and women's inability to remain rational in the midst of human conflict. Kaki, if you have rational and/or evidence-based objections to anything I post, I'd love to hear them.

A question: how often have you read either: (1) Rollo Tomassi's blog on male-female relationships or (2) evolutionary psychological blogs on male-female relationships? I asked because your post felt to me like an emotional challenge against a field of study that you're not-at-all familiar with, and I want to know how familiar you are with that field of study.

I can reconcile both comments above, and answer ETU's earlier question to me, "What is the end goal of being a womanizer?", and offer Kevin Beal feedback....all in one post. One of the darkest secrets about women is their two completely different modes of having sex: (1) They can have passionate, wild, reckless abandon sex or (2) They can have tepid, muted, withdrawn sex. The first type of sex occurs outside of a committed relationship, with a lover she is cheating on her committed BF / husband with OR with a man she wishes were her committed BF / husband while she is single. This first type of sex is called "Validation-Based" or "Acquisition-Based", because she's validating you-as-a-man in order to acquire your extended presence. The second type of sex occurs inside of a committed relationship, and is always given as a "reward" for him "doing the right thing" or "doing something nice". This second type of sex is called "Transactional Sex", because it's his "reward" for "Being A Good Boy". So sashajade's comments came from her teenage-girl perspective, as someone who only knew of Validation-based sex at the time because she wasn't in a committed relationship. And EndTheUsurpation's comments came from a man who was experiencing the joy of Validation-based sex, but was "blaming himself" for his "dysfunctional childhood" which caused him to enjoy this type of sex above all others. But I would say that most men who experience a deep sense of lovelessness as a child will deem their sexual instincts as bad and seek committed relationships as a buffer against existential loneliness. Because most fathers are absent, most mothers control the narrative of "what really happened in the relationship" - so every boy's mother fills him with cautionings and exhortations to "not be like your father", callous, emotionally cold, obsessed with money, and not good at emotional intimacy. Their sons internalize this message, demonize their own sexual impulses, and claim that any man like EndTheUsurpation is "acting out of a dysfunctional childhood" - without realizing that they, too, are acting out of a dysfunctional childhood. My major goal of womanizing is to acknowledge that these two types of sex exist, and to assert my primal right to enjoy the first type over the second type. As with most relationship issues, women have all the power and control AND could build a better world if they just made smarter choices.....but they use their power and control to deny their own nature, deny their own responsibility, and shift all of the blame and responsibility onto men.

No one earns such a relationships. They build themselves up to be the best they can be, and the relationship either appears or it doesn't. Building yourself up to get such a relationship invalidates the building-up process. It doesn't matter whether there's redemption or not. It matters whether What You Say is matched by What You Do. You can't ignore that to focus on whether there's redemption for her. Neither of those questions matter, because Sally isn't in prison. Nor is Sally your abusive parent. What matters is that you weaken yourself by keeping her in your life in any way, including monitoring her behavior to see whether she's redeemed herself.

You're not negotiating at all. I don't ever want to be friends or lovers with child molesters. Do you know how I communicate this? By never being friends or lovers with child molesters. I don't visit child molesters and say, "You know....if you perform this series of ritual forgiveness gestures, and this series of atonement behaviors, then we could be friends or lovers." Because: (1) I don't ever want to be friends or lovers with child molesters. And (2) Saying that there are series of behaviors that would allow me to be friends or lovers with child molesters is a contradiction of Statement One. The contradictory nature of What You Say versus What You Do makes you susceptible to manipulation. It's sad, on the one hand, that it's that simple - (because knowing this makes you feel foolish). But it's happy, on the other hand, that it's that simple - (because the solution is painfully simple).

@hannahbanana: I've read your response three times, and feel like I've a lot to say. We have a misunderstanding regarding the word "narcissism", which I'll explain later. For now, though, I'm sorry that I shocked you.

This is just a guess, but you don't see their manipulations because you don't see your own. It's manipulative to break up with someone and then oversee their future conduct so you can mold them into the girlfriend you hoped they would've been in the past. It's manipulative to not say Good Bye, move forward, and see how your life shakes out. I understand both of those impulses, but they stunt your future growth and they don't help her to grow. I also think that the "nebulous quality" of male-to-female relationships, (meaning that everyone subjectively defines for themselves what it "happiness" and what is "working"), makes them highly attractive for competition-averse individuals. In math, your answer is either right or wrong - and you derived that answer either quickly or slowly. That combination of objectivity and time-sensitivity creates a hyper-competitive environment. But romance and friendships have the seductive pull of non-objectivity and non time-sensitivity, which seems to imply that "No matter what you do, it's right." Sadly, the only thing they truly rob is time...time that could've been better spent in competitive endeavors, where the real personal growth lies.

How long were you two seriously dating?

When I was 8, I used the phrase, "Hiney Whoppers!" as an expression of disbelief, equivalent to a pirate's, "Shiver Me Timbers" or Popeye's, "Well Blow Me Down!".

If your final message is clear, and if that final message is a "Good Bye", then why are you waiting for her to respond to it? I'm not trying to be rude, nor making fun of you, but the point of a "Good Bye" message is the Good Bye. It's not in the other person's response to your Good Bye. It's not "out of your league"; you just don't know how to do it right now. When you say things are "out of your league", you diminish your learning capabilities. When you diminish your learning-capabilities, you diminish your self-worth. Have you read Nathaniel Brandon's "The Six Pillars of Self Esteem"? I haven't, but Stefan highly recommends it. You might want to learn how to pick up women, as described by either Roosh (in Bang and Day Bang) or Krauser. If you treat picking up women as a skill, (as long as it's a skill that you don't have, really want, and think it's ridiculously impossible to acquire), then those books will help you. (It's like me wanting to be a professional ice hockey player very much, telling myself I'm too clumsy to be one, and then one day waking up as a professional ice hockey player. Not only would I "magically" discover how skilled I really am, but I'd also discover how self-limiting my language was; and I'd vow never to talk down to myself in that way.) But if you view picking up women as a source, or major piece, of acquiring self-worth, then don't pick up women. (You can't use someone else's approval as a means to acquire self-worth - because you are you and they are not-you.) Hope this helps.

Okay, that makes a lot of sense. You haven't established the emotional connection required for her to trust you with leading her into philosophy. If I asked you to fly me out to see you, so you can buy me an expensive dinner, would you? Of course not, because you barely know me and don't trust me. Similarly, she doesn't know you well enough to accept your philosophical help. So if you want to help her either: (1) Present Stefan's videos to her, but never talk to her about them. Or (2) spend more time being her friend by talking about much less emotional stuff, and doing much less emotional activities. She's better served just having coffee or something with you, not talking philosophy.

Yes. Not because you don't care, but because of what Carl Bartlett said, "The hard part is determining if the amount of effort required to help will be worth it. (this depends on how much you care about her)." Since you're losing sleep at 4AM over this girl, you don't have the skill level / objectivity to regulate the amount of care/concern you give her. I've had a Mistress for about five years, and there's no way in heck I'm going to lose sleep over anything she does. That's why she's my Mistress. You need to improve yourself, first. Ask yourself why you're so devoted to her, even though you're no longer boyfriend/girlfriend. Have you dated anyone else since the breakup?

It's also totally okay for him to want to sleep with her. What's not okay is lying (to himself) that he doesn't want to sleep with her. If he lies to himself, then she'll sense something is "off", which will make her non-receptive to philosophical discussions.

Do you want to sleep with her? This isn't meant to be a rude question, because when she says, "I don't want to talk about my past, because it brings painful emotions." she might just mean, "I don't want to talk about my past with you, because it brings painful emotions." Understand the difference?

So I decided to re-read Esther Villar's "The Manipulated Man" again. Maybe it was curiosity. Maybe it was because I wanted to start a diet, and figured it would be easier to destroy my appetite than show food discipline. And maybe I wanted to see how reading Rollo's and Heartiste's writings would influence my interpretation. But the first nineteen pages are stomach-churning for their accuracy. Some choice ideas are: (1) That man is defined as "the being who works", whereas woman is defined as "the being who does not work, or at least works only temporarily". (2) That the biggest resisters of Villar's message is men, because to reject her message is to be enslaved by women's needs and desires - but to accept her message is to be completely free to carve out his own path. Freedom is scarier than slavery. (3) That women will adopt stray birds, stray dogs, stray cats, and stray horses - but rarely will they adopt stray children. And they will only adopt stray children when they-themselves cannot produce their own children. This, Villar argues, is evidence that women neither love, nor care about children; they only care about the perpetuation of themselves, genetically. My best quote, so far, regarding women and feminism is this:

I only got 65% of the way through your post. I'm a womanizer-in-training. I believe in maximum relationship freedom for men, and I especially believe that the romantic conventions that society embraces are designed to work men until they're dead. However, I have to ask, "WHY in the name of both your own sanity and the sake of moral consistency are you still talking with this chick?" (1) If you were talking to this chick and sleeping with this chick, I'd understand. I'd be scared for your personal safety, and think you're borderline obsessed with a crazy chick, but I'd still understand. And I'd tell you, "Please stop sleeping with her, but if you do sleep with her, wrap it up and burn the condom afterwards. *wink, wink, nudge, nudge*" (2) But you're talking to this chick AND NOT sleeping with her, which means you get to put yourself in harm's way and enabling all of her negative behaviors - despite claiming to be morally against them - without getting any friggin' benefit. By talking to this chick, you're enabling her to feel good about what she's doing! You think you're "planting the seed of moral doubt" (or however you phrase it to yourself). But what really happens is: (1) Before she talks to you, she feels extremely stressed out and worried about what she did. (2) After she talks to you, she feels zero stress and zero worry about what she did. That's it. So just stop talking to her. Period. You don't need us to give you a 75 page essay about "The negative effects of modern civilization on monogamy". Nor do you need us to link you to news stories of "Crazy woman does crazy stuff to innocent male". You just need to stop talking to her.