Gen X came of age as feminism and grrl power was just beginning to make its march to the apex of power it would become in the mid 1990s, but still to early for its man-hating values to wholly corrupt us and throw us into the pit of total nihilism that is Generation Zero (the Gen Ys/Millennials, anyone under 30). These young men are of another age, that of full blown feminism/secular/divorce-is-the-norm society. This group of young men generally find themselves in the Game camp and advocating passionately that it is the only option for men their age to approach life and women in the full-blown feminist blast furnace that they were cast into by their fathers. The not-quite-Baby-Boomers-but-close-enough-to-be-guilty-by-association (i.e. those men above 40 but under 55) are on the other side, the MRA camp. These men suffered the first salvos of a most brutal feminist divorce assault on marriage and the family in the 70′s and 80′s and have the battle scars to prove they were there. They were blind sided by divorce because this is a group of men that expected the same partnership and respect their Boomer fathers got from their mothers, with the caveat they would have to placate some whining/empowerment females with feminist head nods once in awhile of course to get laid. But things would be “ok” because things had “really not changed” that much after all, right? These men now know how wrong they were and are doing there best to warn the younger generation not to swallow the shit sandwich in their lunch box being offered to them today in relationship and marriage with and to a Western woman....This is an excellent point and one that needs to be understood by the pick-up artists and men's rights activists alike. The two perspectives are not intrinsically in conflict, they are different, but complementary aspects of inter-sexual relations. I fully share Maximus's outlook here, not because I am also a Gen-Xer, but because I am capable of a) recognizing a real and useful tool without b) mistaking it for a philosophy of life.
As a philosophy toward life, I will make clear my bias up front — I think Game and the PUA lifestyle is a misguided philosophy for man to ultimately live his life by. That said… I recognize the UTILITY of Game as a TOOL, a means not an end, to solving the problem of removing the feminist cancer that is bringing Western civilization down on its very knees. Game is the swiss army knife that will solve any problem that comes a man’s way and his biggest problem has been and always will be — handling women.
While Game, with its total and complete understanding of a female’s psychology and mating behaviour, has its successful adherents that clearly demonstrate the TRUTH of its claims, Game itself has NO AUTHORITY over what is a man, what is masculinity or how a man should rightly conduct himself on this earth.
Game… is not a philosophy of man.
This is the error Game advocates make. Much like a hammer is not a philosophy on how to build a house, what that house should look like, or why you are building a house in the first place. Game is a tool, nothing more. Game is not optimal. It will take a man in this fight against feminism only so far. Game will be the weapon of choice in the fight on the beaches for some men, but not all. Alone, Game will not take the feminist beach and move men inland to the heart of enemy territory — politics, education and that one time revered institution called “the family.” These are matters of philosophy, not utility.
Just because something is TRUE, does not make it GOOD or JUST or RIGHT in the moral sense. This is where Game advocates go right off the rails. They fail to grasp or comprehend the MORAL aspects of Game because, as a member of Gen Y, they grew up without any morals at all.
Attempting to live one's life by Game is like trying to live one's life by Austrian economics or correct free-throw shooting technique. It's not wrong, it is a category error. Knowledge of Game is useful regardless of your philosophical creed, your social objectives, or your sexual goals, and it is no more immoral than knowledge of physics. As is so often the case with science, the terminology tends to be somewhat confusing as the same word applies to the theoretical and applied concepts.
(I can just hear the anklebiters wailing now. No, not more neologisms! For the love of all that is warm, wet, and willing, not more neologisms! Very well, for the nonce I shall restrain myself. But don't say I didn't warn you that it will be needed.)
I don't think it serves any particularly useful purpose for the societally-minded to shake their fingers at the pick-up artists who elect to use their Game-derived powers for nihilistic and hedonistic ends. But by the same token, the pick-up artists should recognize that they are enjoying the music while Rome is burning, and that the fires will soon consume them as well. Not everyone is up for the burden of attempting to save the West from its women and those who have used them to destroy it. But the least we can do is to refrain from hindering those heroic, quixotic men who are willing to exert themselves in such an effort.
38 comments:
I think for the Roissy set, Game is the philosophy of life. If Game is a hammer, use it to hit a woman on the head, have sex with her, and move on.
White knighting. Rome WILL burn - there is no "heroic" saving it. To quote the man whose blog enlightened me to Game: "Enjoy the Decline"
Game may not be a philosophy of life, but any philosophy of life that denies game, that is, does not take into account female human nature, is poisonous to existence.
Had men 100+ years ago been cognizant of game instead of pedestalizers, female suffrage would have been headed off and perhaps the end of western civilization could have been prevented.
Now see, people like Anonymous are one reason among millions that I adore Mr. P. He has more foresight than a four-year-old, so it puts him above these guys already.
...C'mon, Vox, you gotta admit that taunting the nihilists serves the useful purpose of humor in these dark days. You're a leading Cruelty Artist!
Anyway, good distinction on tool vs. philosophy. One does get tired of hearing Game talked of as if it were some kind of religion (or cult). I truly wish we didn't need it at all.
One does get tired of hearing Game talked of as if it were some kind of religion (or cult). I truly wish we didn't need it at all.
But it isn't. That's the whole point. It simply is. Wishing that we didn't need it is like wishing that we didn't need gravity. Human nature has not noticeably changed in recorded history.
Country Lawyer, women's suffrage was not because of pedestalization. Some of the arguments may have savored of it, but the main purpose was to create a new bloc of voters who would strongly support socialism, which was on the rise at the time and very favored among the elite.
Do not be deceived. They knew precisely what they were doing.
Human nature has not noticeably changed in recorded history.
That be truth. Still, that doesn't mean one can't fantasize about a world where people aren't self-defeating morons.
When I first started reading Roissy I had already been reading Vox for some time. I also got married before reading Roissy. Looking back I recognize a number of mistakes I made early on in my marriage. Since I started reading Roissy I have been making shifts in the way I interact with my wife that I believe have made very positive changes in our relationship. That being said, once I threw out some remaining White Knight aversions to game, I viewed and utilized Game as a tool to improve a relationship I intend to remain in the rest of my life. God willing that I have sons, I intend to provide wisdom that my father was never able to impart to me (he died when I was 15, and looking back very much bought in to the liberal agenda and most of its horrid offspring).
The interesting thing here is the false choice.
Feminism and its destructive selfishness on the one hand, and Game and its destructive selfishness on the other hand.
Both are just a tool. Both, when taken to the inevitable conclusion of their paths, lead to societal destruction and degradation of mankind.
And both ultimately serve the purpose of the prince of this world. I must be careful using the Adversary's tool set (Game) in my own life. Much better to ensure my Game comes from my Master. Which is a masterful set of tools, attractive to the opposite gender, but with subtle differences.
"Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization."
"But the least we can do is to refrain from hindering those heroic, quixotic men who are willing to exert themselves in such an effort."
Are you wearing your Vox Quixote hat again? I guess you must be when you decided to have children.
You can complain and criticize all you want, folks, but unless and until you provide the guys living by Game with a superior systemic alternative, you're just circle-jerking yourselves.
Providing them better won't help. People will always tend to self-gratification above all else.
"Enjoy the Decline"
My goal is to never enjoy evil, not matter how "inevitable" it is at the time. I may not always be able to do a whole lot, but I refuse to go along with things just because I am told that is the only thing I can do.
I wish I had read more posts like this when I finally clicked through the link here from Vox's main site. This puts a lot more context.
A hammer can be used for good and evil. Just knowing how to bash someone's head in with it is not a good way to learn how to use it to build a house.
(Yeah, I know I could be told I missed a lot of things. Those things were very buried in the "use this to exploit women" focus that seems to be a big part of at least those things noted in the links on even the right part of this page.)
I may not always be able to do a whole lot, but I refuse to go along with things just because I am told that is the only thing I can do.
Folks who insist that YOU need to go along with it are usually trying hard to stop thinking about what they ought to be doing. Conviction is painful.
Stay stubborn, my friend.
Providing them better won't help. People will always tend to self-gratification above all else.
Except, of course, for how people's tendency towards self-gratification is one of the primary drivers that makes them choose something better ITFP.
So your counterpoint fails due to self-contradiction, and my assertion thus remains valid and accurate: unless and until you provide the guys living by Game with a superior systemic alternative, you're just circle-jerking yourselves.
They're not wrong or broken; they're just Going Their Own Way, and whyever shouldn't they? What's YOUR superior proposition? Why should they care at all what YOU want? What are YOU bringing to the table for them?
You can complain and criticize all you want, folks, but unless and until you provide the guys living by Game with a superior systemic alternative, you're just circle-jerking yourselves.
You failed to understand the point. They're not living by Game. There is no such thing. The criticism is the objectives they are using Game to obtain.
If they can't understand the concept of delayed gratification or the benefits of civilization, then they will eventually be doomed to the same sort of short and brutish lives of bestial hedonism that Man has known for most of human history.
But you're correct. It is ultimately a choice that each man has to make for himself.
What's YOUR superior proposition? Why should they care at all what YOU want? What are YOU bringing to the table for them?
Sustainable civilization. But again, it requires an ability to think beyond tomorrow.
Except, of course, for how people's tendency towards self-gratification is one of the primary drivers that makes them choose something better ITFP.
Not blind, short-term self-gratification of the sort you're advocating. That's like trying to argue that because capital is a necessary element of building a business, borrowing money always makes you wealthy.
The philosophical issue is not Game itself, which has correctly been identified as a tool, but how Game is used. It is a classic Prisoner's Dilemma. If the social gender contract (SGC) is upheld and observed by both sides, then men can use 'white game' (for lack of a better term - you know what I mean) and prosper along with society. However, when one side breaks the SGC, as in today's feminized society, then the correct response to maximize one's own benefit becomes 'dark game' (dark arts reference). Pointing out that this is bad for society is meaningless, as society is screwed anyway as long as the SGC remains broken.
Game is indeed just a tool, but until the SGC is sufficiently reestablished to the point that upholding their end makes sense to men, it is difficult to argue with the Roissian philosophy about how Game is and should be used.
Many of them are indeed living by Game. They're just living by other systems as well, some of which are imposed by force upon them by others. You don't seem to be including that in your analysis, resulting in your output errors.
So in fact, I understand that point just fine. The problems here are that
(A) you're still not addressing this point: http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/12/alpha-mail-on-terminology.html?showComment=1323106100004#c6326541728439845837 and
(B) it doesn't matter to my assertion whether what's being criticized is living by Game or the objectives towards which Game is being applied. The distinction is irrelevant because, again, unless and until you provide the guys living by Game/pursuing such objectives through it with a superior systemic alternative, you're just circle-jerking yourselves.
It pretty much doesn't matter what behavior of theirs you're criticizing or complaining about; they're Gamists, they process your complaints and criticism as just more pathetic, desperate attempts by pseudo-higher-status exploiters to make them put their standard male-issue choke-chain harnesses on again.
They may not comprehend it as consciously and explicitly as I do, but they know how agreeing with such requests has turned out for them and for others in the past, and they're not buying your 3-Card Monte pitches anymore. They think you're just trying to rip them off.
And so far, they'd apparently be right, because AFAIK you people haven't even bothered to think about investigating just the possibility of maybe trying to explicitly show them WWWWW&H their role in your "sustainable civilization" would be any different from the grinding destructive abuse they've, watched, heard, and felt their fathers and peers suffer their whole lives -- let alone they themselves.
They're choosing Game as a superior alternative because the internet's disintermediation is revealing to more and more of them that their contributory participation in your "sustainable civilization" is fundamentally and necessarily based upon them accepting a patently exploitative lowest-class social status and consequential standard of default self-sacrifice, both internalized and without objection to its enforcement upon them by others.
I suspect many of them are not only capable of delayed gratification and long-term thinking, but have done some, and have become focused on getting their transient sexual satisfactions ASAP as a direct result. They don't think your "sustainable civilization" can be saved; they think we're all riding the decline down, and they don't see you status quo promoters actually doing anything material at all yourselves about it. You only seem willing to try to talk other people into doing something about it for you.
So for them the bottom line here is that they've been so beaten down and abused from birth, and their social environments are so toxic and bigoted towards them that those short and brutal lives of bestial hedonism which seem so awful to you strike them as quite rationally preferable to your "sustainable civilization".
Vox: . . .blind, short-term self-gratification of the sort you're advocating.
Except, of course, for how I'm not advocating anything of the kind. The only thing I'm advocating here is that you start treating them as your equals to be compensated. So your comment is a strawman. And if you really believe so much in sustaining civilization, shouldn't you therefore acknowledge your rudely offensive mistake and apologize?
People forget that there is really nowhere else to go. When the ship is damaged and the boats have been shot up, you don't get drunk. You do damage control. Stop the leak, pump her dry.
Because it's a damned long swim.
<<>
What a crock of crud. They are just using that excuse to justify their hedonism.
How can you have anything built for the long term (even your own old age) when you are living only for the present?
This may be nothing different than gang bangers who already don't expect to live to be old anyway, so they want to live it up while they can.
That may be great for the short term pleasure, but it has very bad long term assumptions. It is especially hazardous if this life is not all the consequences we face.
====
The essay is quite informative to read. I wish I had seen that early in my time here. It is not perfect, but sounds much more balanced than the other things I have read.
His point about sex not being the only goal is right on. I got laughed at as being gamma here for objecting to glorification of taking a "hot girl's" virginity due to the use of game techniques. If that is the standard, civilization is doomed, no matter how many guns and how much food you pile up.
If it is all just manipulating others, we will have to collapse until something built on some form of mutual trust within groups, starting at families, is restored.
I would add that everyone should read the essay pointed to here. It will take a while, but lots of good things to think about.
Many of them are indeed living by Game. They're just living by other systems as well, some of which are imposed by force upon them by others. You don't seem to be including that in your analysis, resulting in your output errors. So in fact, I understand that point just fine.
No, you obviously do not. You don't appear to understand what Game is or the distinction between a social structure and a personal philosophy. You can no more live by Game than by gravity. Game exists. It is real. It can be utilized. But it is not a philosophy of any kind.
The distinction is irrelevant because, again, unless and until you provide the guys living by Game/pursuing such objectives through it with a superior systemic alternative, you're just circle-jerking yourselves.
It's not irrelevant. We are merely spelling out the consequences to the young and short-sighted. It is not necessary to point out a better route to someone's destination in order to tell him that he is about to drive into a tree. This warning doesn't even have anything to do with "ourselves", except in the "been there, done that" sense.
It pretty much doesn't matter what behavior of theirs you're criticizing or complaining about; they're Gamists, they process your complaints and criticism as just more pathetic, desperate attempts by pseudo-higher-status exploiters to make them put their standard male-issue choke-chain harnesses on again.
That's fine. In which case, they are too stupid and reactionary to communicate with. I don't spare any more thought for such men than I do for heroin junkies.
What you don't seem to understand is that I don't care what they do. If they're just useless sex junkies, that's fine. But it's perfectly clear that not all of them are, that some of them want more than another hit on the sex pipe. Even Roissy indicates as much.
Except, of course, for how I'm not advocating anything of the kind. The only thing I'm advocating here is that you start treating them as your equals to be compensated. So your comment is a strawman. And if you really believe so much in sustaining civilization, shouldn't you therefore acknowledge your rudely offensive mistake and apologize?
First, they're not my equals. They're the equals of barbarians running from one grass hut to the next, servicing the matriarchs. And if you're not advocating blind, short-term gratification, you're certainly defending those who choose that option.
And do stop whining. You're not a little girl, so don't be so delicate.
What is the difference between voting and otherwise participating in a corrupt political-legal system that cannot be saved, and 'manning-up' to try and save a social system that also cannot be saved? As someone commented on an economic post on Vox's other blog, you need an ash heap to get a phoenix.
I think that to advocate that young men stop living (and dying) by Game, one first needs to show realistically how the social gender contract can be properly reestablished.
Claiming that Game is a philosophy just means that one is just not smart enough to see the obvious.
A tool is a tool. Rationalizing it into something more is just a fool's errand.
A good example is mistaking Game for Hedonism.
"It is not necessary to point out a better route to someone's destination in order to tell him that he is about to drive into a tree. "
I think I will steal that and use it as my own quote.
I may credit a few it a few times, but that is a very good point. We don't need to give people different ways to get to whatever destructive goal they are headed towards. That is true in this or any other thing that gets discussed. The lack of an alternate path to the goal doesn't mean the goal is valid.
I'll add one other observation. I've been reading the various Game blogs for nearly a year, and noticed a schism between the PUA Game community and the Married/Courtship Game community.
Between this and Susan Walsh's site, I think it's become a full-scale rupture.
"Just because something is TRUE, does not make it GOOD or JUST or RIGHT in the moral sense" - Agreed.
But then the converse is also true, just because something prima facie seems good, just or right in the moral sense does not mean that something is true.
I believe that is the point of Game. Game is perfectly designed to "correct" the false premises upon which society is built today. The only question I do have is whether it really is necesary to do any "correction", because if we believe in the laws of nature, society should self-correct...nihil stabile quod infidum.
(I've been reading Game for almost a year now. I am happily married and do not intend having sex with other women. It does not mean I don't have any use for Game. I never paid attention to the socio-sexual order and its mechanics, but now do find it quite interesting since I have been shown "the system". I guess it also resonates with me because it is logical.)
Solo
I want to thank you for this post. I have been thinking about this very thing for quite some time now. I have broached the subject at Roissy and there are obviously men open to it. Others are just pissed and say that pursuing sex is a decent pursuit and a man can grow in this pursuit. I lack the ability to explain the position well and that doesn't help, but a lot of it seems to be that men are simply angry and are choosing the path of least resistance and short term happiness.
However, it goes both ways. There is a type of girl game that is also just a tool (more for a LTR than sex as a girl getting just sex is quite easy). Yet, I feel that woman need to dodge the tree as well but see no point in it . . . yet.
The thing I struggle with, especially as a woman, is do I attempt to spread my knowledge or just let them hit the tree? At this point what will be better? I don't know. Better to help a few? I guess that is what I have been trying to do, but I admit that I feel helpless when it comes to other women. Feminism is nearly an impossible wall to crack without slamming into that tree.
do I attempt to spread my knowledge
For an atheist, there is no reason not to just bang like hell, if there is no reasonable expectation - and there isn't - that the individual's behavior is going to reform the entire society. If there is going to be an argument, it will have to be a religious one. For Christians, it is that God's glory comes first and sin is sin even if everybody else is doing it. Everyone will have to answer for their own behavior at the Final Judgement. Women aren't worth that.
"If all you have is a baseball bat, everything starts looking like a kneecap."
Game is good. Game is great. You can -- if you must -- build a philosophy of life around it, if you try hard enough. Goddess knows enough other philosophies have been built around lesser material.
But Game isn't just a tool, it's an evolving tool. The Game a young man employs isn't the same Game a married man employs. And Game isn't going to get you ahead in life unless you're a gigolo or a Game blogger. At most it's going to make your mating more efficient and enjoyable.
Now, Game mixed with a healthy dose of mature wisdom about proper mate selection, that's where the payoff is. Combine the two and you've got superpowers. It might take you a few years to find the right girl, but if you can employ a dual strategy to find the kind of girl you envision, then you can avoid all of that messy and expensive divorce stuff that's going to consume all of the Blue Pill non-Gamers out there and get on with raising kids (or alternatively, buying a car that really pushes the envelope).
Everyone will have to answer for their own behavior at the Final Judgement. Women aren't worth that.
While this is obviously true I am talking about our happiness while we are here on earth. There is a freedom that comes to women who allow themselves to become submissive and I am pretty darn sure that the self actualized Alpha male has a freedom as well that other men don't experience. I am beginning to think that the "tree" might be the only thing that turns feminism around, but what about the individual lives that we might be able to better in the long run. And for those individuals, might their Eternal lives be judged differently as well?
While this is obviously true I am talking about our happiness while we are here on earth. There is a freedom that comes to women who allow themselves to become submissive and I am pretty darn sure that the self actualized Alpha male has a freedom as well that other men don't experience.
Because of the legal landscape, I think the risks are too great for LTR to be a reasonable option. Especially now that they are making merely staying together into a de facto marriage. Basically your only remaining recourse is murder. Sure, LTR can work for an alpha, just like you can win in the lottery. But expectation value is the important consideration.
I couldn't with a straight face argue that to someone who is already very successful at pumping and dumping that it would be better for them to commit, unless religious reasons made it necessary.
The Society of Game, not Society & Game.
Game is not much more than a rather silly and easy narrative game to play, and the socio-sexual hierarchy is created to be just that: a fun tool to put other men on a pecking order while spinning one's own beautiful narrative- or surrounding oneself mostly with the type of folk that'll provide the narrative we want in the first place throughout our lives, our own little society of game-players in all their delusional WOW-glory. Wonderful factual narrative, this.
Compare the resources found on the alpha game site:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/dating-market-value-test-for-men/
To the one on this site:
http://artofmanliness.com/2010/03/16/building-your-resiliency-part-v-recognizing-and-utilizing-your-signature-strengths/
Spend some time browsing the articles on each site, compare the stories of how dumb some women can be to the tips on restoring a vintage straight razor in an effort to create instead of consume.
Most day's I just ask, What the hell's the point? A site like the Art of Manliness, with all its gimmick and obviousness, seeks to bring us together in camaraderie and competition, in peace and in war. It's posts seek to give us the options and tools to be better boyfriends, better husbands, better fathers, better bosses, better leaders- not to carve out the pecking order of poon. Power is always going to be as complex as hell in all the possible scenarios where each set of signature strengths can shine in a world full of proactive men.
Let that sink in: proactive men. Ones who can be fathers, bosses, hermits, lovers, airforce pilots, authors, politicians, explorers. Hell, anything. Anything except the douche at the end of the bar figuring which woman to bang for the night, if not all of them. We're rightful embarrassed by such mere boys.
Vox uses terms like "civilization", but I still can't help but see the same blase community on sites like this and his own, a community one finds anywhere else on the internet, primarily in shockingly similar places like 4chan. We'll probably even get the similar and predictable catch phrases here shortly that it's not all about me and that I too can fantasize about sleeping with Vox all I want, instead of just disagreeing with yet having a good sense of respect for him.
This post is not to pursued you to switch to the Art of Manliness, but to challenge the community around this site and its authors thereof to more. Maybe game is just for boys still in search of their piece of the poon. I don't see that game says much about what to do after that- and a different society of men is called for to rebuild our nation and our world, one day at a time.
Anonymous,
You do miss the point, even though Vox has said it several times. This is not a "game community" site. This is not about a promotion of "Game philosophy", which is as Vox says a category error. It is just explaining the sexual realities of the men and women so one may make better decisions.
It's like saying a site on fighting techniques is a site that promotes violence. Understanding how the human body can be attacked and defended does not amount to a philosophy of violence, merely an understanding of the underlying physical truths which one may use for good or ill. Now I agree that sites like Heartiste/Roissy do also add a philosophical bent to the exposition of truth, which is of course mainly hedonistic and short-sighted, but the philosophy is not the same thing as the base truths of human nature which make the philosophy possible.
As a 46-year-old married Christian man, not looking to 'score', I am interested in better understanding the world my son and two daughters will grow up in. It is not always a pretty picture, but I would still grasp and wrestle with the truth in order to prepare them rather than live in blissful, willful ignorance as do most parents (as in "I'm sure the Lord is preparing the perfect mate for my child", or "when you meet the right person, it will just... happen!").
Believe me, I am also working very hard to inculcate traditional manly resourcefulness and self-reliance in my son, and have no intention of raising a douche party hipster. I just want him to be armed with the understanding that I had to figure out (somewhat incompletely, and later than I would have liked) for myself.
rycamor,
I haven't missed the point at all. Vox can say as many times as he likes that this is not a game community site (alpha game, remember. just forget its in the title at all) or that game is a tool not a philosophy.
I agree, it's a tool- a naive silly tool that is easy to use at the end of the bar. But it doesn't shed much light on anything and as far as I can tell, it encourages a yes-men community.
Look at the content here. Look at the content elsewhere. I can tell you where I would prefer my son to be spending his time- not worrying if he is the gamma in the room but focusing on the signature talents he has been given so that when the situation arises, he is the responsible man- able to lead himself and if needed, others.
This site produces, at best, a handful of platitudes. Embarrassing ones at that. The point, as far as I and several others can see, is to stick oneself some of that sweet poon.
Alright, I got it. Now what?
"I agree, it's a tool- a naive silly tool that is easy to use at the end of the bar. But it doesn't shed much light on anything and as far as I can tell, it encourages a yes-men community."
You don't seem to get it. It's a tool to try to better understand human (woman) nature and therefore is applicable to any relationship with any woman, whether picking a slut up in a bar or improving the relationship between a husband and wife. How one uses it is up to the individual.
Frankly, game alone doesn't make a man a man, but if it starts a guy on the road to being less mealy-mouthed-acquiesce-to-anything-to-keep-from-rocking-the-boat-and-upsetting-the-woman-"yes-dear" mentality, I'm all for it.
Now, out of curiosity, if this site is such a waste of time, why do you bother reading and commenting?
"less mealy-mouthed-acquiesce-to-anything-to-keep-from-rocking-the-boat-and-upsetting-the-woman-"yes-dear" mentality"
And here we find a nice compact way of telling a man to be proactive and stand his ground. No need for silly neologisms, arguments about who's the sigma, or simplifications of who's got the power at what time and is also willing to use it.
Some men just do not know how to change or worse don't know that they shouldn't act that way in the first place. They think women like it.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.