From a man's view, what can women expect?

[MMX2010]

And he will not see it come to pass, because most people are still cavemen. Most people do not have the intellect to be philosophical. Most will never rise above the media rhetoric, the feminist brainwashing, the primitive paleocortex thinking. Most people will never be more than ghosts, and more than that, a lot of people DO NOT WANT to be anything more than a ghost. Its like the idea of waking people up from the matrix, who wants to realize the truth and deal with all that bullshit? Better to be asleep, and be a ghost. 

 

Now as far as I am concerned, I am angry at the fact that most people will never be virtuous and truthful myself. But I can't go through life waiting for it to happen. That will leave me living an unfulfilled life. Would you tell me also, not to pay my taxes because it supports the state? Would you tell me also, not to buy oil because it supports the oligarchy? I agree with the ideal man, but I must live practically.

 

 

I know you dismiss me a trolling, but two things are true:  (1) I agree with your assessment of the flaws in Stefan's reasoning - so strongly, in fact, that I want to have a Call-in show, within three months, to highlight the weaknesses of his arguments - (particularly in light of what I've learned through Game and Pick Up Artistry),  (2) I don't think you're living practically at all.  

 

I think I posted this before.  But during an FDR NYC Meet-Up Group, about seven members (voiced by the arguments of one member) spent 90 minutes criticizing my communication style and "dominating" and my emotional demeanor as "not-empathetic".  (Have you ever had seven people criticize essential parts of your personality for ninety minutes?  It's eye-popping.)  One member, 24 years old (compared to my 38 years old) constantly was asking me, "Was that empathetic?" and "Are you being empathetic right now?" 

 

About thirty minutes after the focus left me, I mentioned this diagram, outlining what women pursue in men - especially when they're young and free to do so. 

 

 

 

I set up my argument by first saying, "You cannot use an excess of six-pack abs and money to make up for a lack of philosophy."  (Entire group nods.)  But then I immediately say, "But you also cannot use an excess of philosophy to make up for a lack of six-pack abs and money."  (The entire group stopped nodding, and fell deathly quiet.) 

 

Except for one guy, (the 24 year old who had been harping on my lack-of-empathy), who said, "You don't need six pack abs and money to attract a virtuous woman."  To which I replied, "Philosophically, your argument is 100% true, but you're not empathizing with a virtuous woman's desire for six-pack abs and money." 

 

From his body language, I knew my remark deeply stung him.  But he didn't offer a counter-argument.  Then I wasn't invited back to the next meeting. 

 

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

 

The above story equally applies to you.  You mention your embrace of philosophy, and use it to denigrate everyone else who isn't philosophical.  But your argument doesn't work unless you're also physically fit, financially well-off, skilled in Pick-up artistry, and have a passionate life of your own. 

 

Yes, yes, yes, I know that women are propped up by a constant barrage of social media attention and feminist you-go-girl-isms - but deliberately offering women much less than what they want, so that you can shame them for wanting it isn't a good strategy.  It's not only fundamentally lacking in empathy, (which nullifies your expectation that a woman ought to be empathetic towards you), but it also makes you vulnerable to just one man who offers her more. 

 

Which means you not only have to shame (basically) the entire female gender for wanting more than they deserve, but you now also have to shame (basically) every man who has a woman you want.  "He's only interested in her for her looks; secretly, he's a dumbass."  "She must be fucking stupid for wanting to be with him." - (which, sadly, is an argument that Stefan himself has made....an argument so wrong that I have enormous empathy for what you're going through).  "Pick Up artistry tries to control women!" - (but railing at their stupid mate choices doesn't?I?) 

 

Since your strategy is so impractical, I don't think you live practically. 

 

I think you're burnt out, sad, and lacking in experience with women but you're morally opposed (partially due to Stefan's bad arguments) to learning Game and Pick-Up Artistry.  And being stuck, without implementing an imperfect solution, isn't practical. 

[utopian]

I see that MMX guy is still posting. I am glad he's trolling himself by wasting his time trying to talk to me, cause I still have not read any of his posts here lol. He must be pretty desperate to matter to me. Too bad he never will.

 

 

When I look around me, I see people who go with the common beliefs about relationships. Follow biology. Live stereotypical lives of quiet misery and confusion.

 

Then there are those rare people who seem to be advancing in consciousness and don't wish to be beholden to biology. Don't want to play games with trading bananas anymore. Are looking for something real and fighting their biological urges.

 

I hesitate to engage a woman about this topic, but I bet you are a step above the rest intellectually just for being on this forum. 

I too see the ghosts living lives by how the media and society tells them to. Their ignorance is bliss, but can also obviously be seen as their frustrations. Is it any wonder there is so much divorce, mental issues and unhappiness these days?

 

But don't get me wrong, I think a big part of being human IS fulfilling those primitive urges. That is only a third of the equation however, the basic functions of the paleocortex. Most men only seek fulfillment on this level of course, while women are more on the second level of the lymbic system, the emotional level.  Can you relate to my issue then, as a woman seeking fulfillment on that emotional level, that I too am seeking emotional fulfillment by looking for a woman who actually cares about my feelings? 

 

 

I like to think I am very different from the majority of women out there who are looking for either beta bucks or alpha fucks. But I am not free from these compulsions. I feel them and experience them. But I fight them.

 

The problem is that I now almost have contempt for men who are attractive or doing well financially. I have conditioned myself this way. Do I want an unemployed man who doesn't take care of his looks, then? Well, no.

 

Again, I am not saying you should avoid men just for their looks or their resources. Of course it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. But we are humans, and though these urges are natural parts of us, we should be evolving to develop our potentials. The caveman will satisfy your desire for sex and resources, but he will never fulfill your emotional and intellectual desires. The thing is, I am quite sure of, that many men are getting the idea these days that they can ONLY care about your emotions and intelligence, and get somewhere. These are the friendzone guys, wondering why the caveman asshole is the only one getting laid, when the "nice guy" is caring about your intelligence and feelings. 

 

The traditional problem being for you now that you have to choose between the cavemen and the nice guys, and neither will ever leave you fulfilled. 

 

I want a man who sees my value unclouded by his desire for sex, just like it seems some people here want a woman who isn't wooed by dinner and dresses.

 

I don't know if this man exists. 

 

I think when you really REALLY REALLY get right down to it, the value of a woman to man, starts and ends with sex. 

 

Your first sentence describes a longing for fulfillment on the third level of the brain, after the paleocortex and lymbic system. The neocortex is the part that strives for an INTELLECTUAL fulfillment. The good news is, this forum is probably the best place for you to find it lol, as philosophy requires a certain degree of intelligence. The traditional problem still exists however, of intellectual and emotional guys not usually being attractive providers. 

 

But yes, when you get down to it, emotions and intelligence is not necessarily what got humanity through to this point of our evolution, it was the caveman who brought home the bacon; the guy most concerned with sex. Hopefully one day we will both find fulfillment on each level. 

[MMX2010]

But we are humans, and though these urges are natural parts of us, we should be evolving to develop our potentials.

 

The caveman will satisfy your desire for sex and resources, but he will never fulfill your emotional and intellectual desires. The thing is, I am quite sure of, that many men are getting the idea these days that they can ONLY care about your emotions and intelligence, and get somewhere. These are the friendzone guys, wondering why the caveman asshole is the only one getting laid, when the "nice guy" is caring about your intelligence and feelings. 

 

The traditional problem being for you now that you have to choose between the cavemen and the nice guys, and neither will ever leave you fulfilled. 

 

The traditional problem has been replaced by the modern problem, which few people know about and fewer people dare speak about.  The modern problem is that, because women have more rights than ever, they're free to simultaneously pursue the cavemen and the nice guys.  (It's called having a Great Boyfriend, and seeing the Pool Boy, ideally, twelve times a year.) 

 

Rollo Tomassi is the author who best describes (dispassionately and without cynicism) this simultaneous pursuit of two different types of men.  He even coined a phrase for it, "Alpha fucks, Beta bucks."  And since the mechanism explaining the phenomenon is tied to her menstrual cycle, then all women including virtuous ones(!), have these conflicting desires and must deal with them. 

 

http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/17/estrus/

 

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

 

 

The modern problem means that only the rarest of men who can combine Alpha Qualities with Beta Qualities, (fine-tuned to match specific days of her ovulatory cycle), can enjoy (relative) relationship security.  Stefan is one of these men, which (ironically!) makes his advice irrelevant (and dangerous!) to most men. 

 

The rest of men (roughly 95% or more of us) can either (1) Remain alpha only, and complain that women don't really care about our feelings - but, hey, at least we're having sex with lots of them.  (2) Remain beta only, and complain that women don't really care about our feelings, nor do they want to have sex with us - but, hey, at least we're virtuous.  (3) Maximize both our alpha and beta qualities, knowing that it's all an act - which will take time to develop, and which will cause heartache and pain when we're learning. 

 

----------

 

Because of the modern problem, men like utopian who want women to "care about his feelings" usually end up hitched (at about age 34) to a 32 year old woman who cares about his feelings (with severe limitations) approximately 22 days out of every 28 days.  The other six days are spent hating his feelings, and blaming him for not sufficiently manning up. 

 

All of this to, once again, point to the three circle Venn diagram and say, "Those circles aren't optional.  They're required." 

[MMX2010]

I think when you really REALLY REALLY get right down to it, the value of a woman to man, starts and ends with sex. 

 

And I think you're dead wrong about that. 

 

The value of a woman to a man, starts and ends with admiration. 

 

 

 

I want a man who sees my value unclouded by his desire for sex, just like it seems some people here want a woman who isn't wooed by dinner and dresses.

 

And I think you're wrong about that, too.    The majority of men on here don't "believe in" the three-circle Venn diagram I posted at the top of the second page in this thread.  They don't work out; they don't have much money; they don't study Pick-up artistry (because they're "morally opposed to it" using very bad arguments).  But they're very smart and are significantly more philosophical and morally sound than 99% of the men in the dating pool. 

 

I get that philosophical and moral soundness is the most important part of a committed romantic relationship, but it's not the only part.  And women, whether a man likes it or not, have never had more freedom to maximize their demands on men; their political power, economic power, and constant barrage of media encouragement empowers them to.  So the three-circle Venn diagram is a requirement - not an option to be "dismissed" on "moral grounds" using "philosophy". 

 

So these men, like all men, want to be admired - but, from the perspective of most women, they're simply not admirable enough.  So they stare at each other, non-empathetically: the men demanding admiration, and the women skillfully realizing (but never articulating), "The more you demand admiration, the more I know that you don't naturally deserve it, and so I'm not going to give it to you!" 

 

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

 

You mentioned earlier that the primary value of women to men starts and begins with sex.  I said it starts and begins with admiration.  Here's an example of what happens when a woman loses sense of the importance of her admiration for him. 

 

In another thread, an anonymous female said:

 

 

My husband of 10 years (whom I'm currently separated from) never learned to clean up after himself. In fact, after living separately for 3 months he actually asked me when I was going to come clean his bathroom and the rest of his apartment. I have to admit that because my two year old has to spend time there that I HAVE gone over to clean his place since leaving him. i do it because I love my son, not because I love to clean up after a grown man. 

 

In the end only you know what it right for you, but I would just like to warn you that if he doesn't pick up after himself now, he probably never will. When he was living with his mom she picked up after him, and congrats!: now you get to be his mom.

 

I strongly suggest that if you want to stay together that you make him pay for a regular cleaning person if he is not going to clean up after himself. With all of the other issues you brought up I'm not sure that would be enough - but having a clean space certainly makes things better for everyone. If he can't clean up after himself and is unwilling to pay someone else to, then it may be time for him to go back to his mother's place.

 

You may find that you can do better if you go back out into the dating pool. Don't stay with someone who makes you unhappy - you don't have any kids together and there is no ring on your finger - you don't owe it to this man to be his mother.

 

 

The following two things are true:  (1) No woman likes to play the role of a man's mother.  (2) Her attitude, where she associates cleaning up after him into "being his mother" is entirely unpleasant to be around.  The following two things are speculative: (1) Her husband almost certainly thinks of his mother as emotional abusive and distant.  (2) She never considered that equating herself to his mother, and thereby implying that he still needs his emotionally abusive and distant mother, is easily the most abusive thing anyone can do to him.

 

Now it may turn out this his mother was a Peaceful Parent, but I'm betting she was the opposite - simply because 98% of mothers are the opposite.  So saying a grown man needs his mother is a rather unpleasant thing to do. 

 

"But I only wanted him to clean up after himself!"

 

I know, lady.  I get it. 

 

"It's not right that I have to do it!

 

No doubt.  It's disgusting, slovenly, and sad. 

 

"But I didn't know what else to do!  I tried everything!"

 

Did you try focusing solely on his good sides, especially when you felt that familiar rage welling up within you right when you decide to put away his dishes, so that you'd be better emotionally prepared to pick up after him? 

 

What?  Lemme think about it; there....

 

(interrupting) Did you make it your personal policy to offer him two compliments a day, related to his legitimate strengths, so that he WOULD NOT see your (I assume, constant) demands that he pick up after himself as the primary and most intense emotional way that you connected to him? 

 

What?

 

Exactly....

 

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

 

So the loss of her admiration drove her to being more and more unpleasant.  And to the surprise of no one but her, they're separated. 

 

You'll notice that I didn't advise her to create admiration for certain traits he did not possess.  I advised her to focus on, and more frequently voice, her admiration for qualities that he does possess.  But few, if any, women are taught how to do this. That's how the enmity slowly but steadily accrued in their relationship - a scenario which repeats itself in hundreds of thousands of relationships across America and the West. 

[A Madman Person Guy]

Oh shit man. Well if you are willing to lower your own standards for sex... then there's not much else I can say, other than it is possible to live with the living, and that there are women out there who are willing to keep it shallow, though keeping that kind of person in your camp has it's own dangers. As Stef says- there are no solutions, only costs and benefits.

 

At least you're being honest about being evil but you don't have to commit seppuku with your conscious like that.

 

Of course I have to, that's the flippin' point. And I didn't say it would only be for sex; I'm hardly as preoccupied with that as most guys I see around me. And I'm too suspicious of attractive or well-adjusted people to get a fair trade out of the physical versus the social aspect of a relationship in any case. But having a second person around confers other benefits as well; no matter how dim or frumpy they might be, they can still operate a telephone or take out a loan, or they might know some people. Whatever.

 

 

Really enjoying this thread. 

 

When I look around me, I see people who go with the common beliefs about relationships. Follow biology. Live stereotypical lives of quiet misery and confusion.

 

Then there are those rare people who seem to be advancing in consciousness and don't wish to be beholden to biology. Don't want to play games with trading bananas anymore. Are looking for something real and fighting their biological urges.

 

I like to think I am very different from the majority of women out there who are looking for either beta bucks or alpha fucks. But I am not free from these compulsions. I feel them and experience them. But I fight them.

 

It gets much easier with time.

 

The problem is that I now almost have contempt for men who are attractive or doing well financially. I have conditioned myself this way. Do I want an unemployed man who doesn't take care of his looks, then? Well, no.

 

I want a man who sees my value unclouded by his desire for sex, just like it seems some people here want a woman who isn't wooed by dinner and dresses.

 

I don't know if this man exists. 

 

I think when you really REALLY REALLY get right down to it, the value of a woman to man, starts and ends with sex. 

 

That's an individualist view in the extreme, by current social standards. Can't say I disapprove, but if that last point is true, then I have to judge my approach to this whole matter as the proper and correct one in pretty much all regards, and I wouldn't want that.

 

I can sympathize with your dislike of attractive people. The problems that I see immediately from your point of view should be that an aversion to a well-off partner is just silly, seeing as you don't want to have to support them, particularly if you're a woman who's thinking of ever having kids, and because you don't want to foster some kind of creepy clingy codependency, and that whenever you look for a man who's more interested in you as a person than in sex than what is usual in men, you're also running the risk of either getting someone who you have absolutely no pull on and who you'll have difficulty in establishing a truly intimate relationship with, or hooking some genuinely cold fish.

 

Hmm... There is a fun little conflict there. Now, this is just anecdotal, but although not every idiot I've seen has been obsessed with sex, but anyone mostly disinterested with sex I've seen has at least appeared more than moderately intelligent, both in person and in the media...

[utopian]

That's an individualist view in the extreme, by current social standards. Can't say I disapprove, but if that last point is true, then I have to judge my approach to this whole matter as the proper and correct one in pretty much all regards, and I wouldn't want that.

 

What are you talking about? A relationship without sex is just a friendship. Are you saying you want nothing but friendships? You WANT a perpetual friendzone?

[A Madman Person Guy]

What are you talking about? A relationship without sex is just a friendship. Are you saying you want nothing but friendships? You WANT a perpetual friendzone?

 

Personally, I enjoy being the one doing the friendzoning. Flirting subtly but mercilessly or just being all-around potent, stand-up, self-confident and unavoidable, then feigning ignorance or backpedaling just as they've gotten something into their head, and then carefully phrasing the reason why you'd "never act on that impulse" or "couldn't see us together like that" to suggest that you're putting her down much more kindly than might be expected. It's a more studied and more soul-crushing thing to do than doing the Bateman comeback to girls in the gym or the pub, which makes it more delicious. And yes, before you ask, it's cost me the friendship of a couple of girls, although I'll also note that more than that have chosen not to distance themselves, presumably on account of being suckers. In either case, wrecking egos like that is tasty, and I'd recommend it to anyone.

 

Oh, and regarding "admiration", MMX... I think that asking for admiration, either in the way the term is usually used or as you construe it, of a woman as a man in this age and time is aiming way, way too high. The most you can hope for is respect. And you'll never get respect from a woman if you ask for anything, in my experience. Nor can you demand it, because that would be just as bad. The former reveals weakness or whininess which is instantly unattractive, and the latter is brutish and domineering. Everything you really want from a woman, she has to think she's giving of her own initiative, if you both want her to still feel good and not to have any strings attached. But the best option is not to ask, demand or wait for a reward for your work, but to be self-sufficient. If you have "emotional needs", satisfy them on your own, just like you fill your own bank account, decorate your own house and cook your own meals. This will allow you to interact with her on your own terms, to be more attractive in yourself but to also be less tied down, among a host of other advantages. You should not make yourself emotionally dependent on anyone, particularly a woman. Let the interaction be a reward, but not a requisite, and that'll keep it from becoming an obligation and a chore. It's better for her, because it allows her to be "charitable", and better for you, because it keeps your power where it belongs; with yourself.

 

Sure, no man is an island. But if it benefits, we can strive at least to be barely connected peninsulas.

[A Madman Person Guy]

What are you talking about? A relationship without sex is just a friendship. Are you saying you want nothing but friendships? You WANT a perpetual friendzone?

 

I'm neither for it, nor against it, although for the sake of my own amusement I'll point out that it's usually me doing the friendzoning. When you don't connect with anyone either way, friendships and relationships are not just interchangeable but both also without value, and the only thing that matters is the sex or the exchanges taking place.

 

What I was really referring to was that I'm trying to take the "normal" view of relationships here, rather than my own approach, and suggesting that a) that I recognize that my own model of behavior is destructive and cruel and that for intellectual purposes it is thus not the one which should be modeled here and b) that I'm having some trouble with this. Mainly, I have to say, because I can't really comprehend how someone would want to be able to completely trust another person, nor how this would ever be achievable in practical terms through anything but blackmail.

[PinkGlitter]

Interesting thread.

 

I definitely support MMX2010's views.

[MMX2010]

I'm neither for it, nor against it, although for the sake of my own amusement I'll point out that it's usually me doing the friendzoning. When you don't connect with anyone either way, friendships and relationships are not just interchangeable but both also without value, and the only thing that matters is the sex or the exchanges taking place.

 

What I was really referring to was that I'm trying to take the "normal" view of relationships here, rather than my own approach, and suggesting that a) that I recognize that my own model of behavior is destructive and cruel and that for intellectual purposes it is thus not the one which should be modeled here and b) that I'm having some trouble with this. Mainly, I have to say, because I can't really comprehend how someone would want to be able to completely trust another person, nor how this would ever be achievable in practical terms through anything but blackmail.

 

 

You can dismiss this as nonsense if you wish, but the blue stuff was explained to me as follows. 

 

In older times, men and women stood side by side looking towards God-above.  As long as he was devoted to God, and she was devoted to God, then God would watch over the both of them, ensuring that the marriage would remain virtuous and just. 

 

In modern times, God doesn't exist.  So men and women look into each other's eyes for fulfillment.  He comports himself according to her opinions, and she comports herself according to his opinions.  And the emotional connection from mutual self-staring is supposed to bond them together. 

 

The modern problem is that when man-looks-into-woman's-eyes and woman-looks-into-man's-eyes, neither is looking at the world.  So the world becomes irrelevant and decays. 

 

Which means that the solution is for man and woman to stop looking into each other's eyes, and to find something in the world that compels them to work together.  But not God, because God still doesn't exist. 

 

What is this?  Mission. 

 

A man on a mission devotes himself and his every action into the fulfillment of that mission.  And every woman he meets either "folds herself into" his mission or doesn't.  The woman who most strongly folds herself into his mission is the woman he's supposed to choose to be with. 

 

Without mission, a man is stuck seeking "value for value" - but he defines "value" according to subjective, ambiguous terms.  Whereas mission makes a man define value in subjective non-ambiguous terms. 

[Anotherrandomperson]

 

 

You can dismiss this as nonsense if you wish, but the blue stuff was explained to me as follows. 

 

In older times, men and women stood side by side looking towards God-above.  As long as he was devoted to God, and she was devoted to God, then God would watch over the both of them, ensuring that the marriage would remain virtuous and just. 

 

In modern times, God doesn't exist.  So men and women look into each other's eyes for fulfillment.  He comports himself according to her opinions, and she comports herself according to his opinions.  And the emotional connection from mutual self-staring is supposed to bond them together. 

 

The modern problem is that when man-looks-into-woman's-eyes and woman-looks-into-man's-eyes, neither is looking at the world.  So the world becomes irrelevant and decays. 

 

Which means that the solution is for man and woman to stop looking into each other's eyes, and to find something in the world that compels them to work together.  But not God, because God still doesn't exist. 

 

What is this?  Mission. 

 

A man on a mission devotes himself and his every action into the fulfillment of that mission.  And every woman he meets either "folds herself into" his mission or doesn't.  The woman who most strongly folds herself into his mission is the woman he's supposed to choose to be with. 

 

Without mission, a man is stuck seeking "value for value" - but he defines "value" according to subjective, ambiguous terms.  Whereas mission makes a man define value in subjective non-ambiguous terms. 

This makes a lot of sense. I think in addition that if the mission is real and primary, rather than something picked up as secondary to the primary goal of having a relationship, then this will work. 

 

Consider that in no other context would 'relationship' be an end in and of itself. It's always secondary to some other goal. So why not in this case? 

[Frosty]

Very interesting thread which I've read through all of.

 

My take on this is that women can expect from a relationship whatever their sexual market value can buy them in the free market of available men, very few people date down with people they perceive to have less value (however you want to measure that), and the few people who do are snapped up very quickly because that's a super desirable trait for people to have. So i'd say that I'm a 6 and I'd really love it that women who are 8's, 9's and 10's have lower standards but if they did then my pool of competition is now much larger and they become quickly paired off.

 

This is all just biology and taking a biological view is really the only one which makes sense, our bodies have needs/desires/compulsions which we seek to satiate and being able to fulfil them has value, let's not make the mistake of feminist ideologues and assume that men and women are identical or even very similar in these regards. Our needs and desires are different and this comes from biology, there was a good example of this in the biological evolution of women, they're predisposed to letting go of emotional attachment faster because back when we were fiercely tribal people, men from neighbouring tribes would invade and murder the men but any women who could swap allegiance quickly went on to survive and reproduce.

 

There's an awful temptation to over-think and turn what is biological into what is philosophical, pair bonding only feels good because evolution slowly crafted creatures which had this mechanism to encourage optimal mating strategy for their environment, pair bonding helped pass on genes and so it was selected for in humans. I sometimes think of these things as biological tricks, in a animal with little to no consciousness the biology needed to have a natural propensity to do certain things like eat, mate, defend, and so we get biological tricks like hunger, sex drive and testosterone etc. Having a really solid evolutionary understanding of humans is super important to understanding behaviour between people.

 

There's nothing really philosophical about any of this, we build euphemisms up on top of biology and talk about things like love and other concepts that represent how we feel, but that's just a notion of fantasy, there is no magical true love, there is simply our biological needs, a selfish desire to feed them and a response/feedback system that rewards us with certain chemicals when we acquire the things we need. It's fantastic that we've become self aware beings with the ability to think and do philosophy but this doesn't elevate human relationships to some sort of zen plane of existence were biology doesn't matter, biology is what drives human behaviour, it's even biology that drives some of us to study philosophy, because if we get a good response/feedback from doing so then we'll do it again with the desire for the same reward.

 

With regards to caring of feelings, there's 2 things worth mentioning. First of all that no one really cares that much for anyone else's feelings who they do not have much emotional investment in, empathy and mirror neurons will fire to mirror experience, but we cannot be invested in everyone unilaterally like this, it's simply not good evolutionary theory to feel the pain of everyone around you, just those people who you've formed a bond with and its in your benefit to care for. So the concern of feelings comes later in relationships, it's not automatic. In order to form that bond with someone you first need to shop around for a mate who represents the best value you can get, who simultaneously see's that same value condition in you. That's why lust is a super great way to push people together in mutual benefit of the sexy time without any prior other feelings and bootstrap that pair bonding which then grows over time.

 

Judging people as whores because there's an exchange of sex for other resources is just a societal judgement put on this whole process, who are you to judge you settling your need for sex with say a woman's asymmetric need to feel validated about her self worth, or her desire to go somewhere nice and have a nice meal. You think it should just be like for like where we can only exchange sex or sex or trade goods for goods? I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you but men and women have different sex drives, different desires and they weight all this stuff differently in importance, these again are just biological realities. Maybe you should question why that bothers you so much, why you have this double standard that you can expect someone to satisfy your needs but them having theirs satisfied in exchange is somehow morally reprehensible?

 

There's certainly no real objective moral judgement to make there, I mean be honest about your intentions because you don't want to essentially defraud anyone, so be honest about your intentions and obviously it has to be voluntary, otherwise the NAP is not being violated and you're good to go. If what you want is a long lasting relationship then it has to be based on more than just sex obviously, with regular dopamine hits from pair bonding eventually the reward/feedback system of chemicals in your brain dulls, after about 3 years (the honeymoon period) if the relationship is dependent on that it will probably fail. Biologically speaking this ought to be long enough to have children in nature and so you start a natural cycle of co dependency there and father/mother bonds kick in, in modern relationships we put this off with contraception so I think that's a strain on relationships, we simply weren't biologically evolved to pair bond and then never produce children, pair bonding is specifically a trick used to further the goal of reproducing and passing on genes.

 

Lastly just to address drkmdn because I think it's cool we have women weighing in on this discussion (that always helps!). There is a couple of things I would comment on, first of all being that something like an expectation or desire to find a partner with a deeper more philosophical understanding is fine, but it certainly narrows down the field. Philosophical thinking isn't that conducive to reproduction and so there's no real driver in nature that causes it, interest in it is probably somewhat of an anomaly, in which case it's like looking for a needle in a haystack. But also it doesn't need to be a mutually exclusive desire, what is wrong with finding a successful and well groomed man who also can see your value unclouded of sex, and what's wrong with him intellectually understanding your value in addition to also wanting sexy time? I can't help but think any person (but especially more so women) that if they found the perfect unclouded male that they'd only find them-self somewhat disappointed that there was no lust or desire to be swept of their feet and be taken, it just seems like that would lack a lot of validation that people tend to have with regards to their own attractiveness and desirability.

 

Secondly, if we can intellectually understand our desires and where they come from, what do we do? Do we indulge in them responsibly or do we try and elevate ourselves above them? If lust is just a trick of evolution to drive people together for the purpose of procreation and furthering of the genes then do we subvert our own biology, or do we indulge? It's funny because we see things like drug habits as really bad, we understand the high is good but the addiction and constant craving for more all the time is probably worse, yet we're sort of OK with this same concept which naturally occurs with dopamine in our brains, how many of us would eliminate that system if we could, like if we could eliminate our sex drives with an injection then who would do it? At this point (I'm 31) I see my sex drive as more of a nuisance than anything else, after 4-5 days my brain just becomes deficient and it's like "right time to find some porn that's still novel and whack off", that's actually really annoying when I'm trying to get other things done and my brain is involuntarily thinking of female body parts and the inevitable depravity that follows. Then mere milliseconds after orgasm the clarity comes back and you're like "ah what the hell am I doing?" and you go back to whatever you were trying to do. It's all so terribly inconvenient

 

Best strategy as a woman with regards to this stuff might be to sleep with a man you're interested in, really let him get it out of his system and then talk to him straight after, a man's mind is never more straight and unclouded by hormones than right after sex, how acute the difference is, is something quite hard to convey to women.

[utopian]

My take on this is that women can expect from a relationship whatever their sexual market value can buy them in the free market of available men, very few people date down with people they perceive to have less value (however you want to measure that), and the few people who do are snapped up very quickly because that's a super desirable trait for people to have. So i'd say that I'm a 6 and I'd really love it that women who are 8's, 9's and 10's have lower standards but if they did then my pool of competition is now much larger and they become quickly paired off.

 

This is a good platform to start from for what I have been trying to get at, but what I am looking for as far as my original post, is what a woman can expect from a fulfilling, equal, philosophical relationship. A "universally preferable" model of relationship.

 

Because a prevalent issue with women today is they all think they deserve way more than they do, especially for being generally anti-philosophical creatures who get used to getting things handed to them and often never think about self development because of it. Studies from okcupid.com show that 80% of women go after only 20% of men, where as men have a more evenly distributed bell curve of who they go after. Women are the more shallow gender.

 

Can hot women lay back and do nothing and become nothing and just let gifts get trucked in while not having to work for it? Sure. It happens. There are plenty of women on youtube who do several videos that are just about opening packages they get cause theyre so hot men everywhere just send them free stuff. 

 

That is a philosophical NIGHTMARE however, where women are encouraged to become nothing and do nothing with themselves, and not only that, but they are so saturated with instant gratification, they never get to thinking about how unreal their situation is. 

 

What I am asking is, if situations like this did not exist, and women actually sought men on an equal basis, what would the women be putting forth in a relationship, and what would a man be putting forth? Because before considering modern situations, equal value for equal value obviously makes sense.

 

 

This is all just biology and taking a biological view is really the only one which makes sense, our bodies have needs/desires/compulsions which we seek to satiate and being able to fulfil them has value, let's not make the mistake of feminist ideologues and assume that men and women are identical or even very similar in these regards. 

Our biology is experiencing a philosophical crisis, however. Female biology was built to seek out and please men so that she could have someone to get her resources, because her biology was not created for acquiring resources, it was made to birth and raise children. The crisis has developed in modern times with the introduction of technology, because now a woman can satisfy pretty much all of her own needs without ever having a man around. Men have created this environment for women, and now that we have, women no longer appreciate men, or see value in them. This is especially problematic if they ever have children and have no husband or father figure around, which develops a plethora of problems in the children as cited several times by Stefan. 

 

Our biology was made to have two parents each teaching children values as they grew up with a man and a woman, and now our modern society is developing children that will be growing up developing problems because we have messed up the biological environment we were supposed to be raising children in.

 

And THEN, you add in things like feminist bullshit, media brainwashing, technological desensitization... where is the hope for humanity?

 

 

There's nothing really philosophical about any of this, we build euphemisms up on top of biology and talk about things like love and other concepts that represent how we feel, but that's just a notion of fantasy, there is no magical true love, there is simply our biological needs, a selfish desire to feed them and a response/feedback system that rewards us with certain chemicals when we acquire the things we need. It's fantastic that we've become self aware beings with the ability to think and do philosophy but this doesn't elevate human relationships to some sort of zen plane of existence were biology doesn't matter, biology is what drives human behaviour, it's even biology that drives some of us to study philosophy, because if we get a good response/feedback from doing so then we'll do it again with the desire for the same reward.

I agree about biology on the survival level of the paleocortex, and the emotional level of the lymbic system. The neocortex, however, is a different beast entirely. Where as sex satisfies our paleocortex and emotional connections satisfy our lymbic system, the neocortex is fulfilled by higher qualities such as knowledge and philosophy. Without fulfillment on this level, how could a relationship ever have any real quality? Without it, a relationship is nothing but sex and food and emotions being robotically stimulated. Yes, plenty of women get by on just that. They also tend to find themselves unfulfilled, never satisfied and looking for something they don't even realize they are fighting against. 

 

The hot chicks I alluded to earlier screw whoever they want, get all the free stuff they want, and live in this... matrix. A matrix of unreality where they never have to strive to make something of themselves, work for anything, earn anything. It is to the point where they do not even realize their environmental matrix exists.

 

The only time they do realize it, is when these women get older, and the value of their hotness begins to diminish, and eventually fades entirely. Too late they realize that the world they became used to will no longer be there, and now that they have spent all this time not building something of themselves, not becoming a quality person, these women go crazy and turn into entitled nags who do not care for anyone they hurt, not unlike Stefan's mother, or my own. This contributes to the development of damaged women and damaged children that Stefan finds himself attempting to clean up after. 

 

If women were treated with the more universally preferable treatment that I am looking for in this thread, it would lead to better human development for all of mankind. 

 

 

With regards to caring of feelings, there's 2 things worth mentioning. First of all that no one really cares that much for anyone else's feelings who they do not have much emotional investment in, empathy and mirror neurons will fire to mirror experience, but we cannot be invested in everyone unilaterally like this, it's simply not good evolutionary theory to feel the pain of everyone around you, just those people who you've formed a bond with and its in your benefit to care for. So the concern of feelings comes later in relationships, it's not automatic. In order to form that bond with someone you first need to shop around for a mate who represents the best value you can get, who simultaneously see's that same value condition in you. That's why lust is a super great way to push people together in mutual benefit of the sexy time without any prior other feelings and bootstrap that pair bonding which then grows over time.

 

Agreed, the problem being that women are entitled to men caring about their emotions and expect to not have to care about a man's emotions. Men will go along with this until the woman loses her sexual value, creating the philosophical problem described above. Leaving a woman who does not care about your emotions when she loses her sexual value is justified in this situation, if there is no philosophical basis in the relationship. A philosophical relationship, I argue, would include the woman caring about the man's feelings as well, because that would still be there when the woman lost her beauty.

 

 

Judging people as whores because there's an exchange of sex for other resources is just a societal judgement put on this whole process, who are you to judge you settling your need for sex with say a woman's asymmetric need to feel validated about her self worth, or her desire to go somewhere nice and have a nice meal. You think it should just be like for like where we can only exchange sex or sex or trade goods for goods? I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you but men and women have different sex drives, different desires and they weight all this stuff differently in importance, these again are just biological realities. Maybe you should question why that bothers you so much, why you have this double standard that you can expect someone to satisfy your needs but them having theirs satisfied in exchange is somehow morally reprehensible?

Well first off, society itself and at large judges women for doing this, I am far from the only one. I might be more accepting of it if this exchange was more widely accepted between the two parties, but women want to be whores and not accept responsibility for being so. God forbid, they make their own money and sleep with a guy they want to sleep with, instead of only sleeping with a man they dont like for money. We can't have women becoming philosophically fulfilled now can we? Then they might actually age gracefully and stop abusing their children because of their developed craziness.

[Frosty]

This is a good platform to start from for what I have been trying to get at, but what I am looking for as far as my original post, is what a woman can expect from a fulfilling, equal, philosophical relationship. A "universally preferable" model of relationship.

 

Because a prevalent issue with women today is they all think they deserve way more than they do, especially for being generally anti-philosophical creatures who get used to getting things handed to them and often never think about self development because of it. Studies from okcupid.com show that 80% of women go after only 20% of men, where as men have a more evenly distributed bell curve of who they go after. Women are the more shallow gender.

 

I think you're trying to inject too much thinking into what is fundamentally a biological process. Relationships stem from pair bonding and all the associated brain chemistry, you can intellectually understand that but I don't think you can somehow replace or supersede that with philosophy and behaviour based off principle. Philosophy might help you understand how people work and how to pick good partners to get a desired outcome but it can't replace the feelings you have when you pair bond with someone, people get into relationships first and foremost because it satisfies the biological urge to be loved and protected and gives them chemical rewards for doing so.

 

I'm aware of the OKCupid statistics, I've read a lot of their blog posts actually, they're enlightening. This again is bioloigical, it stems from womens sexual market value being naturally higher, eggs are in short supply and sperm isn't, women attract multiple suitors and they get to pick, so evolution has guided them to be naturally picky as a mating strategy, that ensures good genes propagate throughout the population. You'll note that 80% of women go after 20% of men but more than 20% of men will pair off, because while women are picky they're still in a market flooded with female competition and pairing with a lower status males is better than not pairing at all.

 

 

Can hot women lay back and do nothing and become nothing and just let gifts get trucked in while not having to work for it? Sure. It happens. 

 

Yep, just like women are shallow in who they'll pick for mates, men are shallow and are drawn to young attractive females who won the genetic lottery, if it's any consolation women only get this perk until about the age of 30 before they hit The Wall ™, some MGTOW pointed out a good example of this in recent pictures of the Olson twins here http://i.imgur.com/9JMet46.jpg

 

That is a philosophical NIGHTMARE however, where women are encouraged to become nothing and do nothing with themselves, and not only that, but they are so saturated with instant gratification, they never get to thinking about how unreal their situation is. 

 

A philosophical nightmare but a biological reality non the less, remember that the history of our genes have males being providers in the very literal sense of going out and doing the hunting and providing for a partner who would stay in the home and look after children, this is just a modern day expression of that.

 

 

The crisis has developed in modern times with the introduction of technology, because now a woman can satisfy pretty much all of her own needs without ever having a man around. Men have created this environment for women, and now that we have, women no longer appreciate men, or see value in them. This is especially problematic if they ever have children and have no husband or father figure around, which develops a plethora of problems in the children as cited several times by Stefan. 

 

Yes technology and the evolution of self awareness and consciousness allows creatures for the first time to really change their environment to suit them rather than simply adapting to their environment, forming civilizations has completely changed our environment and the pressures we have on evolution, no longer do disease and being handicapped really limit your ability to reproduce, what we have now is a social evolution where whoever can adapt to society the fastest are the ones who go on to reproduce. Remember that men have also solved a lot of their own problems, one of the biggest industries in the world is the pornographic industry, you can now experience virtual reality and be inside porn, be able to look around you and see it in full stereoscopic 3D, we have a huge sex toy industry, strip clubs, brothels, you name it.

 

 

And THEN, you add in things like feminist bullshit, media brainwashing, technological desensitization... where is the hope for humanity?

 

Primarily the hope is with social evolution, those people who can adapt to meet the new pressures of society will go on to pair off and reproduce and pass on the traits which were responsible for their success, when the environment changes dramatically a species evolved for a specific environment will start to do badly and they will suffer in their ability to reproduce, but that's a healthy thing in the long run, it's weeding out those who cannot survive and encouraging the genes of those who can, without that process we wouldn't be here.

 

 

I agree about biology on the survival level of the paleocortex, and the emotional level of the lymbic system. The neocortex, however, is a different beast entirely. Where as sex satisfies our paleocortex and emotional connections satisfy our lymbic system, the neocortex is fulfilled by higher qualities such as knowledge and philosophy. Without fulfillment on this level, how could a relationship ever have any real quality? Without it, a relationship is nothing but sex and food and emotions being robotically stimulated. Yes, plenty of women get by on just that. They also tend to find themselves unfulfilled, never satisfied and looking for something they don't even realize they are fighting against. 

 

Of course there's a market flooded with women (and men) looking for the "robotic" needs to be filled because these needs are much stronger and more universal, also the needs for knowledge and philosophy can be filled outside of relationships, that's why we come to the FDR forums and enter into discussions and debate. The chemical reward feedback systems in the brain don't really rely on higher brain function, in some senses it would be nice to have a very intellectual partner who is interested in philosophy, but that's not needed to provide a flood of feel good chemicals to the brain when you hug each other and be intimate together. There's no evolutionary driver to encourage these traits in people.

 

 

Agreed, the problem being that women are entitled to men caring about their emotions and expect to not have to care about a man's emotions. Men will go along with this until the woman loses her sexual value, creating the philosophical problem described above. Leaving a woman who does not care about your emotions when she loses her sexual value is justified in this situation, if there is no philosophical basis in the relationship. A philosophical relationship, I argue, would include the woman caring about the man's feelings as well, because that would still be there when the woman lost her beauty.

 

I don't know that you can decide to care or make an argument that someone should care that would actually make them care, I think either you're predisposed for it or you're not. You're longing for a philosophical system which sounds lovely but it's not based in reality, there are some unicorns out there and you might be lucky enough to find one, but we know that the popularity of philosophy and higher order thinking is not great, it's mostly just a fantasy at this point.

 

I think the TL;DR version of this is that what you're after just doesn't exist, there's no motivator for it, biology just works the way it does. Some people will never be interested in philosophy because they're simply not built to appreciate it. You're not alone in wanting a more balanced relatonship and wanting "better" qualities in women such as more virtue and definitely more intellectual interest in topics like philosophy but also in other people who mirror that interest, but it's just not the way things are or ever will be in our lifetimes outside of fairly rare exceptions. I resigned myself to that years ago.

[utopian]

We seem to be pretty much in agreement and on the same page, except that you see the philosophical issues and have resigned to it, and I have not. For god's sake, we are philosophers. Should we resign to a life unfulfilled? Should we resign to issues that exacerbate child abuse and loneliness? Should we allow humanity to go on undeveloped? 

 

The idea of resigning to a "relationship" where I pay a woman's way while she prudely avoids getting to know me to see my qualities and makes a philosophical mess of herself while her value declines and yet still expects entitlements from me, is insane. If so many women are like this that I have such a hard time finding anything better, than I have no problem "playing" these women. I certainly would not want to have the children of a woman like this. 

 

The sad thing is that, if I ever did find a unicorn, I would not know what to expect or how to treat her... which is why I made this thread.

[MMX2010]

 

 

The sad thing is that, if I ever did find a unicorn, I would not know what to expect or how to treat her... which is why I made this thread.

 

Crucial question: Do you believe that men who find unicorns actually find unicorns OR do they find decent women with adequate skills and craft them into unicorns? 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

 

Interesting thread.

 

I definitely support MMX2010's views.

 

 

Support? Why did you chose that word? I am not sure I am interested in what you "support," but maybe you can expand upon this. He has written so much that I am not sure what you are referring to, but am interested in what you meant because we haven't had much female input in this thread (other than Delightful Mind if I'm not mistaken).

 

Thanks.

[Frosty]

We seem to be pretty much in agreement and on the same page, except that you see the philosophical issues and have resigned to it, and I have not. 

 

Well I'm a realist and very pragmatic, I don't think there's anything we're going to do in the short term that will heavily over ride biology and create more philosophically minded women who are looking for deeper meaning in relationships. I understand the kind of woman that I'd consider having a relationship with (someone interested in STEM/philosophy/Atheism/Gaming) is generally speaking only something you find as quite literally an abnormality, women interested in these fields and subjects are those who tend to have had an over exposure of testosterone during foetal development, the kind of tom boys.

 

My advice is try and form a strategy to meet the kind of women you're interested in, FDR meetups might be good, I've never been to one, maybe take a philosophy night class or something like that, but I wouldn't expect any problems driven by biology to really ever be fixed and certainly not in the short term.

[MMX2010]

 

My advice is try and form a strategy to meet the kind of women you're interested in, FDR meetups might be good, I've never been to one, maybe take a philosophy night class or something like that, but I wouldn't expect any problems driven by biology to really ever be fixed and certainly not in the short term.

 

The FDR NYC Meet-Up has been in existence for approximately two years, and only one woman regularly attended.  That's no excuse not to try, but that has been my experience of them, in the largest city in which an FDR Meet-Up group exists. 

[Frosty]

The FDR NYC Meet-Up has been in existence for approximately two years, and only one woman regularly attended.  That's no excuse not to try, but that has been my experience of them, in the largest city in which an FDR Meet-Up group exists. 

 

Yeah it's brutal, the attendance of women in these kinds of things is never good. I have lots of intellectual interests as well as hobbies, all of which are sausage fests, trying to find like minded women is really a case of chasing unicorns, some of us will get lucky but the majority of men will be left wanting, it's just a statistical reality. That isn't going to change either and certainly not through philosophy, it turns out the more free a country is in terms of options for education for both men adn women, the more divided the job roles and interests, so liberty, freedom and the NAP really just help boost the gender separation of work, interests and hobbies.

[utopian]

Well I'm a realist and very pragmatic, I don't think there's anything we're going to do in the short term that will heavily over ride biology and create more philosophically minded women who are looking for deeper meaning in relationships. I understand the kind of woman that I'd consider having a relationship with (someone interested in STEM/philosophy/Atheism/Gaming) is generally speaking only something you find as quite literally an abnormality, women interested in these fields and subjects are those who tend to have had an over exposure of testosterone during foetal development, the kind of tom boys.

 

I mean don't get me wrong, I don't expect to find my unicorn. But I feel like my philosophy concerning relationships is well thought out, and that if she is not a woman worth having kids with, she is only good for playing. Sure, I will play the game, I may buy her a drink or so if I think I can get somewhere with her. My philosophy dictates I enjoy my life in every way possible while I have it, and that includes having sex.  But I will certainly never sign up with any of these women with any real investment. I will look for the unicorn while I play. My issue is, when I do find the unicorn, I don't know if I will know how to handle it. 

[utopian]

 

Look, Stef is talking about this stuff as soon as 3 days ago. About how boys are institutionally brainwashed into denigration from young ages. Stef is out there trying to get this into the public eye, we should be too.

[AustinJames]

Utopian: you have addressed an interesting series of questions.  What has been demonstrated in your life, as far as male/female relationships are concerned?  Do you have any role models regarding this ideal?  If so, what are they?  I'm deeply curious about what has influenced you to ask this question.

[utopian]

Mostly nothing positive. The best examples have always been fictional tales. My own parents were certainly a mess. My sister is pretty, and she pussywhips all of her boyfriends, reinforced by the craziness learned by my parents. She even sometimes treats me as if I will be just another pussywhipped guy, not seeming to realize her act does not effect guys not physically interested in her. 

 

I never let anyone push me around or fool me though. Once, I slept with this girl who seemed all too eager to get with me. She kept alluding to some kind of secret, and I just had a good feeling about what it was, so I "accidentally" told her about how well I do with the court system and legal battles, and that if she was in trouble I could probably help her. She spilled the beans, and sure enough, she was pregnant from another guy, and planning to trick me into thinking it was mine so I could take care of it. 

 

It has pretty much all been that level of craziness in one way or the other in my life, every time I have involved myself with a woman. I have no real examples of functional, loving relationships. For as problematic and crazy as women seem to be you would think men would be the ones to have to choose what women to allow relationships with, but women are too prude to initiate interactions with men, and think they are the prize. On top of all that, women never really care to get to know me, or are interested in what makes me a valuable guy. They're all dependent on wellfare programs trying to single handedly raise kids from relationships failed from their own stupidity, and/or prude materialistic older children expecting entitlements from me and never thinking they should give anything back. 

 

And some people may read what I write and think, you are just a misogynist. Completely not true. I have a lot of respect for women like Rhonda Rousey, the MMA champion. Marissa Meyer, the CEO of Yahoo. Even self described feminists like Nancy Friday, who wrote "My Secret Garden".

 

 

But where are the functional relationships? Where are the woman who can love? Where are the women who see the value in men, respect them and care about their feelings? I am so used to prudes, bitches and gold diggers that if I ever do meet a real sweetheart, I won't know how to treat her. 

[skibum]

Here’s a gear-changer: are women now fucking up at hypergamy too?

 

For me, I’m at a point where I’m not only questioning women’s shallowness and their hypergamous, dualistic sexual strategy, but their ability even to pursue that on any positive level.

 

I can level with women behaving in that suddenly well-documented manner now that I finally see it. Makes total sense, and without a red pill, I can rather forgive women for carrying on as their genes dictate. (Funny, in this regard feminism has been a red pill, forcing men take one as a suppository for their own supposed shallowness re: a woman’s heart and mind, there’s a movie about it for heaven’s sake, “Shallow Hal”.)

 

Imagine a female equivalent of that movie? Oh the howling haha.

 

Anyway, back to my point: I’m now questioning whether women are even capable of making even halfway good decisions in the shallow framework, let alone a higher minded philosophical one.

 

Here in the midwest, I see any number of combinations of girls latching to boyfriends very young and virtually never being single or open to opportunities. The hypergamy is often dialed down a notch it seems, or at least better veiled maybe?

 

The way they settle, so quickly, is incredible. We talk about the alpha idiots they supposedly fuck, then find the stable beta.

 

But they seem to be settling with guys who are more the alpha idiots Stef talks about up front, and frankly are super beta when I hear stories of their behavior in relationships as they progress. So they settle for some phony alpha attitude with a few accentuated alpha characteristics (or none), and hyper-beta lack of emotional self-control and assertiveness that I presume they hide early on.

 

What I feel like I’m witnessing is a sort of lesser alpha / higher beta like myself--and this could be full of projection and incorrect self-assessment on my part, certainly I realize that--is completely and utterly ignored or even mocked. Women seem to get off rejecting a guy like me, or better yet giving me their number and blowing me off. Can’t believe how many numbers or texts/messages or online emails never go anywhere or never get replies.

 

I think I’d be in that proverbial 20% you’d imagine on OkCupid as far as that survey goes, but I’m getting a sense that this 20% women are now chasing is some kind of metastasized, mutated hobgoblin of insanity as far as female choices and narcissism goes.

 

I guess, in one sentence, what I’m saying is: have women gotten so fucking dumb that they can’t even properly select alphas and betas anymore in the way that bloggers like The Rational Male, Heartiste, and folks in this thread are talking about?

[MMX2010]

I guess, in one sentence, what I’m saying is: have women gotten so fucking dumb that they can’t even properly select alphas and betas anymore in the way that bloggers like The Rational Male, Heartiste, and folks in this thread are talking about?

 

In a word: no.

 

It's not that women have gotten stupid, it's that these women are simultaneously very young and at the height of their sexual market value and they have no social / cultural wisdom with which to draw upon. 

 

If young women had cultural wisdom - (which, by definition, can only be acquired through interacting with virtuous, philosophically rigorous, empathetic men) - they could make much better hypergamous choices.  Also, if more men embraced hypergamy and conducted themselves accordingly, there'd "magically" be a much larger pool of wonderful men to choose from. 

 

In one sentence, "Women are smart; culture is dumb, and women-as-a-whole aren't smart enough to overpower a dumb culture." 

What I feel like I’m witnessing is a sort of lesser alpha / higher beta like myself--and this could be full of projection and incorrect self-assessment on my part, certainly I realize that--is completely and utterly ignored or even mocked. Women seem to get off rejecting a guy like me, or better yet giving me their number and blowing me off. Can’t believe how many numbers or texts/messages or online emails never go anywhere or never get replies

 

 

From the Roosh V Forum: "Why would this passive, self-loathing type want to be in a relationship with a successful, interesting, happy man?

 

Being the partner of a high value man would create expectations for her of having to raise her value to meet his: of working out; of dieting; of increased public-visibility; of needing to be socially-charming; of triggering that particular Millennial trait of craving positive attention whilst being threatened by the possibility of the potential negative attention that being noticed might bring; of living a more intense life with greater responsibility; and of the intimidating possibility of being taken outside her comfort zone and routine with the unpredictable passions of those who embrace living." 

[skibum]

You’re right I shouldn’t say dumb, but still wouldn’t we expect them to aim higher with that peak market value? (I wanted to leave this here more to play devil’s advocate now that I’ve read further and your explanation for their behavior made more sense with the Roosh quote, etc.)

 

----

 

Wow great quote from the Roosh forum. So I’m not completely making this up? Others are seeing this kind of trend where women are even rejecting what we would assume their evolutionary drives would make them prefer?

 

Do you, or anyone else, have links to material on that dynamic? Might be mental masturbation, but maybe it’ll help me find the way through to someone special.

To amend, maybe what I’m trying to say is that women’s idea of alpha, even in the shallow sense without my confirmation bias for MY traits being alpha...

 

Is women’s idea of alpha increasingly diminishing?

 

If we follow the logic of the quote from the Roosh forums, it’s more that they’ve decided that chasing that alpha is too risky, but not because he won’t commit, but because they’d have to challenge themselves. Although I suppose you’d have to challenge yourself regardless to get an alpha to commit if you’re a woman? Perhaps that’s the more sinister truth re: hypergamy and dualistic sexual strategy? It’s not that alphas are tough to tie down to raise your kids because they have options.

 

It’s that alphas actually require some fucking WORK on the part of the woman.

 

But the question still remains for me: wouldn’t their hypergamous nature sort of drive them to overcome their apprehensions and chase higher alphas?

 

What’s the difference between the shallow woman that settles or opts out a la Roosh forum’s thoughts, and the shallow woman that goes all out? Hotness? Or perceived hotness? Too many great looking women seem to hate high value.

[MMX2010]

You’re right I shouldn’t say dumb, but still wouldn’t we expect them to aim higher with that peak market value? (I wanted to leave this here more to play devil’s advocate now that I’ve read further and your explanation for their behavior made more sense with the Roosh quote, etc.)

 

We can hope for them to do so, but we can't expect them to do so without guidance.  I am glad that women have never been freer, but they've also never been less-guided.

 

 

 

 

Wow great quote from the Roosh forum. So I’m not completely making this up? Others are seeing this kind of trend where women are even rejecting what we would assume their evolutionary drives would make them prefer?

 

Do you, or anyone else, have links to material on that dynamic? Might be mental masturbation, but maybe it’ll help me find the way through to someone special.

 

To amend, maybe what I’m trying to say is that women’s idea of alpha, even in the shallow sense without my confirmation bias for MY traits being alpha...

 

Is women’s idea of alpha increasingly diminishing?

 

If we follow the logic of the quote from the Roosh forums, it’s more that they’ve decided that chasing that alpha is too risky, but not because he won’t commit, but because they’d have to challenge themselves. Although I suppose you’d have to challenge yourself regardless to get an alpha to commit if you’re a woman? Perhaps that’s the more sinister truth re: hypergamy and dualistic sexual strategy? It’s not that alphas are tough to tie down to raise your kids because they have options.

 

It’s that alphas actually require some fucking WORK on the part of the woman.

 

But the question still remains for me: wouldn’t their hypergamous nature sort of drive them to overcome their apprehensions and chase higher alphas?

 

What’s the difference between the shallow woman that settles or opts out a la Roosh forum’s thoughts, and the shallow woman that goes all out? Hotness? Or perceived hotness? Too many great looking women seem to hate high value.

 

 

I'm relating the story from memory, but this is how it went.  The Roosh Forum member I'm quoting is between forty and fifty, is extremely well-built, is into philosophy (no seriously: he reads classical philosophers like Aristotle), and is a very accomplished musician.  He had spotted this girl through an online dating site, and she was much younger than him...so say, twenties.  He has also bedded a ton of women, say 100+ (probably more, many of them in their 20s) 

 

And during this online discussion, (before they had agreed to meet), she began by linking him to her music.  It's amateurish and not very beautiful, but, hey, she's in her twenties, right?  She asks to be linked to his music, he refuses, she begs some more, he refuses, she begs again, he links her.  And his music is mature, rich, and awesome.  He's thinking, "If I display my superior musical ability, then she'll instantly want to be with me and learn from me, because she's interested in music and will recognize my superior musical ability."  Great evolutionary-based argument, right? 

 

But instead, she says nothing.  The conversation ends.  And he never hears from her again.  And he can't help but conclude that it was because his music was so awesome.  Rather than recognize his alphaness and attach herself to him, she recognized his alphaness and was disgusted by him. 

 

He concludes that this happens because of feminism, girl power, media, and cultural Marxism - which have created a generation of women who don't want to be upstaged by superior men.  They all believe that "they'll become famous one day, but it hasn't happened yet" - and they feel instant revulsion towards anyone who is better than them, especially a male. 

 

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

 

I haven't read this article, but I trust Roosh and the article's title.  Let me know if you found it helpful. 

 

http://www.rooshv.com/the-theory-of-evolution-does-not-apply-to-modern-human-beings

[utopian]

Here’s a gear-changer: are women now fucking up at hypergamy too?

 

Unfortunately I am quite certain women, certainly American women, are all kinds of fucked up in realms that I have yet to even consider. One of my biggest areas of study is the effects of media on women. Do you have any idea how many constant, opposing and damaging messages women get every day? And women are the more easily influenced gender. In all the confusion out there aimed at women these days, there seems to be one prevailing philosophy that, unfortunately, makes sense; don't commit to anything, because woman, you aren't smart enough to know if you can handle what you sign up for.

 

And so, women are pursuing this philosophy, while saturated in the media message that they are perfect goddesses who will find their prince one day, sitting at home watching the view not making anything of themselves, as their youth and fertility waste away. Technological desensitization is an art these days, and it is being performed on women so well, that they are not even noticing as they waste themselves out of the gene pool. Unfortunately, its making the rest of us miserable and lethargic as well, having to deal with these shells of women. I am not sure if anything will change, until, for whatever reason, the media pursues an agenda of trying to get us to make more babies. 

[MMX2010]

@skibum: If that hyper-long article on evolution was too long, here's a lovely (hah!) 3.5 minute song explaining the phenomenon.

 

Can you stomach Demi Lovato? 

 

[Frosty]

I mean don't get me wrong, I don't expect to find my unicorn. But I feel like my philosophy concerning relationships is well thought out, and that if she is not a woman worth having kids with, she is only good for playing. Sure, I will play the game, I may buy her a drink or so if I think I can get somewhere with her. My philosophy dictates I enjoy my life in every way possible while I have it, and that includes having sex.  But I will certainly never sign up with any of these women with any real investment. I will look for the unicorn while I play. My issue is, when I do find the unicorn, I don't know if I will know how to handle it. 

 

I don't have anything against having fun, I did that throughout my 20's, ultimately you kinda get bored of that, and there's also risk factors unless you're friends for a long time and know the person well.

 

Also consider how the unicorn might view your past actions of sleeping around and not really taking any of it seriously. This is the flip side of the coin, finding a unicorn is hard enough by any reasonable standards I don't realistically expect i'll ever meet one, but you also have to consider that they have to be attracted to you, and what that kind of person might be attracted to. Combine the 2 things and it's a perfect storm for it basically never happening. I certainly have no realistic expectations of meeting someone like that, as I've said before I think those kinds of women are rare because the normal biological traits for women aren't conducive to them learning philosophy and embrace critical thinking etc - it's certainly not that they cannot, it's merely that they don't seem interested or stimulated by it, like I'm not stimulated by pretty looking shoes.

 

In some sense the perfect woman is a man, most of the women who have come close(ish) to this in the past by at the very least sharing more interesting hobbies (working with computers, atheists, gamers, interested in science etc) have been these women who very obviously have that "male brain" they have next to no female friends and generally dislike female behaviour, tend to work in more technical fields, study STEM etc.

 

In a word: no.

 

It's not that women have gotten stupid, it's that these women are simultaneously very young and at the height of their sexual market value and they have no social / cultural wisdom with which to draw upon. 

 

This is an important factor. Women get all of their SMV right as they enter into the sexual marketplace around the age of 16, this makes them simultaneously the highest value they'll ever be but the least educated or experienced. As they gain experience and some self knowledge they age and lose SMV, by the time they're making more sensible decisions "no more dating the bad boys, I've learned my lesson, time to settle down" is a phrase you'll hear a lot, their SMV has dropped significantly not only are they likely to be post-wall but also the chance of healthy child bearing is going down as well.

 

Quick rant regarding that:

 

It's frustrating being a young man and having all these high value women strutting around, it's difficult seeing these people who have a lot of value, not because they worked hard at something, it was kind of inherited, or a bit like winning the genetic lottery. But I've noticed as I've entered my 30's that life as a man is now easy mode, good career, head of IT, lots of spending cash (I just dumped a load of cash last week on my first 4k monitor and a new 9.1 surround sound home theatre - woohoo) life is super stress free as a bachelor, work is going well and comforted by the almost certain fact that it'll only get better!

 

Where as I see a lot of my female friends around me entering into their 30's unhappy, unfulfilled, a lot of them with degrees in psychology and other fluffy worthless things who are doing care jobs that kinda go no where, struggle to earn a decent living a lot of them are mid to late 20's and still living at home or with a flatmate. A lot of them are bored of the partying from their 20's and remain generally unstimulated because they don't have any hobbies or interests. It's funny reading utterly shallow profiles on dating sites for women who's "interests" are things like Tattoos?! Muscles?! Shoes and shopping. How the fucking are tattoos interesting, they're completely shallow things to talk about.

 

I'm going to just go out on a limb here and say what I'm really thinking; women are fucking crap, haha. And now I'm at the age where their diminishing SMV is passing my increasing SMV I wan't to have less and less to do with them.

[MMX2010]

 

Quick rant regarding that:

 

It's frustrating being a young man and having all these high value women strutting around, it's difficult seeing these people who have a lot of value, not because they worked hard at something, it was kind of inherited, or a bit like winning the genetic lottery. But I've noticed as I've entered my 30's that life as a man is now easy mode, good career, head of IT, lots of spending cash (I just dumped a load of cash last week on my first 4k monitor and a new 9.1 surround sound home theatre - woohoo) life is super stress free as a bachelor, work is going well and comforted by the almost certain fact that it'll only get better!

 

Where as I see a lot of my female friends around me entering into their 30's unhappy, unfulfilled, a lot of them with degrees in psychology and other fluffy worthless things who are doing care jobs that kinda go no where, struggle to earn a decent living a lot of them are mid to late 20's and still living at home or with a flatmate. A lot of them are bored of the partying from their 20's and remain generally unstimulated because they don't have any hobbies or interests. It's funny reading utterly shallow profiles on dating sites for women who's "interests" are things like Tattoos?! Muscles?! Shoes and shopping. How the fucking are tattoos interesting, they're completely shallow things to talk about.

 

I'm going to just go out on a limb here and say what I'm really thinking; women are fucking crap, haha. And now I'm at the age where their diminishing SMV is passing my increasing SMV I wan't to have less and less to do with them.

 

To me, this looks like you've figured out that women need you, that women have always needed you because they're not biologically nor socially fit to learn things on their own, but that you're just not interested in being needed by them nor teaching them what they need to know. 

 

Not saying that's what it is.  Am saying that's what it looks like.  It looks like Nero with a fiddle. 

 

How do you feel about this? 

[Frosty]

To me, this looks like you've figured out that women need you, that women have always needed you because they're not biologically nor socially fit to learn things on their own, but that you're just not interested in being needed by them nor teaching them what they need to know. 

 

Not saying that's what it is.  Am saying that's what it looks like.  It looks like Nero with a fiddle. 

 

How do you feel about this? 

 

I don't think women need me, or any man, there's many independent women out there today but I just don't think they're very happy in that position, statistically men do just fine outside of relationships where as happiness in women has been steadily declining for decades. I never said they're not biologically fit nor socially fit to learn things on their own that is a pretty severe misrepresentation of what I said, I'm saying that young people are dumb (men and women equally) and women naturally get all their SMV early in one large lump sum, where men generally have to earn that over decades of hard work. That's just a biological reality which puts women at an advantage early on by getting all that stuff for free but it has 2 downsides, firstly they're the dumbest they're every going to be at that age, and secondly it's a jackpot with a timer on it and at 30 it's going away fast.

 

I've reached a position in life (I keep referring to this as easy mode) where income is way higher than I need, I have stability and future prospects, I'm only set to increase in SMV over time as I get more confident and more wealthy and have more self knowledge, and the more life is good the more I'm weary about selecting modern women into that who represent a bad deal at best and financial and legal liability at worst. As the SMVs cross women leave the realm of holding all cards in the relationship to the opposite being true, men statistically with more resources and stability and women with a biological clock and a penchant for wanting to avoid becoming the unmarried cat lady. As that balance of power tips I find myself less interested in the women who wasted their 20's, if they don't know basic philosophy by now and have some self knowledge then they probably wont ever have it, it's not my job to teach them that.

 

I don't know what "nero with a fiddle" means so I can't comment on that.

[MMX2010]

 

 

I don't know what "nero with a fiddle" means so I can't comment on that.

 

There's an apocryphal saying, "Nero fiddled while Rome burned.", which is pretty much what it sounds like.  Nero's the king, the city he rules is on fire, and he's playing his fiddle rather than exuding leadership.

 

 

I don't think women need me, or any man, there's many independent women out there today but I just don't think they're very happy in that position, statistically men do just fine outside of relationships where as happiness in women has been steadily declining for decades. I never said they're not biologically fit nor socially fit to learn things on their own that is a pretty severe misrepresentation of what I said, I'm saying that young people are dumb (men and women equally) and women naturally get all their SMV early in one large lump sum, where men generally have to earn that over decades of hard work. That's just a biological reality which puts women at an advantage early on by getting all that stuff for free but it has 2 downsides, firstly they're the dumbest they're every going to be at that age, and secondly it's a jackpot with a timer on it and at 30 it's going away fast.

 

I've reached a position in life (I keep referring to this as easy mode) where income is way higher than I need, I have stability and future prospects, I'm only set to increase in SMV over time as I get more confident and more wealthy and have more self knowledge, and the more life is good the more I'm weary about selecting modern women into that who represent a bad deal at best and financial and legal liability at worst. As the SMVs cross women leave the realm of holding all cards in the relationship to the opposite being true, men statistically with more resources and stability and women with a biological clock and a penchant for wanting to avoid becoming the unmarried cat lady. As that balance of power tips I find myself less interested in the women who wasted their 20's, if they don't know basic philosophy by now and have some self knowledge then they probably wont ever have it, it's not my job to teach them that.

 

We agree on all of this.  I just find it interesting that you MGTOW, while I seek out significantly younger women with whom to form friendships / romantic relationships with, because I know that they don't have many (or, more likely, any), philosophically-rigorous men looking out for them. 

[utopian]

I don't have anything against having fun, I did that throughout my 20's, ultimately you kinda get bored of that, and there's also risk factors unless you're friends for a long time and know the person well.

 

Also consider how the unicorn might view your past actions of sleeping around and not really taking any of it seriously. This is the flip side of the coin, finding a unicorn is hard enough by any reasonable standards I don't realistically expect i'll ever meet one, but you also have to consider that they have to be attracted to you, and what that kind of person might be attracted to.

 

 

There is validity to something you say here, but also, there are plenty of women, even virgins, who want the "experienced professional" in all aspects including sex. Go read 50 Shades of Grey and you will find Christian Grey, the character millions of women are swooning over, freely admits to the main character that he has paid for lots of sex. The main character seems to take it without so much as a blink. The real message being conveyed in the book is that he is incredibly experienced, and quite possibly the best at sex. There are women out there that would be repulsed, to be sure, but if a woman was not at least a little accepting of a man having sexual experience, she would probably be too much of a prude to be enjoyable anyway.