Men and Women's roles/faults in the hookup culture

[hannahbanana]

I just read this article, which a friend of mine posted on facebook:

http://elitedaily.com/dating/hookup-culture-non-relationship-generation-getting-nowhere/664654/

 

Although I agree with the main message, I did notice the definite bias towards women. It talked about men being unwilling to commit to long-term relationships, and how women are victims who think they can convince such men to be in one. But I was hoping it would also mention that the more prevalent the hookup culture is, the less likely it will be for people to know what a good relationship is like, for both men AND women. I also would have thought it would be interesting to mention Men Going Their Own Way, who came about because it's getting more difficult to find women who can be in a functional long-term relationship.

I'm interested in hearing what other people think.

[J. D. Stembal]

The article is written by a woman so a female bias is expected. She is also a hopeless romantic and psychology major - who works for PLENTY OF FISH, a dating website notorious for a hookup culture - if that better illustrates my points below.

 

The indecisiveness of men that she is complaining about is a common female projection. Women are the indecisive daters who have engendered this culture of indifference. They don't know what they want, and they have no idea which male characteristics to select for the long term. Hell, I asked a girl on two dates a couple years back after she showed interest, and she cancelled on me both times at the last minute using family excuses. Lame. That says to me that she had better offers on the table the whole time, and I was the backup plan that she never wanted to use. That's not very honest, and I called her out on it.

 

Women don't have to do any convincing if they don't want to take the effort. If they want a long term commitment, they just go off of birth control and have an "oopsie, my contraceptive device failed" baby. It's funny, though, because after they're done having their quota of kids and want to focus on their career, they will claim that the pill is bad for them due to increased risk of breast cancer, and they are sick of using condoms because they aren't conducive for intimacy. Men only use condoms with sluts and hookers, not their lovers, right? Now it's on the man to get his vasectomy because it's less invasive than tubal ligation, and it supposedly can be reversed. Man up! Go and get sterilized! Then, if you want babies again at some point in the future, get un-sterilized!

 

The amount of misandry in the world is truly staggering to the mind.

[MMX2010]

I'm frustrated with myself right now, because I've read a lot of posts on therationalmale.com, rooshv.com, and chateauheartiste.  So I'm (theoretically) totally ready to give you a deep, definitive answer. 

 

Except I'm not.    Because the correct answer requires a lot of time - both for you to get on board with the background knowledge, and for me to make sure we're communicating effectively. 

 

Best I can do is say that I laughed at her here: "Any man who sends me a text along the lines of, “Hey, Erica, would you like to go out for dinner on Friday night?” gets an automatic 10,000 points, especially if he asks at least a few days in advance..."  She's hilarious because she's talking about how she feels, right now, during the composition of her article. 

 

But if she doesn't understand "hypergamy", her menstrual cycle (http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/25/your-friend-menstruation/), her sexual market value - especially as she ages (http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/12/smv-in-girl-world/), and the most-frightening of all, her ability to use sophistry to bond with whatever she wants to bond with (http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/), she just won't get it! 

 

She simply won't get how her brain is out-of-touch with its desire to serve two self-contradictory instructions, how her culture is designed to make morally-justified any decision she makes no matter how contradictory it is, and how (most importantly) the majority of men are realizing this. 

 

The internet is quickly teaching men glorious phrases such as "Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks", and  "Alpha Seed, Beta Need".  And who knows what's gonna happen next? 

 

Sorry if my answer was too cryptic, and if the links I posted were insufficient.  Like I said, a correct answer takes a ton of time for both of us. 

 

The indecisiveness of men that she is complaining about is a common female projection. Women are the indecisive daters who have engendered this culture of indifference.

 

It's a little more complicated than that. 

 

Yes, women's desire to simultaneously spin plates (http://therationalmale.com/?s=plate+theory) and not be judged for it has produced their own indecisiveness. 

 

But men (especially 38 year old men like me) have been advised not to show "too much interest" when courting an American girl between the ages of 18 and 22.  Anything that looks like "too much interest" will be perceived as "OMG, he's so needy; he wants to tie me down!" 

[J. D. Stembal]

I'm speaking from my own experience, just as you are. I've favored a direct approach to dating because that's what the common dating advice of day was in my early 20s. I would call a girl up (now everyone texts) and say, "I'm would enjoy your company this Saturday night. How would you like to race go karts with me?" (I made the go karts up, it could be anything, it doesn't matter.) and she would then have the option to accept, decline (Sorry, I've got plans already.) or think about it a little longer. Now, if she isn't too excited about the idea of going out with you, the woman will tentatively accept up until the day of your date, only then deciding that her sister having an emotional crisis is more urgent to take care of in the moment than sticking to the date plans. No wonder we are becoming indifferent. Most women don't care enough to give us a straight answer!

 

Who is advising you to date women twenty years younger? I would have to teach high school to follow that advice.

[MMX2010]

I'm speaking from my own experience, just as you are. I've favored a direct approach to dating because that's what the common dating advice of day was in my early 20s. I would call a girl up (now everyone texts) and say, "I'm would enjoy your company this Saturday night. How would you like to race go karts with me?" (I made the go karts up, it could be anything, it doesn't matter.) and she would then have the option to accept, decline (Sorry, I've got plans already.) or think about it a little longer. Now, if she isn't too excited about the idea of going out with you, the woman will tentatively accept up until the day of your date, only then deciding that her sister having an emotional crisis is more urgent to take care of in the moment than sticking to the date plans. No wonder we are becoming indifferent. Most women don't care enough to give us a straight answer!

 

I definitely get that.   

 

Part of me wants to complain that hannahbanana gave us a trick question: it's neither men's nor women's fault that the hook-up culture exists; it's totally government's fault.  By subsidizing bad female behavior through the welfare state, the women are much freer to pursue a hook-up culture. 

 

 

 

Who is advising you to date women twenty years younger? I would have to teach high school to follow that advice.

 

I'm in a position to do so, provided that I either learn game and apply it to American women or date women overseas. 

 

RooshV, among others, is an excellent source of advice here. 

[JamesP]

It's primarily the previous generation that has failed to teach today's women how to guard their sexual capital. The government just takes advantage of terrible parenting.

[hannahbanana]

Women don't have to do any convincing if they don't want to take the effort. If they want a long term commitment, they just go off of birth control and have an "oopsie, my contraceptive device failed" baby. It's funny, though, because after they're done having their quota of kids and want to focus on their career, they will claim that the pill is bad for them due to increased risk of breast cancer, and they are sick of using condoms because they aren't conducive for intimacy. Men only use condoms with sluts and hookers, not their lovers, right? Now it's on the man to get his vasectomy because it's less invasive than tubal ligation, and it supposedly can be reversed. Man up! Go and get sterilized! Then, if you want babies again at some point in the future, get un-sterilized!

 

The amount of misandry in the world is truly staggering to the mind.

There's a friend-of-a-friend whose sister (I know, a pretty crazy connection) got herself pregnant to keep her boyfriend around. Truly terrible, the baby will probably end up being raised by the grandparents now, because the mother really doesn't care about the baby (especially if it doesn't work in tying down this guy). Not to mention how unfair it is to the father. I find this even more destructive, because now that baby will have very high chances of also growing up not knowing how to be in a stable relationship, thus continuing the cycle.

 

Misandry has been surprising me more and more as well. Part of me feels betrayed, like I've been lied to all these years about misoginy etc. Was ALL of it really a lie? It looks more and more like it to me. It also makes me feel ashamed at times to share genders with some people, even though I know I shouldn't have to feel that way.

 

 

 

Part of me wants to complain that hannahbanana gave us a trick question: it's neither men's nor women's fault that the hook-up culture exists; it's totally government's fault.  By subsidizing bad female behavior through the welfare state, the women are much freer to pursue a hook-up culture. 

 

 

 

That's really interesting, it wasn't in my mind at all when I started the thread, but I understand. It's kind of like when people try to place blame within the inner workings of the government; the whole thing is corrupt, so why look for corruption within a corruption, correct? But I also wonder if it's still important to look closer into the issue, because it very well may be that it can be dismantled from inside, or that people can be more easily persuaded out of the culture.

I remember in one of Steph's early podcasts, he talks about how welfare makes risky behavior more appealing to women, but he also talks about the 'studs' and 'bad boys' that benefit from them as well. Do you think that they have any responsibility in this as well as women who behave badly? Or are they possibly that way because their mothers were also benefitting from the welfare state in the same way?

[MMX2010]

There's a friend-of-a-friend whose sister (I know, a pretty crazy connection) got herself pregnant to keep her boyfriend around. Truly terrible, the baby will probably end up being raised by the grandparents now, because the mother really doesn't care about the baby (especially if it doesn't work in tying down this guy). Not to mention how unfair it is to the father. I find this even more destructive, because now that baby will have very high chances of also growing up not knowing how to be in a stable relationship, thus continuing the cycle.

 

 

I'm going to make two educated guess about the "friend-of-a-friend whose sister got herself pregnant to keep her boyfriend around". I feel 95% certain that one of them will be right. 

 

Either: (1) she's very young (16-22), dating someone whom she finds extremely sexually attractive, and is worried that he'll find someone else (if she hasn't already).  Or (2) she's between 31-33, has been dating the man for at least nine months, has asked him "Where is this going?", and he hasn't proposed to her yet.  He is not that sexually attractive, but he makes more money than she does.

 

Let me know if either of these is correct. 

 

 

 

 

But I also wonder if it's still important to look closer into the issue, because it very well may be that it can be dismantled from inside, or that people can be more easily persuaded out of the culture.

 

That question highly frustrates me, but this has nothing to do with you.   

 

I've inhaled a lot of posts from both "The Rational Male" website and the "Anonymous Conservative" blog.  And I can FEEL all of that helpful knowledge well up to the surface.......but that doesn't mean I can coherently explain what that knowledge is saying.    So I'm stuck with a frustrated sense of holding back a waterfall with an angry glare. 

 

----------------------

 

Anyway, it's important to know that most people don't realize that misandry exists and proliferates.  (You, yourself, are just beginning to realize this - and I'm glad that you are, because you can free yourself from it.) 

 

But it's even more important to know that misandry is JUST biology. 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/25/your-friend-menstruation/

 

That post above is one of the most important things you'll read in your life.  (Seriously.) 

 

It illustrates that your menstrual cycle is constantly feeding you contradictory information, such as, "Wow, he's hot; just bang him; no one will care!" VERSUS "Wow, he's totally not hot; but he's a great guy, very caring, stable, loving, and understanding; marry him!"  And it, more scarily, suggests that you (and every woman) will be feeling these contradictory impulses, at predictable times in your menstrual cycle, month-after-month, year-after-year. 

 

That's why I say misandry is JUST biology; it is the natural annoyance at hashtag Yes-All-Men that arises from being fed contradictory information about men by your menstrual cycle. 

 

----------------------------

 

Despondent-men will read that article and say, "Oh fuck this!  There's no way I'm going to marry any woman now!"  (And they wouldn't be immoral, nor wrong, for saying so....) 

 

Clever-men and women will read that article and say, "Oh, wow.  Okay....WAIT!  Even though misandry is just biology, history shows that men have had varying degrees of freedom-from-female-subjugation; therefore, there must be a cultural component as well!"

 

And they're right.   

 

This modern culture is the most misandric that has ever existed.  And it's gotten that way because: (1) women have free reign to acquire resources from either their jobs, their government, or both, and (2) women have proliferated the culture with misandric messages. 

 

--------------------------

 

How to fight it? 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2014/03/16/preventative-medicine-part-i/

 

http://therationalmale.com/2014/03/26/preventative-medicine-part-ii/

 

http://therationalmale.com/2014/04/08/preventative-medicine-part-iii/

 

http://therationalmale.com/2014/04/13/preventative-medicine-part-iv/

 

Those four posts are excellent, because they give a great outline of what The Problem is.  (The first part of the problem is that women, at varying ages, experience completely radical shifts in values.  The second part of the problem is that these radical shifts in values are immorally self-contradictory when viewed over a lifetime.  The third, and most important part, is that society is ALWAYS prepared to say "You go girl!!" at every point of these value-changes.) 

 

But the solution is annoyingly undefined. 

 

I say, "Once you realize that every woman experiences immorally, self-contradictory impulses, you can stop blaming yourself for being inadequate when you're on the downside of these changes.  Then you can assume that every woman is permanently part of 'Team Sophistry' until she proves otherwise.  And then you finally say, 'If women acting-freely DO NOT, by and large, become virtuous - due to the combination of female-biology and you-go-girl - then a man simply will never find a virtuous woman; he must, instead, craft a virtuous woman by teaching her what virtue is, all while realizing that she can become non-virtuous, at any time, if she so chooses.'" 

 

Are you trying to acquire this knowledge to confront the woman who just got pregnant? 

[hannahbanana]

 

I'm going to make two educated guess about the "friend-of-a-friend whose sister got herself pregnant to keep her boyfriend around". I feel 95% certain that one of them will be right. 

 

Either: (1) she's very young (16-22), dating someone whom she finds extremely sexually attractive, and is worried that he'll find someone else (if she hasn't already).  Or (2) she's between 31-33, has been dating the man for at least nine months, has asked him "Where is this going?", and he hasn't proposed to her yet.  He is not that sexually attractive, but he makes more money than she does.

 

Let me know if either of these is correct. 

I don't really know this girl, actually... it was my friend who told me this story, because it was bothering her so much and I asked her what was on her mind. But the reason I told this story was because even though I have never met this girl (who, yes, is around 17 years old and is dating a 'hottie drug dealer'), the story will probably stay in my mind for a really long time because of the near-unbelievable stupidity of her actions, and the devastating consequences that she probably doesn't have the intellect to realize.

So to answer your question at the end, I doubt I'd confront her, because I don't even know her. But I did encourage my friend who DOES know her to say something about it. This was about a half a year ago, so I don't know how it's been going since.

 

I actually already read "Your Friend Menstruation" from your first post, and the other posts as well. It's pretty interesting, and I appreciate the logic of it (rather than blatant appeals to emotion). It reminds me of a more legitimate version of some Honey Badger Radio episodes, where she goes into the biological aspects of people's actions/biological roots of certain cultural behaviors. However, I feel it is important to not fall into the trap of simply saying that women are subject to their biological impulses and leave it at that. As human beings we all have a responsibility to use our frontal lobes to be better people. To chalk all women's behaviours up to biological drives would be excusing them from that responsibility, as well as demeaning their intellectual capabilities. I'm not completely immune to the impulses mentioned in these articles, but I still have the capacity to say "Yeah, it'd probably be awesome to shack up with this hunk of man, but I've got integrity and committment to someone able to give me a REAL relationship." It's saddening to me that so many people don't have the desire to do so, and instead allow cultural norms to justify their actions.

 

So no, I'm not trying to learn more about this for this girl who got pregnant (although she very quickly came to mind while on the topic), I'm doing it mostly for myself, and for the men in my life. For myself, to gain self-knowledge so I can live more consistently with my values, and for the men in my life, so I can better understand troubles that they have and to make sure that I do not behave unjustly towards them.

 

 

I say, "Once you realize that every woman experiences immorally, self-contradictory impulses, you can stop blaming yourself for being inadequate when you're on the downside of these changes.  Then you can assume that every woman is permanently part of 'Team Sophistry' until she proves otherwise.  And then you finally say, 'If women acting-freely DO NOT, by and large, become virtuous - due to the combination of female-biology and you-go-girl - then a man simply will never find a virtuous woman; he must, instead, craft a virtuous woman by teaching her what virtue is, all while realizing that she can become non-virtuous, at any time, if she so chooses.'" 

 

 

This is just one bit that I may disagree on, or need more clarification for. With the way things are with the culture today, assuming women are "Team Sophistry" until proven otherwise makes sense. But what you say about crafting a virtuous woman doesn't make sense to me. You can't force virtue on someone, it is something that they discover within themselves. If you did, it would make sense that they could become non-virtuous at any time, because they weren't really virtuous in the first place. And someone who really WAS virtuous would not arbitrarily become non-virtuous, because that would go against the core of what virtue really is. I think it would be a pointless eneavour to try to "create" a virtuous person if they are not the ones who seek knowledge to gain virtue in the first place, and if they were seeking it, it would not be necessary to create them, because they would create themselves. So it would probably be better to expose people to as much virtue or examples of self-knowledge as possible, in the hopes that they might eventually want that in themselves. Does that make sense?

[Christopherscience]

"There are still men out there who do have the balls to take a risk or make a sacrifice for a special someone."

 

Men who have balls...

 

Who take a risk, who make sacrifices...

 

For someone "special".

 

Does this even deserve a critical reading after such a gynocentric sentence?

 

Hahaha... sure, why not? I've got a bit of time (a half an hour) before I'm scheduled to talk to a friend from biochem...

 

To say that our generation is inadequate when it comes to romantic relationships would be the understatement of the year.

Instead of relationships, it’s non-relationships that we’re condoning. Participating in today’s hook-up culture is easy and fun, but is it getting our generation anywhere? What are we gaining?

The real question is, what are we missing out on? The series of hookups and non-relationships leave us feeling unfulfilled; yet, barely anyone seems willing to do anything about it.

 

Inadequate? Compared to what? Why "inadequate"? What "inadequacy issues" does she allude to? That's an interesting word... why not "unfulfilling" or "bereft of deep and mutual empathy"?

 

There's some interesting neurolinguistic programing with her phraseology...

 

google doesn't even suggest female inadequacy issues... only "male inadequacy issues"... a euphemism for impotence, erectile dysfunction, or a small penis.

 

"Instead of relationships, it’s non-relationships that we’re condoning."

 

Denying the antecedent must not have come up during any of her English classes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

 

"The path to wisdom begins by calling things by their proper name" - Confucius

 

Does she mean that people are not having intimate, compassionate, empathetic relationships in the general population? What is a "non-relationship"? Is that the same thing as "not having a relationship"? Why doesn't she say that there's a lack of empathy?

 

"Participating in today’s hook-up culture is easy and fun..."

 

Well at least we know where she stands on hook-ups...

 

"but is it getting our generation anywhere? What are we gaining?"

 

Excellent questions - I look forward to her rigorous study of population dynamics, socio-economics, philosophy, and statistical analysis; this should be a good article... truly important questions, let's see how she deals with them:

 

 

The real question is, what are we missing out on? The series of hookups and non-relationships leave us feeling unfulfilled; yet, barely anyone seems willing to do anything about it.

The Non-Date and the Non-Breakup

What thwarts me the most about the hook-up culture is the excessively nonchalant attitudes we all seem to deal with when it comes to someone we’re interested in.

Many people believe that playing it cool or not caring is considered attractive, but it’s actually quite discouraging.

A man I recently met (let’s call him Dick), who I shared a mutual attraction with, would of course send me text messages that read something like, “Hey, maybe we can meet up for a bit at some point this weekend?”

It’s the “maybe” and the “at some point” that gets to me. The epidemic of passive man is upon us. Let’s use Dick’s text message as an example: An underlying fear of coming across as too eager or being rejected is likely the cause behind this ambiguity.

I guess it’s no longer the norm to have even a hint of old-fashioned flavor to your courtship. These days, instead of being presented with a cute plan and a fun date idea for a specific day of the week, women are getting proposals of non-dates and casual hangouts.

A suggestion to consider would be to simply ignore texts that present nonchalant plans and proposals of non-dates, and suggest that he come up with an actual date idea.

It doesn’t matter if he figures out where he’s going wrong or not; the point is that you’re still making a difference by not participating or enabling, and by having a backbone.

Any man who sends me a text along the lines of, “Hey, Erica, would you like to go out for dinner on Friday night?” gets an automatic 10,000 points, especially if he asks at least a few days in advance.

More men should be asking women out with definitive plans in mind, instead of asking if they’d like to “maybe” hang out “sometime soon.”

You, however, have some control over the matter by being confident enough to not participate in the hook-up culture he is trying to set up here. Walk away from the hook-up arrangement, and you will walk into the arms of Mr. or Mrs. Right.

 

She starts out with, barely anyone seems to be willing to do anything about [feeling unfulfilled through hook-up culture].

 

Well, fundamentally, no one can do anything about someone else having a desire for fulfillment. That's subjective... Subject to the person (who, in this case hypothetically enjoys casual sex but feels unfulfilled by it).

 

What does she hope will change things?

 

Not accepting vacillation from men, and only accepting a strong commitment with lots of decisiveness.

 

In exchange for?

 

Not hooking up? For "10,000 points"?

 

...Are the points redeemable? Or does a man commit to Erica Gordon in exchange for points which don't matter?

 

 

... So Erica has a passive man named Dick in her life... That "inadequacy" verbiage is starting to make a bit more sense.

 

[sigh... my friend said he'd be a bit longer, let's keep this rolling...]

 

Men will join a cause they believe in. The things that electrify their souls will get them to stand up and assert themselves for that which is important... Perhaps she should ask "why are the men I keep running into and giving my number to not interested in me? What interests men? Other than hooking up, what do men find important? And how can I be a woman of value that men feel is worth "having the balls to take a risk or make a sacrifice for a special someone"?"

 

 

Traditional Dating is Dying Out

This generation needs to start dating again. I talk to women all the time who are losing hope that they’ll ever find a man who is actually willing to delete his Tinder account and just be with one awesome woman.

What these women need to realize is that traditional dating is dying, but it’s not dead yet. There are still men out there who do have the balls to take a risk or make a sacrifice for a special someone.

The hook-up culture is appealing in part because it is so low-risk. Keeping things casual ensures that you face much less rejection than you would if you were attempting to take it to the next level.

The casual nature of the hook-up culture and the non-relationship also guarantees that there won’t be that tearful breakup if things don’t work out.

Sometimes a friends-with-benefits relationship will continue for ages, partially because one or both parties is concerned that if it is taken further, there could potentially be a breakup followed by losing that person for good. It seems easier to keep things as they are.

Everyone seems to have a lot of options (especially if they are using online dating apps like Plenty of Fish or Tinder), and many have a fear of missing out (FOMO) on those options if they commit to one person.

To these people, I suggest taking a chance and giving up your other options. No risk, no reward, right?

We should also be willing to risk feeling that embarrassment and awkwardness you’re dealt when you lay your feelings on the line and you’re rejected.

Remember: No pain, no gain, and what you can gain is a real relationship with true intimacy, and the sense of happiness and fulfillment that comes with it. These tremendous gains will be worth the wager you took to get there.

This generation needs to start dating again? I fail to see how she makes the case for needs.

 

No mention of family structures, divorce, family in the culture, biological reproductive urges (as distinct from needs), food, shelter, water, etc.

 

Then she basically implores people to take risks for the sake of taking risks. Or some nebulous "reward"... again, do the points matter? Or is it just for show? 10,000 points from my creditcard rewards program is worth $100... is she saying she'll pay for an expensive night out? You know, "traditional dating"... where the woman pays (like women have traditionally held themselves throughout the history of courtship).

 

Man, I miss those old days where the cost of dating was born out by the women... hmm... interesting word choice.

 

EndTheUsurpation brings up a good observation; birth control...

 

The cost of dating, for women, is not born to them... The costs they incur are voluntary and small.

 

Traditional dating typically involves the man buying lots of stuff (with the promise of future... marital... bliss? Ah, euphemisms). Sex for stuff...

 

I'm not buying it... I'm one of those MGTOWs; I'm not looking to exchange cash (once removed in the form of gifts, perhaps, or twice removed with the promise of gifts)... for sex.

 

No.

 

Women want equality? Then start acting like it.

 

I'm 100% for "gender equality", I'm all for feminists telling men to get some balls, and man up, and shaming men - perhaps when men "man up" (as the feminine gender suggests) - the men will actually have some standards and some self esteem.

 

... Unfortunately for feminists, yelling at men doesn't endear them to you. And threats and the shaming language of personal attacks - does not appeal to the rational man's sense of virtue and value.

 

I don't think many men love being men, and that makes me sad for them. They, too often, internalize the shrill women telling them they're not good enough.

 

I love being a man. I'm un-apologetically a man. And I also have no desire to become a woman's plow-horse

 

This paragraph from Erica is shrill. I can imagine her telling her partners to take more risks and grow some balls (and go be traditional... slay me a dragon or something).

 

 

A Communication Breakdown

It’s fair to state that humans are complicated beings with complicated thoughts. Unfortunately, today’s communication formats don’t allow complicated thoughts to present themselves appropriately.

Since all we’re doing is texting each other all the time, we’re used to communicating in a brief, simple and casual way. We need to bring back the phone call.

For communicating in between get-togethers, a phone conversation allows for thoughts and words to flow more effectively. Conversations don’t flow the same way via text, and it’s harder to truly get to know each other and for relationships to blossom.

 

Have you tried going somewhere without loud music, and using a medium of communication that allows for more that 140 characters? Who is "we"? Does she not initiate the phone calls she wishes to have?

 

Also, what does this have to do with the thesis of the hook-up culture being unfulfilling? What's the link?

 

 

One of the biggest benefits of properly communicating is that you’re getting rid of that awful feeling of uncertainty you have when you’re not sure where you stand with someone you like.

Unfortunately, we are often unsuccessful at the open type of communication. We have been conditioned to play games and play it cool instead of being open and honest.

We think that showing we care or verbalizing how we genuinely feel can lead to losing the person we’re interested in.

 

Whoever cares less wins… or so we think.*

Yes, communication can reduce uncertainty, and that can be good.

 

Wow. Erica and I agree on something, and she made a solid case for something.

 

I would only add that; communication is distinct from expression, in that; communication requires the person expressing themselves to check in with the recipient to make sure they understand. A failure of communication belongs to the person trying to express themselves.

 

If Erica wishes to express herself, then it falls onto her to do so.

 

And I agree. With the spirit of the first quoted paragraph.

 

The last part, I think, is about aloofness. Aloofness is a personal standard of communication. If she hangs out with aloof people - that's her fault. If she acts aloof (like many women), then she condemns herself to men who allow their partners to be empty.

 

 

Plenty of Options and Plenty of Hookups, But Still Lonely

It’s rare for a woman of our generation to meet a man who treats her like a priority instead of an option. Some of the loneliest, most unhappy people I know, have a ton of options and have no problem finding someone to spend the night with.

However, they’re lonely because they don’t have anyone they let themselves care enough about to develop a true connection with.

Even the sex feels empty. The only real way to have amazing sex is to have it with someone you share true intimacy and feel totally at ease with. Is there any real intimacy in the hook-up culture?

How much are you even enjoying these hookups?

You can't make others do anything against their wills'. No one has to cure your loneliness, Erica Gordon of Elite Daily. Your standards belong to you. I suggest that you learn to love yourself - that way you'll always be in good company.

 

And, when you have company, make sure to be on your best behavior.

 

Be the change.

 

Stop looking for others to solve your emotional inadequacies.

 

 

Hooking Up Ultimately Leads to Heartbreak

Many women tend to think the guy they’re hooking up with might fall for them. This is something they secretly hope will happen, and they convince themselves that a series of hookups with the same guy will ultimately lead to him wanting something more.

This lingering hope causes women to reluctantly participate in the hook-up culture, in hopes that he will wake up one day and realize it’s been her the whole time.

It reminds me of some Taylor Swift song — and accordingly, it’s a common enough problem that I’ve seen several women crushed when this dream dies.

I know this is a semantic argument, but... I was told that hook-up lead 20-somethings nowhere... now I'm told it leads to heartbreak.

 

Heartbreak hotel, population: 1

 

Ha. Again, standards. Have standards for your heart and who you give it to.

 

Quick tangent, I wanted to copy/paste a poem I enjoy:

Playground of fleshNeil carathios

 

Playground Of FleshSummers home from college I workedwhere corpses were kept on steel cotsin crinkly plastic bags. I baby-sat bodies,assigned each a name and numberfor medical students who came in spattered coatsin clots of three around each slab,unzipped their bag and said hello.They'd read the tag tied with string to a toethe name I'd given as carefully as any parentnames a child: Orpheus-80, Galatia-67, Demeter-22 --names a corpse deserved, I thought,then with scissors they'd snip skin above the breasthanging over the corpse's armrevealing meat, a neat hole cut for the nipplewhich satlike a cherry on a sundae.They'd saw ribs the way you woulda log, taking turns, arms tiring,then pried open the chestwith vice-like screws. Mist shot out --the corpse's soul,or body's belch of air and heat --as from an uncorked bottleof champagne.Up to their elbows in muck,like children slopping in mud,they'd dig out organs, dump in a metal tub.They'd catalogue each part we pass throughthis life with, all of itsloshing inside our clothes.I'd imagine spirits of cadavers hoveringnear the ceiling, looking down, amused at usin our playground of flesh. I'd sit in the cornerpretending to read but pictured my head attachedto the bodies, my eyes closed, faking my deathjust to have someone's hands cup my heartlike a prize tomato. 

...

 

Like a prized, muthaF***in' tomato.

 

...

 

But, first, standards.

 

And I mean standards for your self, not for others. Don't expect from others. Be worth something - then, maybe, someone will treat you like a prized loved one.

 

(but, really, is anyone in good company when they're alone, if they're already in a hook-up culture? I think Erica's asking people to move mountains before they even know how to crawl... empathy starts at home...)

 

(isn't there a fortune cookie tradition to put "in bed" at the end of fortune cookie wisdom? Empathy starts at home... in bed... No... that goes against my thesis. Empathy should start before going to bed.)

 

 

A Post-Dating World

There was a time when being in a relationship seemed easier to accomplish. Perhaps this was during a time when online dating was less prevalent and people had less options getting in the way of commitment.

This was a time when more people gave it their all, and actually openly communicated their feelings with each other. Now we think we might like to be exclusive with someone we think is special, but we don’t dare say it out loud.

You can be a willing participant in the hook-up culture, but what happens when one day you decide you want to be in a relationship?

To the men out there: It’s worth sacrificing other options for a special lady, and please bring back the traditional date. You will score major brownie points with women.

As for the women out there: Let’s drop the delusion that a series of hookups will hook a boyfriend, and instead hold off on sex until a commitment has been made.

Let’s find fulfillment by taking some risks, harboring self-discipline and laying our hearts on the line the good, old-fashioned way. You’ll be a better person for it, and maybe even grow up a little along the way.

*Editor’s Note: An earlier version of the article did not include the citation for Lisa Wade who used the phrase “Whoever cares less wins” in an interview with Charlotte Lieberman for her article, “Why College Dating Is So Messed Up?“.

The good ol' days fallacy. Or is it phallic-y? I can never remember...

 

"You can be a willing participant in the hook-up culture" Yes... and, judging from the author's legitimate lived experience, I assume that she knows what she's talking about. People can take part in hook-up culture.

 

Usually women....

 

Usually attractive women with few scruples. And men... men who are attracted to that, and have money, charm, and few scruples (it doesn't hurt to be attractive, too).

 

In closing I'd like to take a swing at her question:

"what happens when one day you decide you want to be in a relationship?"

 

 

If you're looking for love but "ride the carousel" til you're 30:

You'll have none of the value, capacity for empathy, disciple of delaying gratification, patience, [emotional] fortitude, inner life of interest - that would be necessary for a relationship - if you dehumanize an entire gender.

 

Ha! Wouldn't it be ironic if I said I dislike women, now? And call them names like solipsistic, disloyal, materialistic, or vapid?

 

Or that women tend not to take an interest in the inner lives of men... that would be harsh... to say that women are lacking empathy toward man-up-tty-men...

 

But... if you're a MGTOW, "what happens when one day you decide you want to be in a relationship?" is that it is your own way.

 

Most MGTOW do not do traditional dating, and some don't even see the value in relationships. And some... don't even see the value in sex. That depends on the MGTOW.

 

There are few women that I would ever accept as an equal or a partner. I tend not to like the same things as the average woman. I have a dislike of the shallow, make-up-deep "beauty" of women. I see more beauty in the natural sciences. Science is my mistress; she has an open mind, you can do her anywhere, and she never sleeps. I am slave to one and only one - nature. I subjugate myself to natural laws - I accept them as the only laws.

 

Naturally, N.A.W.A.L.T., and all that B.S., but I just don't see women as worth my time in a romantic context. I see too little empathy. and 10,000 point is not worth it... (I don't even get out of bed in the morning for anything less than 5 billion points... naturally.)

 

Well, I enjoyed criticizing Erica Gordon's article, but I don't enjoy doing things like this often... it gets repetitive. MGTOW have heard this song and dance a hundred times before.

 

Good luck out there. OP, and other thread participants; all the best, and I appreciate you taking some of your finite, precious lives to read my ramblings.

 

Thank you.

[eschiedler]

Fantastic breakdown on the article, ChristopherScience. Just a quick thanks for the read. Your arguments are very sound. Good luck to you in your "own" MGTOW.

[tjt]

There's a friend-of-a-friend whose sister (I know, a pretty crazy connection) got herself pregnant to keep her boyfriend around. 

 

How can one person get themself pregnant? Haha, I'm imagining an elaborate plot, that involves a sperm bank, a turkey baster and a head stand.

 

Unless your friend's friend's sister is a worm, I think I know what you are saying, but the more we lose touch with the fact that it takes two people to create a baby, the more we are unjustly stripping away responsibility from men as intelligent, moral agents. I think language plays a pretty important role, so I just wanted to point that out.

 

Or maybe it truly was a sperm theft situation, or even female-on-male rape, and in that case oh my gosh I'm so sorry for that guy. He should pursue legal action in the case of rape. It's nothing to be taken lightly.

[hannahbanana]

How can one person get themself pregnant? Haha, I'm imagining an elaborate plot, that involves a sperm bank, a turkey baster and a head stand.

 

Unless your friend's friend's sister is a worm, I think I know what you are saying, but the more we lose touch with the fact that it takes two people to create a baby, the more we are unjustly stripping away responsibility from men as intelligent, moral agents. I think language plays a pretty important role, so I just wanted to point that out.

 

Or maybe it truly was a sperm theft situation, or even female-on-male rape, and in that case oh my gosh I'm so sorry for that guy. He should pursue legal action in the case of rape. It's nothing to be taken lightly.

Haha, good point. Accuracy in my words is something that I've noticed recently that I need to keep in mind, thanks for correcting me. From my knowledge, the girl was taking birth control before, so the boyfriend thought that he was fine and didn't need a condom. The girl then decided to stop taking her birth control in order to become pregnant, but lied to him and told him she was still taking the pills. So in this case, I would say that most, if not all, the responsibility of the pregnancy is on the girl.

 

Excellent analysis to ChristopherScience, by the way

[tjt]

Haha, good point. Accuracy in my words is something that I've noticed recently that I need to keep in mind, thanks for correcting me. From my knowledge, the girl was taking birth control before, so the boyfriend thought that he was fine and didn't need a condom. The girl then decided to stop taking her birth control in order to become pregnant, but lied to him and told him she was still taking the pills. So in this case, I would say that most, if not all, the responsibility of the pregnancy is on the girl.

 

Excellent analysis to ChristopherScience, by the way

 

I see, yeah that's a terrible lie! I just wish people, especially young ones, would not rely solely on hormonal birth control. What about the risk of STDs? I suppose that's another thread for another time. Thanks for elaborating, Hannahbanana.

 

Echo, that was a good analysis, ChristopherScience! Fun to read, too.

[PatrickC]

From my knowledge, the girl was taking birth control before, so the boyfriend thought that he was fine and didn't need a condom. The girl then decided to stop taking her birth control in order to become pregnant, but lied to him and told him she was still taking the pills.

 

I saw this happen to at least 3 friends of mine in my 20's. Two of them even explained to me weeks before the pregnancy that they were planning to end the relationships too.

 

Fast forward 16 years later. One is divorced and is rarely allowed to see his kids. One other is a workaholic and the other an alcoholic.

[kalmia]

A man can either learn to deal with women as they are or try to deal with women as he wishes them to be in his idealistic fantsay.  

Women are the limiting factor in reproduction. They also require more resources when they have babies. It is the job of men to sell women on the sex, not hard considering how the meme of controlling their sexuality is largely faded away.

It is the job of women to sell men on committement.

Anyone who understands sales knows that a good salesperson does not blame his customer for failing to purchase. It is the job of the salesperson to make the product or service so appealing that the customer wants to purchase.

People hate to be sold but love to buy.

 "Man up!" is a pushy guilt-tripping sales tactic. Don't play into the manipulation.

Women will fail at this until they gain some empathy for the men they are trying to sell to. They will fail until they understand why commitment would be appealing to a man at all and set up those appealing conditions. Men who sell their committment too easily are creepy, clingy, needy and otherwise just not respected.

 

I have wondered how much of the change in female behavior is due to a torrent of  alpha men in the media. This may have driven them to seek men with alpha behavior even more than they have in the past. This means many women will only see as acceptable any man who displays the alpha charactersitic of having an abundance of female options. (<<<< This is more speculative and theoretical.)

 

Enjoy the decline, guys!

[Matisyra]

Here's the problem as I see it.

 

Unless a woman has exceptionally good parents, she is raised with two utterly irreconcilable messages:  She can be and do anything, just like Barbie, and it in a relationship, she should be treated like a special princess.

 

Women are raised with the message that they have more options than being wife and mother, and they do not have to fit merely into traditional feminine roles.   They are raised with the understanding that they can earn money, own property and seek public success in the way that men can. Nothing wrong with that, per se.  Where it all falls apart is that most aren't raised with the same sense of responsibility that men get raised with.  Men are told not to start dating unless they have money to pay for it, and not to have children unless they can afford it.  If they cause a pregnancy, than they have to stand up and be responsible.

 

Now, maybe girls are being raised differently, but when I was growing up, I don't know of many girls who had parents who were telling them that if they wanted to start dating, they better have a job to pay for dates, and if they had sex and a pregnancy occurred, they -- and only they, not the father, not the girl's parents -- better be ready to financially support that child.  For at least the last twenty years (can't speak for before that), it seems that women have been entering the dating the world with all the benefits that men look for (companionship, sex, etc) with none of the responsibilities (asking someone out, paying for dates, working to get the approval of his family, continuing to put the work into planning future dates, financially supporting any children that may result).  

 

Women are told they have a right to having the social benefits a man has, which is fine, but they still expect a man to bear all the burdens that come with those benefits, which is absolutely NOT okay.

 

A woman doesn't want hook-up culture?  Then don't participate.  Either go your own way or go ask men on dates, pick up the check, and don't get pregnant until it is a mutually agreed on and planned decision and you have both discussed how you will contribute financially and in terms of being there to raise the child.  This isn't the age of chivalry and you should not expect men to pay you homage and curry favor.  And grow up and be prepared to be told no.  Men have been dealing with rejection from women for millennia.  Women are not so frail that they can't handle no.  Don't go hanging around bars and clubs to meet men. Don't act like a ho if you want to be a housewife.  Don't think you can spend your early twenties amassing debt, a dubious reputation and possibly a kid or two and then settle down with a successful, masculine, virtuous man.  He'll want nothing to do with you.

 

A man doesn't want hook-up culture?  Then don't participate.  Don't go picking up girls at bars, college parties or known haunts of women who are only interested in hooking up.  Don't go for a woman who talks about how she was daddy's little girl and was treated like a princess.  Go your own way rather than put up with women who want treat you as a full human being and not a ATM with a vibrator attached.  Don't go acting like a ho when you want to be a husband.  Don't think you can spend your early twenties amassing debt, a dubious reputation, and possibly an 18 year plus child support commitment to a woman who is doing a terrible job raising your kids, and then settle down with an attractive, modest, virtuous women.  She'll want nothing to do with you.  

[cynicist]

Reading that article is like peering into the dealings of an alien civilization. I can't believe people think like this...

 

...and they convince themselves that a series of hookups with the same guy will ultimately lead to him wanting something more.

 

[MMX2010]

But what you say about crafting a virtuous woman doesn't make sense to me. You can't force virtue on someone, it is something that they discover within themselves. If you did, it would make sense that they could become non-virtuous at any time, because they weren't really virtuous in the first place. And someone who really WAS virtuous would not arbitrarily become non-virtuous, because that would go against the core of what virtue really is. I think it would be a pointless eneavour to try to "create" a virtuous person if they are not the ones who seek knowledge to gain virtue in the first place, and if they were seeking it, it would not be necessary to create them, because they would create themselves. So it would probably be better to expose people to as much virtue or examples of self-knowledge as possible, in the hopes that they might eventually want that in themselves. Does that make sense?

 

I'm imagining two worlds. 

 

The first is where the majority of parents are like Stefan and Christina.  In this world, about 70% of people are virtuous by age 17, and about 85% are virtuous by age 25.  And in this world, everyone can say, "I will not settle for anyone less than a virtuous person in my romantic relationships." while having a large dating pool to choose from.

 

The second is our current world, where parents like Stefan and Christina are very rare.  In this world, about 2% of people are virtuous by age 17, and about 3% are virtuous by age 25.  And in this world, anyone who says, "I will not settle for anyone less than a virtuous person in my romantic relationships." is likely to end up alone at age 35. 

 

So in our current world, the "next best thing" to a virtuous person is someone-who-isn't-virtuous-right-now-BUT-shows-"craft-a-bility"-towards-virtue.  Such a person wouldn't know all arguments  in favor of virtue, but she wouldn't be closed-minded against them either.  And she'd be curious and constantly exploring what virtue is. 

 

And you're right, there's no way to force virtue on to such a person.  Nor is there any way to force her to stay with someone, so that she'll become virtuous. 

 

But there's a difference between providing non-coercive guidance/leadership towards virtue and allowing everyone to run freely while hoping they discover virtue independently. 

 

My suggestion is that non-coercive, virtuous leadership is more productive. 

[hannahbanana]

I'm imagining two worlds. 

 

The first is where the majority of parents are like Stefan and Christina.  In this world, about 70% of people are virtuous by age 17, and about 85% are virtuous by age 25.  And in this world, everyone can say, "I will not settle for anyone less than a virtuous person in my romantic relationships." while having a large dating pool to choose from.

 

The second is our current world, where parents like Stefan and Christina are very rare.  In this world, about 2% of people are virtuous by age 17, and about 3% are virtuous by age 25.  And in this world, anyone who says, "I will not settle for anyone less than a virtuous person in my romantic relationships." is likely to end up alone at age 35. 

 

So in our current world, the "next best thing" to a virtuous person is someone-who-isn't-virtuous-right-now-BUT-shows-"craft-a-bility"-towards-virtue.  Such a person wouldn't know all arguments  in favor of virtue, but she wouldn't be closed-minded against them either.  And she'd be curious and constantly exploring what virtue is. 

 

And you're right, there's no way to force virtue on to such a person.  Nor is there any way to force her to stay with someone, so that she'll become virtuous. 

 

But there's a difference between providing non-coercive guidance/leadership towards virtue and allowing everyone to run freely while hoping they discover virtue independently. 

 

My suggestion is that non-coercive, virtuous leadership is more productive. 

Ah yes, that sound different than what you were saying before. I guess I wouldn't say "craftability" exactly, since I think that is different than someone who has an open mind and has simply not been exposed to virtue. I know it's a little nit-picky, but I'm working on my word accuracy, haha. I think that we do agree then, that it is good to try to lead by example and expose people to what virtue is while they are receptive to it. Thank you for clarifying

[MMX2010]

I guess I wouldn't say "craftability" exactly, since I think that is different than someone who has an open mind and has simply not been exposed to virtue. I know it's a little nit-picky, but I'm working on my word accuracy, haha. I think that we do agree then, that it is good to try to lead by example and expose people to what virtue is while they are receptive to it. Thank you for clarifying

 

No worries, I'm working on my word-accuracy, as well. 

 

I may not have clarified how much I believe that modern American culture is "uniquely horrible".  Whenever a woman is about to make a decision, there will always be a Huffington Post article, facebook article, or something-like-that which encourages women to make an immoral choice and not be held responsible for that immoral choice. 

 

Before FDR, I would've found this article to be eye-rollingly stupid.  But after FDR, I find it blatantly immoral.  Can you catch the immorality - (the UPB violation)? 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-korth/sex-over-50_b_5563576.html

[hannahbanana]

 

Before FDR, I would've found this article to be eye-rollingly stupid.  But after FDR, I find it blatantly immoral.  Can you catch the immorality - (the UPC violation)? 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-korth/sex-over-50_b_5563576.html

Not sure, but the fact that she refused to explain to Dave why she was upset with him is a big "no" when it comes to relationships.

[Heam]

This probably sounds a bit callous of me to say, but whenever women talk about there not being enough "good" guys out there, I assume that they're ignoring something like 90% of the male population and focusing on the 10% alpha males who are in high demand and who don't really need to settle down in their youth. It's my perception that beta men are, for all intents and purposes related to sexuality, invisible to women and it shows in the article posted in the OP.

 

There is a massive swathe of men out there who are looking for a woman to be with in the long term. Ironically, most men are losers from the hookup culture because female promiscuity favors a minority of maybe 20% men at the expense of the vast majority.

[kalmia]

This probably sounds a bit callous of me to say, but whenever women talk about there not being enough "good" guys out there, I assume that they're ignoring something like 90% of the male population and focusing on the 10% alpha males who are in high demand and who don't really need to settle down in their youth. It's my perception that beta men are, for all intents and purposes related to sexuality, invisible to women and it shows in the article posted in the OP. There is a massive swathe of men out there who are looking for a woman to be with in the long term. Ironically, most men are losers from the hookup culture because female promiscuity favors a minority of maybe 20% men at the expense of the vast majority.

This focus on the minority of alpha males explains a lot of female views. If only the alpha males are acknowledged, then things like the patriarchy make sense. Many women don't consider the vast majority of beta males as an option any more than they consider mating with a goldfish. They are almost invisible. Women can't be blamed for all of this. Hypergamy and sexual selection are part of female nature. The world will improve when the better men behave in a more alpha manner. The sociopaths know how to be alpha.

[MMX2010]

Not sure, but the fact that she refused to explain to Dave why she was upset with him is a big "no" when it comes to relationships.

 

That's definitely part of it. 

 

But she's 59, and I'm 38.  And I can remember, for the longest time, women (especially in social media articles) explaining that "my personality" and "whether a woman wants to have sex with me" are completely separate.  So if I donate lots of time and money to children's charities, have a steady but boring job, and am pleasant conversationally - this all means that I have a wonderful personality.  BUT none of this is any guarantee that any woman will want to have sex with me. 

 

And if I presume that my personality will automatically lead to women wanting to sleep with me, this is "feeling entitled to sex", which is one step removed from rape. 

 

Meanwhile, the woman in the article ran into that same problem: she thought that her wonderful personality would automatically lead men to want to sleep with her.  And when she found out this wasn't the case, she proclaimed Dave to be shallow on Huffington Post - a move which caused other older women to complain to their husbands/boyfriends. 

 

So the UPB violation is, "No one should presume they're entitled to sex, just because they have a wonderful personality!" - (except women, because it's totally fine when they do so.)

 

That these UPB violations abound whenever a woman is facing an emotional "crisis", no matter what her age, is what I meant when I said that this modern culture is "uniquely horrible" at promoting the non-virtuousness of women. 

[PGP]

Hi all, fascinating stuff, especially from the scientist. Natural law rocks!!!

I'm new to the concepts presented here. I want to throw an idea out there and I welcome criticism and any commentary.

It has occurred to me that in soap-dramas, movies, novels etc (I haven't watched MSM in three years) I have seen for most of my life there never seemed to be an example of a marriage that lasted. There was the drama of the chase, the drama of the marriage, the drama of the children arriving and then the drama of the affair, criminality or whatever. Now, of course this is what sells. But, this is a big part of the culture and the constant message that is being transmitted to and received by the consumer, by their choice. 

It occurs to me that the message is centred around the improbability of a marriage lasting for any length of time. This is not the end of the world for women (relative to the olden days) what with independent careers, alimony and welfare state. 

So, my question is: within the sexual strategy of women is there an inherent calculation at play that (in the absence of the effort to achieve self-knowledge) a stable, long-term, happy marriage is unlikely? Further to this, is this not kind of similar to the MTGOW. ie meeting a virtuous woman, not enslaved by culture and/or hormones is unlikely?

If it's unlikely, why not play the percentages and hedge? Have a career, nab an alpha man in demand, have his kids (they'll be successful cos' of the genes) ad infinitum.

This is IMO related to a wider lowest common denominator-isation of the culture and indeed is related to the state an an "equaliser".

[MMX2010]

Hi all, fascinating stuff, especially from the scientist. Natural law rocks!!!

I'm new to the concepts presented here. I want to throw an idea out there and I welcome criticism and any commentary.

It has occurred to me that in soap-dramas, movies, novels etc (I haven't watched MSM in three years) I have seen for most of my life there never seemed to be an example of a marriage that lasted. There was the drama of the chase, the drama of the marriage, the drama of the children arriving and then the drama of the affair, criminality or whatever. Now, of course this is what sells. But, this is a big part of the culture and the constant message that is being transmitted to and received by the consumer, by their choice. 

It occurs to me that the message is centred around the improbability of a marriage lasting for any length of time. This is not the end of the world for women (relative to the olden days) what with independent careers, alimony and welfare state. 

So, my question is: within the sexual strategy of women is there an inherent calculation at play that (in the absence of the effort to achieve self-knowledge) a stable, long-term, happy marriage is unlikely? Further to this, is this not kind of similar to the MTGOW. ie meeting a virtuous woman, not enslaved by culture and/or hormones is unlikely?

If it's unlikely, why not play the percentages and hedge? Have a career, nab an alpha man in demand, have his kids (they'll be successful cos' of the genes) ad infinitum.

This is IMO related to a wider lowest common denominator-isation of the culture and indeed is related to the state an an "equaliser".

 

If you look to the eighth post in this thread (which is my post), I've linked to a whole bunch of information that answers your questions. 

 

Women in this culture are actually "programmed" to have an alpha male's children while trying to sucker a beta male provider into raising them.  (It's called "Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks" in the Manosphere.)  ("Programmed" is placed in quotes, because every individual woman has the power to resist her biological and cultural programming.) 

[J. D. Stembal]

This focus on the minority of alpha males explains a lot of female views. If only the alpha males are acknowledged, then things like the patriarchy make sense. Many women don't consider the vast majority of beta males as an option any more than they consider mating with a goldfish. They are almost invisible. Women can't be blamed for all of this. Hypergamy and sexual selection are part of female nature. The world will improve when the better men behave in a more alpha manner. The sociopaths know how to be alpha.

 

I'm going to call bull-spit on this suggestion of yours.

 

You are totally negating the possibility of free will and moral choice for women. Also, how can an alpha male only be expected to hook up? The PUA movement has demonstrated that "game" is all about state of mind. It is entirely possible that someone perceived to be an alpha male might actually be acting genuine, and not putting on an act to get laid. The act is the sociopathic behavior to which you may be referring, not the male.

 

Are you a woman? Your profile does not specify. I find that women are very quick to blame their hormones and womanhood on their problems than to look for personal choice resulting in the situation. It's the ultimate get out of jail free card. After my ex-girlfriend raped me when I refused to consent to sex, and I tried to explain to her how badly I felt about it, she pulled both the "denying me sex makes me feel undesirable" defense, and the "I'm 33 and can't help that I want to have sex all the time" explanation. Eventually, she apologized, but I think it was just lip service to assuage my bruised emotions.

[adaywillcome]

Elite Daily?

The same site that released this feminist gem...

http://elitedaily.com/women/ifiwereaboy-12-women-share-theyd-differently-mans-perspective/695478/

[kalmia]

I'm going to call bull-spit on this suggestion of yours.

 

You are totally negating the possibility of free will and moral choice for women. Also, how can an alpha male only be expected to hook up? The PUA movement has demonstrated that "game" is all about state of mind. It is entirely possible that someone perceived to be an alpha male might actually be acting genuine, and not putting on an act to get laid. The act is the sociopathic behavior to which you may be referring, not the male.

 

Are you a woman? Your profile does not specify. I find that women are very quick to blame their hormones and womanhood on their problems than to look for personal choice resulting in the situation. It's the ultimate get out of jail free card. After my ex-girlfriend raped me when I refused to consent to sex, and I tried to explain to her how badly I felt about it, she pulled both the "denying me sex makes me feel undesirable" defense, and the "I'm 33 and can't help that I want to have sex all the time" explanation. Eventually, she apologized, but I think it was just lip service to assuage my bruised emotions.

 

No, not a woman. I made a poor choice for a screen name. Oh well. 

 

The thing about moral choice and free will is that not many people bother to question the established moral momentum (or lack of) of the culture they live in. What appears to be socially acceptable is what they find morally acceptable. We can talk all day about shoulds and the way things ought to be, but at some point we need to talk practical reality of what will move the world in a new direction of what should be. 

 

Males understand, though usually not consciously, that their value is in their ability to produce resources, accumulate and hold resources and their ability to draw others to them who have the ability to produce excess resources. The most desirable is the male who draws productive males to him.

 

 

Most men (the betas) conform to be woman-pleasers in hopes of gaining access to a woman. Women aren't attracted to these men, as those who work for approval of women are seen by women as beneath them. These betas have been fooled into this strategy by the types of women who use them for resource acquisition and alpha males who also use them for resource acquisition and ultimately use the beta males as a sexual ornament for pussy acquisition. The men who are most attractive are those who have men bringing them resources. Beta male followers are there for the reproductive benefit of the alpha. The alpha knows this, but the beta usually does not. (BTW, this focus on the tiny number of alpha males is the source of the idea of patriarchy.) The tiny minority of men who grow up modeling alpha behaviors receive many benefits and also have no motivation to question societal momentum.

 

 

Females see their value as their reproductive potential. (Contraceptives and beauty enhancers have allowed women to use this potential to draw out many more resources than they have in the past.) Women are sexually drawn to the alphas during their most fertile years. Women receive sexual satisfaction from alphas and other resources from betas (let's just be friends). Women have little motivation to question cultural memes during this fertile reproductive part of their lives. Why would they when they are recieving so many resources for being a woman. Women are the limited but perishable sex. If women are ever motivated to question societal norms it is either after they have passed their prime reproductive years. Or when some deviant alpha seduces them into another direction. 

 

 

The people LEAST likely to question societal momentum are those most likely to reproduce genetic offspring. These people who fail to question cultural memes simply reproduce those memes.

 

 

Males start to question society when they do not receive the benefits from society. Men are more likely to question a system that robs them of their resource production and accumulation (the state) and robs them of the ability to control their own lives. The State imposes an alpha that will forcibly subjugate and humiliate those who dissent. Look at how police interact with people. Police force people to bend over and put their hands behind their backs. Women like being dominated. Men see being dominated by the politians beta (police) as an assault on their reproductive value. Men hate cops much more than women. The state is a social institution where men are forced to provide resources for an alpha male. Men on some level know they are increasing the reproductive value of another male at the expense of their own reproductive value. Look at the demographic makeup of listeners to Freedomain Radio. Look at the demographic makeup of libertarian groups in general. They are usually 80%+ male.

 

 

Males are the surplus / disposable sex. A fair number can stray from society without causing any disruption to societal momentum unless they draw women to them.

 

 

Be the alpha that seduces women into a better direction. Don't be fooled into thinking there are just as many nubile women out there questioning the sick society we live in as there are men. They don't do it because they aren't motivated to. More men do it because they are motivated to. All successful social movements are built around an unspoken rule: attract the females, and the males will follow. The state does this by having the supreme confident powerful alpha male president who is also a beta male provider who REALLY cares about them and provides them food and healthcare. Churches also appeal to women with the Jesus who loves them despite being the shitty person that they are while a charismatic powerful man stands at the front (at least in many Protestant churches.), and men (who tend to be more skeptical) follow into churches in order to gain access to the concentration of pussy there. I think Stef has used this to try to appeal more to women. I think he understands that his ideas will go nowhere unless he appeals to the meme replicators we call women.

 

 

A lot of the PUA alpha techniques are superficial alpha characteristics. The most superficial and easily duped women will go for them. Don't put on an act. Resolve your insecurities to actually become more alpha, so it is internally who you are. There seems to be this "women should like beta men more" wishful thinking among many men. Low quality women are fooled by superficial phony alpha men, and better quality women seek out real alpha men who aren't putting on an act. Betas are what women will settle for when they can't lock down an alpha. Do you want to be something she settled for?

 

 

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/.../five-minutes-of-alpha-fifty-years-of-pining/