MMX2010

In that case, I left it ambiguous to see how other people would react to it. But what I meant was "the general you, who downvote me at every turn, who I know-for-sure isn't hannahbanana". Because it's fun to mention it, and then not do it. It's approximately triple the fun of actually doing it. I know you sincerely believe that you started the post for the reasons above, but you were also motivated by a considerable amount of "I wonder if I'm going to get lumped in with the rest of those women." worries. (And I know this because you said so, "The thought of being lied to and manipulated about how "victimized" women are makes me feel angry, and sometimes kind of like a piece of shit. 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.") There's nothing wrong with worrying whether you'll be lumped in, especially since it's a legitimate fear that will happen to you on some level. Thankfully, it won't be that bad for you. About a year ago, I felt exactly the same sadness as you. And I began feeling that sadness around eleven years ago. So that's over a decade of sadness. But then I began reading Rollo Tomassi's writings which convinced me that women's current misbehavior is biologically hard-wired, which makes me feel stupid for expecting massive female behavioral changes just because I oh-so-very-much wanted them. Then the sadness turned to rage, which isn't very healthy at all. But after I read some of Heartiste's writings, I decided to become a womanizer-in-training, which is really an expression of hope and compassion. (Yes, it's a strange thing to say; it is true nonetheless.) Womanizing is simply admitting that the majority of women aren't cut out for the egalitarian, self-starting, courageous roles we see in movies and on television. They are still the "surrendering hopefuls" who'll pin their entire futures on the backs of "the biggest apes" (I think that's Stefan's term, right?), whether they be asshole men or government bureaucrats. When I was raging, I wasn't doing anything important. (Worse, I was expecting my rage to motivate women to alter their fundamental biology to please me - which is exactly what feminists do.) But now that I'm womanizing, there's always something to do: whether weights to lift, a business to work on, or a series of womanizing techniques to absorb. And so the hope provides happiness, a little bit of direction, and a lot of compassion towards myself and women. I never said that, though. It is tempting to make fun of people who don't understand something very important. However, (1) I've only understood this important thing for two days. (2) Making fun of someone who doesn't get it is narcissistic. (3) Patting myself on the back for realizing how narcissistic it is....is also narcissistic. (4) How hilarious is it that the narcissism is so large? So I wasn't excusing your behavior. I was excusing my behavior and yours. And everyone else's. This culture makes it very hard to stop focusing on ourselves. It is. And it's fine. Don't worry about it. Feminism is a reaction against the immense media message that, "Lady, you can be a self-starting, independent, and strong woman! You can cure diseases all by your lonesome. You can build machines all by yourself! You can reach the entire world with your voice, and the world is yours if you're willing to work for it." (As I said earlier, woman are only capable of pretending to want these things when they're young and pretty. But as soon as the pretty starts to seriously fade, women are like, "I didn't mean any of that Strong Woman stuff: honest!!) By not-changing, feminists are indeed trying to control everyone else. They monopolize far more time than they deserve, and control far more government resources than they are capable of managing. They were given everything, and still want more. Lastly, I think I already know the answer to this, but did you downvote any of my posts?

Rollo Tomassi's SMV chart is highly informative, somewhat depressing, and outright scary. The findings are that a woman's Sexual Market Value is initially much higher than men's, peaks at age 23, declines severely until it matches a man's SMV at age 30, and is consistently lower than a man's for the rest of her life. So when you describe the woman's behavior, I thought, "Must be around 30 or so.". And when you describe her female relative's behavior, I thought, "Must be older than the woman they're pressuring." When you understand a woman's SMV, it angers you (threatening to make you a severely exploiting womanizer), saddens you (making you want to protect them from making poor decisions in the future), really angers you (because you can't protect a large population of women from making poor future decisions; they won't let you), and energizes or horrifies you (by seriously tempting you to become a not-so-dickish womanizer). Ultimately, to understand a woman's SMV makes me realize that feminism will fail because the majority of women are simply NOT interested in being independent, self-supportive, go-getters. At best, they're willing to cast themselves full force into this role when they're young and pretty - but once they hit 27-33, they'll pull the, "I wasn't serious about that Independent Woman stuff; honest!" No, it makes it easier. Hannah will always be fine. She's 19 and she knows what every good woman is supposed to know. I'm tempted to make fun of her for approaching this topic from a narcissistic viewpoint, but this culture makes everyone approach all social problems from a narcissistic viewpoint. So making fun of her just wouldn't be fair. Still, the best of women stand out more brightly now, even if they narcissistically worry that they'll be "lumped in with the rest of those women". Politically, they will, (and I'm strongly tempted to pioneer some women-shaming, misogynistic, highly personal articles that will be the vanguard of the backlash). But when they read a nasty article, they'll always have a man at their sides to tell them, "Trust me, honey. That guy isn't talking about you. And if he knew you, he'd be the first to admit that he's not talking about you." So romantically, they won't. Professionally, they might. But that's a small thing to worry about.

You're right. I feel bad for not noticing.

I'm not sure this will answer your question, but the first thing that strikes me as true about feminism is that the majority of long-term romantic relationships were miserable because most men were domineering but NOT overly successful. This led to a bad blend of male laziness coupled with a "You can't make me work harder!" attitude that women resented. So it was valid for women to seek escape from such relationships and either: (1) secure a long term commitment from more driven men or (2) provide for their own long-term survival through job-acquisition. The only major flaw was that most women prefer to rely on government (rather than hard work, self-improvement, and personal initiative) to secure resources and to use misandric harassment to lampoon men's romantic choices. As much as men (correctly, unfortunately) deduce that civilization may soon become bankrupt due to feminism and the over-growth of government, it was feminism that said you ought to never expect romantic security, deep devotion, and the heights of interpersonal bliss. You had to earn it and maintain it. And though you criticize my decision to become a "Womanizer in training", my decision is both a response against and a direct result of feminism.

Via the Onion: http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-vaccinate-my-child-because-its-my-right-to,37839/ As a mother, I put my parenting decisions above all else. Nobody knows my son better than me, and the choices I make about how to care for him are no one’s business but my own. So, when other people tell me how they think I should be raising my child, I simply can’t tolerate it. Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I fully stand behind my choices as a mom, including my choice not to vaccinate my son, because it is my fundamental right as a parent to decide which eradicated diseases come roaring back. The decision to cause a full-blown, multi-state pandemic of a virus that was effectively eliminated from the national population generations ago is my choice alone, and regardless of your personal convictions, that right should never be taken away from a child’s parent. Never. Say what you will about me, but I’ve read the information out there and weighed every option, so I am confident in my choice to revive a debilitating illness that was long ago declared dead and let it spread like wildfire from school to school, town to town, and state to state, until it reaches every corner of the country. Leaving such a momentous decision to someone you haven’t even met and who doesn’t care about your child personally—now that’s absurd! Maybe I choose to bring back the mumps. Or maybe it’s diphtheria. Or maybe it’s some other potentially fatal disease that can easily pass among those too young or too medically unfit to be vaccinated themselves. But whichever highly communicable and formerly wiped-out disease that I opt to resurrect with a vengeance, it is a highly personal decision that only I and my family have the liberty to make. The bottom line is that I’m this child’s mother, and I know what’s best. End of story. Politicians, pharmaceutical companies—they don’t know the specific circumstances that made me decide to breathe new life into a viral infection that scientists and the nation at large celebrated stamping out roughly a century ago. It seems like all they care about is following unexamined old rules, injecting chemicals into our kids, preventing ghastly illnesses that used to ravage millions and have since been erased from storming back and wreaking mass havoc on a national scale, and making a buck. Should we really be listening to them and not our own hearts? I am by no means telling mothers and fathers out there what to do; I’m simply standing up for every parent’s right to make his or her own decision. You may choose to follow the government-recommended immunization schedule for your child, and that’s your decision as a parent. And I might choose to unleash rubella on thousands upon thousands of helpless people, and that’s my decision as a parent. It’s simple: You don’t tell me how to raise my kids to avoid reviving a horrific illness that hasn’t been seen on our shores since our grandparents were children, and I won’t tell you how to raise yours. Look, I’ve done the research on these issues, I’ve read the statistics, and I’ve carefully considered the costs and benefits, and there’s simply no question in my mind that inciting a nationwide health emergency by unleashing a disease that can kill 20 percent or more of its victims is the right one for my child. People need to respect that and move on.

When I read your first post, I wanted to kick your BF in the stones because I disbelieved his emotional explanations. ("Are you a man or a mouse?!?") When I read your most recent post, I wanted to kick your BF in the stones because he has what I want - but doesn't know how to keep it. When you said, "I even told him that I was okay if he wanted to try to work it out with the both of us...", my womanizing instincts yelled, "Yahtzee! That's Great Girlfriend speak!" And when you continued, "but she was not having it, and he decided that he couldn't feel right about splitting affections between us.", my stones-kicking desire maximized. Her actions are simply Bad Mistress speak, where The Chick Who Thinks She Should Be The Girlfriend pretends not to understand the rule, "If he wanted to move in with you, he would've done so by now. So if you got to beg him to do it, or tempt him with sex to do it, then you're the Mistress - not the Girlfriend." To your credit, your boyfriend refused her advances. To his detriment, he didn't try to turn Bad Mistress into Good Mistress. (It's not that difficult: most of it is just playful audacity.) Now, the majority of FDR members hate the suggestion that he should've tried to turn Bad Mistress into Good Mistress, and they'll cite "integrity" and "living your values" as major cores of their argument. However, my reply is that negotiating for a Mistress in a society that hates you for doing so will probably lead to some joy, some pain, some arrogance, some deep-rooted disbelief that you really thought you could handle two women at once, some mischievous satisfaction that at times you masterfully handled two women at once, and quite a few things to apologize to your girlfriend for. Yet if he doesn't negotiate for a Mistress, he'll end up with a much more stable relationship with you and a large pile of Self-Doubt. It's the Self-Doubt that's currently making you crazy in the "WTF?!? Make up your mind!" sort of way. For it's the Self-Doubt that makes him say, "You're the best GF a man can have!", while also "wandering away for a little bit". And it's the Self-Doubt that makes him say, "Oh crap. I don't know how to keep Mistress in line, so I guess I should fully commit to my GF." (The foot aimed at his stones is that, "If you only guess that you should fully commit to your GF, as a reaction to your Mistress's bad behavior, then it doesn't count as a commitment...") To be fair, I didn't have any womanizing tendencies when I was 25. So I think I want to kick his stones because I can't kick my own 25 year old stones. The strongest argument against having Mistresses is the "for the children" argument. I agree with it 100%, but it has two weaknesses: (1) When a woman voluntarily says she doesn't want children, she invalidates the "for the children" argument for her, personally. (2) If I convincingly argue that 60% of women should never become mothers, then I'm invalidating the "for the children" argument for the majority of women. (That argument, if taken seriously by any society, creates seismic shifts in its construction. And no society, to my knowledge, has ever thought this way. So, of course, few people can discuss it calmly.) ------------------ I spoke about my Mistress in Rainbow Jamz, "How Are Tattoos, Piercings, and Heavy Make-Up....?" thread. (The thread is on the first page of General Messages, about 80% of the way down. And my posts about the Mistress are on page 4: posts 129, 132, 138, and 140.) Recently, I had this hilarious exchange with her: We were discussing some examples of Heartiste's "Dread Game", (When a woman reads Heartiste, it's like watching how sausages are made. You've been warned.), and I tried to remember the most over-the-top examples while sitting with her in a sushi restaurant. She knows that she's supposed to maintain composure and say something witty in return, but I win when she's rendered speechless or in shock. So I relate my favorite example, "When someone tells you (the man) that you and your girlfriend look so cute together, reply by looking down at the ground, then scratching the back of your head while helplessly sighing, 'Yeah.....' and staring off into space. Bonus points if your girlfriend is sitting right next to you." She is visibly shocked and strongly (not tearfully, but incredulously) asks, "Do you really understand what a horrible person you are? These are your idols?" I laugh, grab both of her hands across the table, look her in the face and playfully say, "I'm gonna sleep with a whole bunch of women. And you're gonna buy me a necklace that says 'Insert Pet Name'. And I'm gonna wear it when I go chick hunting." She is shocked again, but smiles and proudly says, "If you want me to buy you a shock collar, I'll buy you a shock collar!" And I reply (slowly but smoothly enough), "A shock collar? Wait a minute. You're saying that my problem is that I have too many desires and try to pursue them. No....wait. That's not it at all. You think the shock collar will provide energy, like charging a battery! You want me to pursue my urges! Awwwwww, that's why I like you." She made some tepid remark about "questioning her life decisions" and "wondering why she puts up with all of this". But she let me kiss her when I walked her back to the car, and texted me the next day. So, as of now, it's good between us. One day a Girlfriend is going to appear who'll negotiate to first limit contact with my Mistress, and then (if we both want children) to break off contact with her entirely. Until then, though, I like my life as it is.

You say that you opened up about your childhood to test the other person's empathy and reasoning skills, but you only learned about this through watching Stef. And Stef has very specific requirements in his callers that you'll unwittingly project onto your dates. So when you say, "My father constantly abused my mother, and me.", you expect her to say, "I'm really sorry that happened to you." in an empathetic, sad tone. But if she says, "He did the best he could with the knowledge that he had," you're supposed to declare her non-empathetic and unreasonable, and then dump her. I observe that your lines are scripted and that her replies must conform to narrow limitations, which means you're really probing to see how quickly she agrees with you - not how reasonable and empathetic she is. A better approach would be to expect all sorts of resistance, which she must break through in a reasonable amount of time, because that's what reasonableness and empathy are expected to do in this culture. (They're supposed to not already know the answers, but be equipped to fairly quickly reach them.) But you can't enact this better approach because you don't have Stefan's patience, reasoning skills, nor firmness in the philosophy. So the best you can do is practice and forgive yourself for screwing up. Calling yourself "sinister" prevents you from practicing, and then self-forgiving.

Most people pervert words like "self-awareness, courage, and integrity" by forcing those words to support a desired conclusion. Case in point, people who seek monogamous relationships automatically assume that people who do NOT seek monogamous relationships are lacking in self-awareness, courage, and integrity. But I think that such people are, at bare minimum, courageous for daring to explore the limitations of monogamy in an atmosphere that doesn't want them to make such explorations in the first place. (They may, OR may not, be self-aware or possessing integrity.) So I think that people can be virtuous and dysfunctional by claiming a definition of virtuousness that excuses (no, lauds as praiseworthy) their dysfunction.

This is my favorite one.

Not necessarily. I think the majority of people on FDR test their own empathy levels by repeating Stefan's phrases and hoping their targets will respond in narrow, scripted ways. And when the targets go off-script, (or worse, they go off-script AND get hostile), the Empathy Testers cannot handle this. This inability will cause hurtful judgments to be hurled and ironic butthurt to be displayed, but is this SINISTER? No, just annoying, misguided, and easily ignored.

Alright, I know that my womanizer-in-training perspective isn't popular in FDR, but I think it's extremely helpful here. Most men who sleep with more than one woman are trying to build the best woman by extracting the best qualities of two different women. The usual split is Woman A is tough, self-starter, financially secure, older, good job prospects, more emotionally stable - but is a bit emotionally aloof, and constantly insecure because she wonders why (despite all of her possessions) she's still single. And Woman B is weak, younger, financially insecure, and emotionally erratic but more supportive and compassionate. But another common split is Woman A is virtuous in many ways but isn't all that attractive. While Woman B isn't very virtuous at all, but is extremely attractive. I don't think the majority of people should get involved in multiple-person partnerships, but I do think society's massive injunctions against such relationships, (coupled with the "Either stay with one person, or dump them so they can find someone else!" mantra), make people unwilling to explore such relationships. And this unwillingness makes men terrible at explaining their feelings when they're in conflict between multiple women. This inability leads to wrongful-explanations that are socially acceptable. (They have to be socially acceptable, or else he's a major jerk.) -------------------------- Having said all of this, I don't buy his explanation that she provides him with more emotional support. (When he says, "when he went there he said he talked with her a lot about how they need to just be friends and yet in one instance she tried to kiss him", he's not describing a woman who's maximally emotionally supporting him. Instead, he's describing a woman who's trying to monopolize his attentions.) (This is "Bad Mistress" behavior, because a "Good Mistress" knows to never try and monopolize his time.) The "she has useful connections in the pursuit of his prospective career" explanation is probably truthful, but no man sabotages his relationship with a woman he loves for that reason. So I think she's just hot and crazy, while you're sweet and nice - which most men (secretly) find a really awesome combination, provided that he can manage both women's behavior. But you all live in a society that doesn't allow men to admit that they like this combination, nor to negotiate rules for having sex with both of you simultaneously, nor to provide excellent guidelines on what those rules should entail, (nor on how to discuss them peacefully). Thus, all he can do is feel frustrated, and delay all decisions for as long as possible. (The longer he delays, the longer he gets to keep both of you.) I don't think anything that's happening is bad. But I do think you're forced to put "commitment pressure" on him, simply to accelerate his decision-making process. If he bitches at you after committing to you, just dump him. If he bitches at you after you make undeniable improvements to your emotional communication skills, just dump him. You aren't being secretly dumped; you're experiencing the typical foot-dragging of a powerless man who has what he likes - but isn't supposed to like having. And if he dumps you after you move in with him, don't accept his, "This is all my fault, because I've a history of neglecting other peoples' emotional needs!" explanation. That explanation is the only socially-acceptable one I can think of, so of course he latched on to it.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect open, honest answers about childhood trauma with someone you've never met, via OKCupid. So I also don't think your experiences in that discussion can provide relevant and reliable data with regard to your capacity for honest communication.

I didn't watch the video, but I did see a Manosphere meme from who-knows-where: "Emma Watson says, 'If you're not my boyfriend, be beta; but if you want to be my boyfriend, you'd better be alpha.'"

I support the use of these tests, but I haven't heard of anyone "failing" the transgender test. Nor do I see disclaimers in pro-transgender lectures and videos that, "You're not truly transgender until you've taken this test." or that, "Without a medical test confirming that you're transgender, it's premature to get angry at anyone who refuses to accept your request for pronoun changes." So, to my perspective, it doesn't look like the transgender test is functioning identically to other medical tests.

Your descriptions have clarified things for me quite a bit, but I'm curious about two things. (1) To your knowledge, has he ever slept with her? (2) How does her physical appearance compare to yours? Is she prettier than you, and by how much? And is she much younger, much older, or similar age as you?

Thanks for you post, Pepin. It's interesting that we both agree that the empathizer's emotions should be downplayed, but disagree that the word "sorry" is effective.

My post is a little long, but I can condense it to, "I feel sorry about what happened to you." doesn't strike me as equally honest as "I'm sad about what happened to you." does.

*delete*

To my knowledge, he hasn't commented on these in the call-in shows, either. But I haven't listened to every single one.

My thoughts are controversial, but: (1) I feel like the number one thing parents do to their kids is make them feel guilty, because guilty children want fewer things and have lower standards. (2) I also feel that women sub-consciously prefer guilty men for the exact same reasons. So (3) the majority of people are carrying undeserved guilt, which makes them both unsuccessful and in need of people to "forgive" them. I've heard Stefan's explain that he wants me to connect with how horrible my experiences were as a child. But I dislike how he implies that a person has to emotionally connect, every single time, with every single person, whenever he's explaining his traumatic past. I agree with him about the "primary emotional connection" - the very first time you emotionally realize how shitty your experiences were. But that primary emotional connection is supposed to propel a man forward into success. (1) He connects with how emotionally manipulative his father was to cut him out of his life, and move forward...successful. (2) He connects with how weak his mother was - both for choosing him and minimizing his faults, even now - to accept that his mother will not move forward with him into a successful future. Once this primary connection has been experienced, all future emotional connections are optional. And I get to decide whether it's best for me to connect emotionally with what I'm describing. So when someone I don't know says, "I'm sorry that X happened to you.", I immediately suspect that they're feeling guilty for what happened to me. (Which I really don't need.) Or they're probing whether I'll put more emotion into my descriptions, so they can "gauge whether I'm being empathetic with my true self". (Which I also don't need.) Or they're feeling particularly weakened / fazed about what I described, but don't know how to say, "Hey wow. Can we slow down a minute?" And these negative experiences make me conclude that most people have inexplicable urges to help others. But they never consider that such a urge, when too large, always makes my problems "all about them" - meaning they're so focused on what they're feeling about what I just said, or on what they "should do about" what I just said, that their helpfulness doesn't feel like, "I'm here for you, if you want me to be." Instead it feels like, "Can't you see that I'm here for you, you ungrateful individual?" And so I strongly prefer lifestyle-advice, such as "how to life weights" or "how to eat better", over self-reflection advice. And statements like, "I'm sorry that this happened to you." don't fit under lifestyle-advice.

I not only have rather old-school misogynistic views of women and society, but I'm also a womanizer-in-training. My goal is to have either a steady rotation of supportive women whom I'm not committed to OR a stable, loving wife and a mistress on the side. So take my perspective with a large amount of skepticism, if need be. I'm guessing that there's someone else, most likely the woman you mentioned earlier. I'm also guessing that IF he's dropping her out of his life, it's because "he's supposed to". Two-point-five decades of social conditioning have made it clear that he's "not allowed" to have a mistress and a girlfriend at the same time, but he doubts the social conditioning now that he has two women in his life, both of whom he desires. If a woman wanted ME to stop seeing my mistress, I'd conclude, "Oh, she really, really likes me, and wants a deeper, committed relationship but what do I get in return for surrendering my mistress?" From there, we'd negotiate. He, however, almost certainly doesn't have the skills to negotiate, because he's been socially conditioned to never want a mistress and a girlfriend at the same time. But he also doesn't see "a good reason" to give up the other girl, so he feels enslaved. At best, he can only delay his decision, but that's not the same as negotiating for what he wants. (I'd model the questions I'd ask during the negotiation process, but: (1) They'll probably upset you. And (2) You probably don't want him to want to negotiate with you anyway... )

I've some very "old school, misogynistic" views, one of which is, "Chicks can't help but be confused, and can't help but phrase their confusion in words-clashing-with-actions." So when a woman says, "I want to step away from the romantic aspect of our relationship to ensure that we're compatible as friends.", I roll my eyes skyward and say, "Oh well. Chicks be chicks, after all." But when a man uses that language? He's either the weakest specimen you've ever seen, or he's just being manipulative. (I simply can't accept that men can be that confused, and use that kind of confusing language.) So take my advice with a large cube of salt. But still..... Jeez.....

My opinion, which may be wrong, is that this whole situation smells bad. He sounds like he wants to have an affair, while keeping you on the back-burner.

The following article discusses trans-racial people and trans-species individuals. Its primary thesis is that if trans-racialist and otherkin are delusional when they use the exact same justifications as transgender individuals, then transgender individuals have a major problem convincing people that they're legitimately transgender. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/16/not-white-in-the-head-the-tumblr-teens-convinced-they-were-born-the-wrong-species-sex-and-even-race/ Its secondary thesis is that transgender young people who voluntarily reject society and spend most of their time browsing pro-transgender blogs will be much more likely to identify as transgender than transgender young people who don't voluntarily reject society and therefore spend more time socializing off-line.