Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Susan challenges a concept

While she accepts a number of Game concepts, Susan Walsh is still dubious about female solipsism:
What evidence can you offer that “female solipsism” is not just another manosphere circle jerk?

The concept is only recognized by a handful of manosphere bloggers. Surely, a sound, tested and observed concept would be known outside the ‘sphere? As I said, there are many pages of results discussing solipsism as a philosophical concept without regard to gender. I daresay that when it was conceived, it strictly described men.

I have made a habit of digging into the source of certain claims in the ‘sphere, and what I usually find is a complete absence of intellectual rigor. Instead, there is a sort of high-fiving among male bloggers on principles that are completely unsubstantiated.

Unless someone can offer me some rational explanation for saying that women are especially solipsistic, I don’t accept it.

Metaphysical solipsism is the “strongest” variety of solipsism. Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other reality, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence.

Can you name a single instance where a female commenter disavowed the possibility of an experience different from her own? That her reality was the only possible reality, and that your reality did not even exist? That is what solipsism is.
First of all, I have to note that Susan is being a wee bit pedantic here when it really isn't necessary. Her definition of "solipsism" is accurate, taken as it is from Wikipedia, but is merely a subset of the entire meaning of the term and ignores the dictionary definition, which the Oxford English Dictionary provides as follows:

the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. the quality of being self-centred or selfish.

Dictionary.com also provides both philosophic and prosaic definitions:

1. Philosophy. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.


Now, since we are talking about female behavior, it should be readily apparent that we are not talking about metaphysical, methodological, or epistemological solipsism, but rather an observed predilection for egoistic self-absorption which occurs to such an extent that the woman's behavior makes it appear as if she subscribes to some form of philosophical solipsism. This is not to say she actually subscribes to it, as I doubt one woman in ten thousand, or one man in ten thousand, for that matter, would even recognize the concept. The point is that most women tend to behave as if they do.

The rational explanation for such behavior is easy enough to identify. Most Western women are coddled from childhood and are very seldom held to the same standards of accountability and responsibility that boys and men are, whether one considers sports, societal norms, or the law. This lack of accountability and responsibility, combined with their heightened biological susceptibility to emotion, causes most of them to behave in a self-centered manner which makes it appear they believe that their interests are the only ones that exist, their opinions are the only ones that can possibly be correct, and their observations are definitive of reality. This self-absorption also causes them to assume that the actions and comments of others are always directly related to them, a concept which is encapsulated in the popular feminist phrase "the personal is political", and often inspires them to assign the worst possible interpretation to the statements of others.

Now, none of this proves that women are actually solipsistic in the prosaic, rather than the philosophical sense. That will be demonstrated in a future post. But it should clarify what is meant when I, or other Game bloggers, refer to "female solipsism".

As for recognition of the concept, Game bloggers are hardly the first to observe significant differences in male and female behavior. After all, while Aristotle did not specifically note solipsism per se 2,360 years ago, he did mention the following: Woman is more compassionate than man, more easily moved to tears, at the same time is more jealous, more querulous, more apt to scold and to strike. She is, furthermore, more prone to despondency and less hopeful than the man, more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, and of more retentive memory.

My suggestion is that the solipsism concept helps explains the impotence of the dialectic for most women and their strong preference for the rhetoric. And, given the current state of hostilities on the part of various parties, I should underline that this is not a criticism of Susan, but rather a defense of an articulated concept. One need not always agree with someone to respect and be on good terms with them.

199 comments:

Heh said...

Can you name a single instance where a female commenter disavowed the possibility of an experience different from her own? That her reality was the only possible reality, and that your reality did not even exist?

Um, yeah. How about... you, just now!

Susan disavows the possibility that others have experienced women as intensely self-absorbed. For her, the reality in which women are not unusually solipsistic is the only possible reality, and other realities do not even exist (for the compellingly non-solipsistic reason that Susan doesn't accept them!).

Female solipsist denies the validity of the that females are solipsistic...

Oh the hilarity.

Heh said...

(oops)

Female solipsist denies the validity of the viewpoint that females are solipsistic...

Markku said...

It doesn't need to be exhaustively proven. Just introduce a man to the concept and he will immediately recognize it from his own experience.

Note: Asking your husband if women are solipsistic and having him answer in the negative is not a sufficient counter-argument for reasons that should be obvious.

Anonymous said...

This is the same woman who believes that studies on the self-reported sexual habits of female college students are empirically accurate.

What do you expect?

Anonymous said...

A question on semantics: in the sense and connotation that we're using, how is solipsism any different from garden-variety narcissism?

Nate said...

Just want to give some props for going with the Oxford dictionary. Good call.

alphamission said...

I was just thinking a while back on how solipsism has gotten glossed over lately in the manosphere. To understand female hypergamy and not female solipsism is to have a much smaller picture of the female mind

Mike C said...

One need not always agree with someone to respect and be on good terms with them.

Question for you VD...in the most generalized sense. Most if not all of the great philosophers have been male. I would loosely say that philosophy and philosophical discussion is about the search and attempt to acquire knowledge, understanding, and hopefully insight into truth.

The back and forth process in discussion is about traveling down that road to truth, not "winning the debate". With some women...for example the type you would find at Jezebel or feministing, it is clear that the search for knowledge and truth is immaterial. Any and all discussion is rhetorical in the service of "winning the debate" and achieving the personal/political objective.

How do you personally distinguish if someone is genuinely interested in truth and knowledge versus simply just engaging in rhetorical battle in service of "verbally winning".

JCclimber said...

I'd be open to a better working model to explain the repeatedly observed female behavior. Behavior observed in almost every female at work, at play, at home, in childhood, in adulthood, in old age, in their letters, in their school papers, in their internet posts, in their conversations, in their business deals, in their language choices in meetings, in ancient literature, in romantic literature, in popular culture, in the media, in politics, in the bedroom, in the kitchen, in organized social events.

I guess it is like fish swimming in water, they have been so wrapped up in their solipsism since they were infants, how can they possibly perceive it?

Besides, it is an icky and uncomfortable realization. Therefore to be instantly rejected emotionally, a priori, with a rationalization and emotional attack to follow.

Anonymous said...

Are you saying that men are never solipsistic?

Daniel said...

*donk*

Why am I suddenly picturing a zombie in an ambulance, getting on the radio and saying "Send more rhetoric."

Clearly the dialectic is ill-suited for you, Annie.

content with life said...

Speaking as a woman who reads Game blogs regularly (mostly for laughs), I think part of the issue is women who engage thoughtfully with Game are more likely not to be solipsistic. At least in the sense that Game bloggers regularly mean. If you are a woman who takes Game seriously, I think by definition you are less self-absorbed and more inclined to acknowledge a reality beyonds your own.

And when I say I read mostly for laughs, it's not that I don't agree. It's just some of the stories and sitations are laugh out loud funny to me. I can't imagine that there are woman (or for that matter, men) who do some of things I read about. It lets me know there is a whole world out there that I have no exposure to.

Daniel said...

Narcissism: excessive interest in or admiration of oneself and one’s physical appearance.

Solipsism doesn't necessarily involve admiration, and, more importantly, excludes the possibility that any other reality exists. In other words, the narcissist could believe that she's the most important thing in her world, but the solipsists believes she's the only thing in the world.

Narcissist is enchanted by her quality in the world, solipsists views the world through "me" colored glasses.

Obviously, out of groups of both kinds, there will be significant overlap, but, theoretically, you can be one and not the other.

Anonymous said...

Do you really want to shut down someone who is trying to understand and learn, and if so why?

Anonymous said...

I'll second this comment.

Daniel said...

Snowflaking: you used a personal pronoun to refer to yourself nine times in 2 paragraphs, and opened with a self-identifier.

Solipsism is intrinsic to the female, and for good reason: forgetting herself is bad for survival - it must be a conscious act of the will to do so, and at sometimes significant risk. For men, forgetting oneself is likewise important to survival.

Daniel said...

Acknowledge that that was an entirely unfounded question that you originally asked, and I might be persuaded that you are capable of understanding and learning.

But if you still consider that question to be legitimate, given the above content, then I'm pretty sure you fall into the "capable of rhetorical persuasion only" category.

Wendy said...

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Sure, some men are solipsistic, but it has been observed that women tend to be solipsistic in greater numbers than men and seem to have a natural tendency towards it. And sure, NAWALT but enough are for a noticeable pattern.

Anonymous said...

Then how do you explain the nurturing good women do for their families?

Anonymous said...

The parallel male characteristic would probably be "autistic", i.e. a lack of understanding of interpersonal or emotional subtleties

Daniel said...

That's not relevant to solipsism. I think you may not understand the concept.

After all, the most solipsistic woman on the planet would want to ensure that she was surrounded by a well-nurtured family.

It's not a handicap, after all - it is a trait.

Matthew said...

That question is a bit underspecified. Let's expand it:

* How do you explain the nurturing good women do for their families?
* How do you explain the actions perceived as nurturing and good that women do for their families?
* How do you explain the actions perceived [by whom?] as nurturing and good [for whom?] that women [which women?] do for their families [who perceives these actions as being done for the benefit of the family?]

There are a lot of assumptions here, so the question is unanswerable without an agreement on how to fill in the blanks.

* Who perceives the actions as being nurturing and good?
* For whom are these actions good?
* What set of women are performing these actions?
* Who perceives these actions as being intended to serve the women's families?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10:52 am:

"Then how do you explain the nurturing good women do for their families?"

This is not selflessness. Female devotion and nurturing to her family (especially her children) can be a hallmark example of solipsism. She devotes herself to her children because reproduction and securing resources for her offspring are respectively the female prime and secondary directives. Those two elements are a woman's very reason for being, the irreducible sine qua non of her existence. In serving those two directives, she serves herself and simultaneously justifies and validates her own existence.

deti

Doom said...

You would have an easier time getting water on board with the fact that it's all wet. Same same, but water has the reason of the science from which it is created. Still, I wish you many happy hours of softening your edge on firm but malleable timber. Women aren't of the reason of the science or spirit of their making. Thus men. But men don't, often, teach... they do. This women either resonate with or do not, but most do. And women merely abide, disagreeably often, but... usually only through marriage. That's another issue. Even men have difficulty with this notion at all times, some men even most of the time. Thus God. Women?

Ah, well, they can at least throw as well as males of their age, right? Well, the difference improves in time though? You just like playing with kittens. Oh, she is serious, for a woman. Kitten. You just can't train them though. But you knew this. Shut up.

Daniel said...

That's not correct. A parallel male characteristic might be "selflessness." It is, for example, why men tend to be drawn to team sports and building armies (for good or bad) and why they can get sucked into playing a woman's disqualification games.

SarahsDaughter said...

"NAWALT but enough are for a noticeable pattern." - Wendy

Yes, they are. As has been said, it's a trait.

Not all women lack logic, good judgement, and submissiveness.

Anonymous said...

The distinction between women being more absorbed in subjective experience and men more drawn to the objective and universal and more able to change their view and emotions based on the objective and universal is found in western philosphy all throughout history and in eastern philospohy all throughout history. As for scientific evidence Roissy had a post about a study that found women tended to base their morality on how they felt. Women based thier judgements on wether they felt sympathy or antipathy for those who had done wrong whereas men based their judgments on wether the actions of an individual was supposed to be punished acording to a norm OUTSIDE OF TEHMSELVES despite wether they themselves felt sympathy or antipathy for the individual case.

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/women-are-less-principled-
than-men/

Acording to David Brooks a ton of research into empathy and moral action has found that empathy overwhelmingly tends to lead to doing good towards those who we have subjective sympathy for (which tends to actually be in our self interest):

"Moreover, Prinz argues, empathy often leads people astray. It influences people to care more about cute victims than ugly victims. It leads to nepotism. It subverts justice; juries give lighter sentences to defendants that show sadness. It leads us to react to shocking incidents, like a hurricane, but not longstanding conditions, like global hunger or preventable diseases. "

People who actually perform pro-social action don’t only feel for those who are suffering, they feel compelled to act by a sense of duty. Their lives are structured by sacred codes.

"Think of anybody you admire. They probably have some talent for fellow-feeling, but it is overshadowed by their sense of obligation to some religious, military, social or philosophic code. They would feel a sense of shame or guilt if they didn’t live up to the code. The code tells them when they deserve public admiration or dishonor. The code helps them evaluate other people’s feelings, not just share them. The code tells them that an adulterer or a drug dealer may feel ecstatic, but the proper response is still contempt. "


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/brooks-the-limits-of-empathy.html?_r=1

The there is the post you did about a study that found brain differences showing that men used reason to override their emotions while women used emotions to override reason. If that is not proof of solipism what is?

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.no/2012/08/men-and-women-difference.html

Not everything has been studied YET. Most certainly in our feminist dominated society many, many, many things will not be reasearched because they contradict the feminist dogma too much and make people uncofmortable. That someone has not been studied yet, or is barely understood by anyone is not in any way proof that it is wrong. The only proof that it is wrong is if it has been researched and found to be wrong which it has not. Female solipism will be studied in the future as mansophere ideas spread to wider society but it has not been studied as a concept yet because peoples beliefs about gender are so influenced by feminism. That the science I pointed to strongly points in the direction of women being more solipistic gives every reason to belive that when it is in fact investiagted directly wether women are more solipistic science will show that they are.

Susan keeps using the same trick over and over claiming to want evidence for something and if there is no evidence that shows it is not true when in fact that only shows it has not been studied yet. She claims victory whenver someting has not been investigated while the only basis for claiming a victory is for what she wants to refute to have been investigated and disproved. It is a rethorical trick mentioned in every book about rethoric I have read. Don`t fall for it.

LS said...

Women tend to be more solipsistic because they are quicker to take things personally.
I've seen this scenario played out repeatedly. Try it and see what happens:

Woman: "Why is it that guys do that thing where they blah blah..."
Man: "Well, some guys just blah blah...

vs.

Man: "Why is it that women do that thing where they blah blah —"
Woman: "Not all women are like that!"


No one is saying "all" or "none".

The comment upthread — "Are you saying that men are never solipsistic?" — was written by a woman.

Stickwick said...

Nietzsche understood women pretty well:

Are you a slave? If so, you cannot be a friend. Are you a tyrant? If so, you cannot have friends. In woman, a slave and a tyrant have all too long been concealed. For that reason, woman is not yet capable of friendship: she knows only love. In a woman's love is injustice and blindness towards all that she does not love.

Thus does a woman's capacity to nurture coexist with a solipsistic nature.

Mike C said...

Stickwick,

I quoted you over at HUS regarding women not self-examining their internal processes for attraction (it was a comment left on this blog)

Here was her response:

"Whoa! This woman is abdicating the role of female selection! Men display and pursue, women select. A woman who does not understand herself will most definitely have a different outcome than the woman with awareness and insight into her own attraction triggers."

Stickwick said...

What was the gist of the comment you quoted? I'm not able to tell from (Susan's?) response.

VD said...

No, I am not saying that. But it appears to be significantly less common in men.

Mike C said...

http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-logical-fallacy-of-female-attraction.html?showComment=1346858262362#c4844847469754732785

"As a woman, I can tell you the vast majority of us do not wonder what it's like to be much more aware of one's internal processes, at least as they pertain to things sexual. Why would we? We are programmed to be passive in this regard. As pursuers, it conveys an advantage to you to understand your own inner workings and, to whatever extent possible, the inner workings of that which you pursue. The better you understand, the more likely you are to catch your prey. But as the pursued, our goal is simply to be caught by the most suitable predator. With that in mind, what advantage does it convey to us to analyze our own inner workings? It won't affect the outcome of the pursuit."

Stingray said...

Mike,

It sounds like Susan is talking about long term qualities and Stickwick is talking purely attraction. Two very different things.

Phronesis said...

Vox, I have to admit that of all the game concepts, this is the one I have the most trouble understanding. It's not that I don't see solipsistic women frequently. I just don't see why we need a separate concept to explain these facts other than woman's highly emotional nature.

For example, I was eating lunch with a group from my church, and some of the women started asking me questions about various Christian teachings. In response to some of my answers, all the women were (seemingly) able to engage in a disinterested pursuit of truth. However, when the conversation shifted to other topics, some of the previously rational women started giving very emotional, non-rational objections. Some women remained rational some of the time, but no women remained rational all the time. It turns out that, after getting to know these women better, each woman shut down rationally when the conversation came too close to some of their most cherished sins. They couldn't engage me intellectually because they could not discuss those issues abstracted from their own behavior. The men, while still sinners, did not display this same tendency.

My take on solipsism is that it is reducible to woman's emotional nature. Emotion, being rooted in man's animal nature, not only has the capacity to overwhelm rational thought, but also keeps him rooted in his own particular set of circumstances. Rationality allows man to transcend his particular circumstances and focus on arriving at truth, even if this truth leads to the condemnation of one's own actions. Female solipsism, then, would be nothing other than woman's more emotionally and less rationally inclined nature, which leaves her unable to transcend her particular world. This would explain why even women who score low on narcissism tests still tend towards solipsism.

Is there some fact that my account leaves out?

Rock Throwing Peasant said...

The concept is only recognized by a handful of manosphere bloggers.

Uh, what?

If anything, I think it's universally accepted and other points are debated.

I'm going back to

Mike C said...

Yeah, that is what I originally thought. A basket of traits that are good long-term qualities and a basket of traits that are purely attraction, but that is most definitely not Susan's position. I don't have time to find the quote now, but she clearly states that she believes what many would call the "beta comfort" traits to use Athol's term are in fact "attraction" traits.

I'll admit I've found the discussion over there vis a vis "female attraction" utterly bizarre.

Stickwick said...

Stingray got it right. My comment was framed purely in terms of biological attraction -- the key phrase was "at least as [our internal processes] pertain to things sexual." I didn't say that women should be guided solely by their sexual impulses, only that there is no motivation for women to analyze what it is that makes them hot and bothered about some guy. Women most certainly should cultivate self-awareness when it comes to making what should be rational decisions about sexual relationships.

If what you say about Susan is accurate, then she's wrong about comfort and attraction traits. If a woman places a high value on the former, it means she's selecting for LTR compatibility, but it doesn't mean she finds those traits "hot."

Kuraje said...

The narcissist by definition admires the self / has a grandiose view of the self.

While being just as, if not more egocentric than the narcissist, the solipsist may have an intensely negative opinion of herself. They can swing in either the positive or negative direction or (*drumroll) both.

Cue the paradox of the fiercely independent victim.

Joe Blow said...

Narcissim: Jerking off to your own picture.

Solipsism: Thinking everybody else wants to, and not understanding why they don't.

Rollo Tomassi said...

My God, the irony writes itself.

Aunt Giggle's entire echo chamber of blog is a monument to feminine solipsism. From her blatantly evident censorship of ideas, to her insistence on repeating the aphorisms of the feminine imperative that border on echolalia, to her conspicuously obvious lack of comment participation on any blog where others would disagree with her, to her entire online existence is a testament to the fact that women define their very reality based on individuated experiences.

My guess is she'll fall back on the same inane dictionary definitions of solipsism (knowing damn well in that context it's an internalized concept) that she uses for hypergamy. Susan is in denial of the highest order but she's too committed to the trail to permit any thought enter her head that doesn't substantiate that denial.

Aunt Giggles isn't interested in a concrete definition of feminine solipsism. How do I know? Because she's been using the topic as easy content for her site for almost a year now:
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/duplicity/

"It’s endlessly entertaining (and predictable) to see how often women’s (and feminized men’s) default response to anything they disagree with in regards to gender dynamics is met with a personalization to the contrary. It’s always the “not-in-my-case” story about how their personal anecdotal, exceptional experience categorically proves a universal opposite. By order of degrees, women have a natural tendency for solipsism – any dynamic is interpreted in terms of how it applies to themselves first, and then the greater whole of humanity.

Men tend to draw upon the larger, rational, more empirical meta-observations whether they agree or not, but a woman will almost universally rely upon her isolated personal experience and cling to it as gospel. If it’s true for her, it’s true for everyone, and experience and data that contradict her self-estimations? Those have no bearing because ‘she’s’ not like that."

Anonymous said...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/men-and-womens-difference-personality_n_1194613.html

Not directly related but of interest to the people here.

Anonymous said...

Yes your right, that comment was written by me a woman, as an inquiry not a recoil. And yes I am an hypergamous emotional female who took a few hours to step away from this tread to calm down. I am greatly intimidate by the quality of knowledge I've encountered here so it took alot for me to even ask the question and don't know if I will find the courage to do it again. I will say this if there is an intrest in the manoshpere to change things then "face slamming" someone who asked a question into the mat is not the way to go about it. It seems "some" would rather rant then do something about the problem. Thank you for you civil replies Matthew, deti and LS.

Zorro said...

Females believe that their opinions are facts because they sincerely believe their opinions. And that's a fact.

"Women are always the worst victims of war. Women lose their husbands, sons to combat." --Hillary Shit-For-Brains Clinton

Men lose their lives, but women are the worst victims. Do you seriously need more evidence for the innate mental fragility of women?

Stickwick said...

This probably isn't a good example. If you ask a man whether it's worse to die or to live on after his son and/or wife have been killed, he'd probably pick the latter. Does that make him a shit-for-brains bastard? I can't imagine the sheer heart-ripping pain of living on after losing my husband or son in some brutal fashion. I think this is what the Lizard Queen was trying to convey, though she phrased it rather obnoxiously.

SarahsDaughter said...

"Face slamming" ?

Shit, sign me up for the rainbows and unicorns world you live in if that was face slamming.

Giraffe said...

The smartest woman in the world* didn't realize that fathers also lose their sons. Solipism.

* Referring to the LQ, not you.

SarahsDaughter said...

The lizard queen was spewing the same crap military wives are always fed.
I threw away the sticker I was given that read: "Army Wife - toughest job in the Army" Complete bullshit. Sadly it took a whole lot of truth from my husband to get this kind of crap out of my head.

Stingray said...

Army Wife - toughest job in the Army

I saw one of those the other day while I was out driving. I was very grateful I was not drinking a hot cup of coffee.

Daniel said...

He's not, but he definitely would be if he said that he's the worst victim of the tragedy that took his wife and child.

Would he prefer to be the one to die? But not because he's thinking of the grief he would suffer.

That's the difference.

That statement is a good example of solipsism that is also stupid. Another solipsistic thing (that isn't necessarily stupid) that she could have said is: "Women - wives and mothers - are the silent victims of war." It ignores entirely the fact that dead men are also silent, and centers the locus around her self-centered view of reality.

The non-solipsistic thing to say would have been something like: Women who survive the loss of their son or husband to war face an invisible battle of their own.

The fact that you can't imagine the pain of surviving your husband's untimely death but fail to mention the unimaginableness of the pain that your husband would suffer is solipsism. (Again - I'm talking about a trait difference between men and women - this isn't a criticism.)

A man simply doesn't think that way: he can't stand the thought of his wife suffering a brutal death, with her knowing he left her unprotected and undefended. He doesn't think about how hard it would be to suffer as a survivor. His first thought and first grief would be that he failed to shield his wife from suffering.

Two scenarios:

Thoughts at the bedside of husband dying after trauma:

Woman: I can't imagine surviving this. What am I going to do?
Husband: What the hell is she going to do? Who will protect her?

Man's thoughts at the bedside of wife dying after trauma:

Man: Stop her pain. Protect her.
Wife: Why isn't he doing something?

In both instances, the woman displays solipsism, and the man does not. This is not a critique: just the way things are. Her solipsism, after all, is a mechanism by which she naturally seeks union with a good man - not something to be "broken" (anymore than a woman's hypergamy or emotional rationalization can or should be "broken").

Obviously there are snowflaktional exceptions, but I don't know any in my circle. Solipsism must be accepted before it can be mastered - otherwise you end up applying it stupidly, like the Clinton quote above.

Daniel said...

Let me clarify that: his first grief would be that she suffered. The second grief would still be centered on her - that she suffered because he was insufficient.

Stingray said...

Anonymous,

Don't stop commenting and don't be intimidated by the knowledge here. You just need to be careful of how you word your questions. These types of blogs are often visited by woman who come in with fists flying with no intent of listening or learning. They have a pretty common style of rhetoric. When you want to ask a question for the purpose of learning, state it simply and leave off things like "Are you saying . . .?" or, "So . . .". If you had asked, "Are men solipsistic, as well?" or "Is there a difference in male solipsism and female solipsism?", you would have gotten a different reaction.

Most of what you are reading is not ranting. It's how men speak to each other and how they learn from one another. For those who do rant from time to time, they've been through very bad experiences and are here to make sure it does not happen again.

Ask away and learn.

Daniel said...

That slogan was thought up by a Jody whose girlfriend dragged her teeth...

marellus said...

True

Stingray said...

Daniel,

I have no idea what you just said . . . : )

SarahsDaughter said...

A Jody is a man who "comforts" the poor, suffering dears while their soldiers are deployed. The rest has to do with a man's favorite pastime.

Stickwick said...

The smartest woman in the world* didn't realize that fathers also lose their sons. Solipism.

Yeah, I thought of that later. She could have referred to spouses / parents, and not just women.

He's not, but he definitely would be if he said that he's the worst victim of the tragedy that took his wife and child.

True, which is why her statement is so obnoxiously phrased. Personally, I would feel worse for the man who was left behind than for the wife and/or son -- he's going to suffer more than they did -- but you're right that it's kind of grotesque to claim that he's the worst victim. So, I get the idea behind what she said, but to phrase it that way is insulting to the men who gave their lives.

At this point, I'll concede that LQ's statement does fall more on the side of female solipsism than not.

mmaier2112 said...

I absolutely LOVE that Sarah's Daughter is the one explaining this...

SarahsDaughter said...

I've had to explain it many times over the years of being a family readiness group leader for various Army Battalions - both parts.

BC said...

All one has to do to answer the question of whether women in general are solipsistic and men are not is to look at male vs. female voting patterns. Men tend to vote for justice, even when it disadvantages them. Women tend to vote for 'fairness' or 'equality of outcome', especially when it advantages them. Single women tend to vote for the state and socialism as protector and provider or resources they don't have or have difficulty getting on their own, whereas women married to responsible providers tend to vote conservatively to protect the resources they already have within their grasp.

Translation: It's all about them.

The belief that women's suffrage is one of the worst things to have ever happened for the future of society is largely derived from an understanding of female solipsism.

CL said...

What a waste of time. It's all SWUT (Susan Walsh Unknowable Truth).

"I have my own truth, and you have no right to judge it as a lie, because you don’t know what it is."

alphamission said...

@Vox: Its rather interesting that you just recently defended Susan Walsh to us, and now you post this. After this, why should Susan Walsh be considered an ally to our cause?

CL said...

Answer: She shouldn't be.

Anonymous said...

Here's a comment from a blog post which, as amply demonstrated in one of the replies, completely dismisses the possibility of another woman's reality in favor of the writer's own.

http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com/2012/09/anonymous-letter.html?showComment=1347859217140#c625878730091483445

The comment basically boils down to, "Your experience is not mine, and therefore your experience does not exist."

Susan Walsh said...

Female devotion and nurturing to her family (especially her children) can be a hallmark example of solipsism.

I have no words. Can't win for losing.

Susan Walsh said...

@Stickwick

If what you say about Susan is accurate, then she's wrong about comfort and attraction traits. If a woman places a high value on the former, it means she's selecting for LTR compatibility, but it doesn't mean she finds those traits "hot."

Women seek more than "hot" for long-term mating. In fact, David Buss (godfather of evo psych) lists these traits as attraction triggers in his seminal text Evolution of Desire. Note he does not distinguish between "hot" and "comfort" traits:

ECONOMIC CAPACITY

Females prefer males who offer resources:

Resources have to be accruable, defensible and controllable by men.
Men differ from each other in their holdings and willingness to invest them in a woman.
Advantages of being with one man outweighed advantages of being with several men.

SOCIAL STATUS
AGE
AMBITION AND INDUSTRIOUSNESS
DEPENDABILITY AND STABILITY
Undependable people provide erratically and inflict heavy costs on their mates.
INTELLIGENCE
COMPATIBILITY
SIZE AND STRENGTH
Women prefer men who display physical and athletic prowess.
GOOD HEALTH
LOVE AND COMMITMENT

The single most powerful predictor of an attractive female partner is Occupation.

Susan Walsh said...

There is no motivation for women to analyze what it is that makes them hot and bothered about some guy. Women most certainly should cultivate self-awareness when it comes to making what should be rational decisions about sexual relationships.

I'm sorry, these two statements appear to contradict one another. Can you explain?

Susan Walsh said...

@Phronesis

I just don't see why we need a separate concept to explain these facts other than woman's highly emotional nature.

I suspect it boils down to this. Of course, women's highly emotional nature is critical for mating and the survival of offspring.

Anthropological biologist Helen Fisher has found in her research that men seek emotional intimacy in marriage more than women do. Women have it with their friends, while for men, a wife is often the only source of emotional intimacy.

Philalethes said...

I've always thought our lovely Lizard Queen said that because she shares the near universal female view of war as something men do for mysterious reasons of their own -- after all they do seem to enjoy it so -- without ever thinking of how it affects the poor women and children who happen to be unlucky enough to get in the way. Thus, since men "do" war of their own free will and volition, they certainly couldn't be called "victims" of war. (If it weren't for men, of course, there would be no war, just perfectly peaceful villages raising children forever.)

Susan Walsh said...

@Marellus

Oh, you fickle male. I note your traitorous leanings.

Susan Walsh said...

So glad to add to Rollo's wanking stash...

Stickwick said...

Women seek more than "hot" for long-term mating.

Of course they do. I've never stated otherwise.

I'm sorry, these two statements appear to contradict one another. Can you explain?

A woman may find certain aspects of a man sexually appealing -- his swagger, his aloof attitude, etc. -- irrespective of his viability as a LTR prospect. She may also find other aspects of a man comforting -- his integrity, his gentleness with children, etc. -- irrespective of his sexual appeal. I'm saying it serves no purpose for a woman to analyze why she finds swagger and aloofness sexual turn-ons. She just does, and either a man's got 'em or he doesn't. However, it does serve her well to rationally examine a man's overall suitability as a LTR prospect. Does he have the comfort traits that are important to her in a LTR? Is she sexually activated on him? Etc.

To tie this in with my original comment, if being sexually activated by a man is important to a woman seeking a LTR, she doesn't need to know why she's sexually activated by him, just that she is. The "why" is irrelevant, because it would be exceedingly difficult for a woman to change what turns her on. However, it is feasible for a man to change himself so that he is more appealing to a woman. A man who wishes to do so has to understand the nature of both women and men -- it does help him to know not only his own inner workings but those of women in order to increase his appeal.

dice3510 said...

1 in 10 000? I'm flattered because I am familiar with the concept; but that would mean the average MENSA member is not. I'd say more like 1 in 10 could not recognize it.

Huggums said...

I didn't realize anyone had trouble with this concept. Probably the only game concept I don't understand is women's attraction to psychopathy or completely emotionless men. I can understand an attraction to equanimity but psychopathy? I don't understand what this indicates. What advantage does this grant?

Kathy Farrelly said...

Well, CL I have discerned more integrity, introspection and honesty in Walsh, than I have in some of the female weather vanes floating around the interwebz.

Walsh's blog too, has men and women engaging in rational debate and civil discourse..(This is why so many men comment on her blog.)

Unlike some other bloggers who just like a good rant and a rave, calling out others, and pouncing on their faults and failings, while oblivious to their own. Their rationalization hamsters working overtime in the process. ;)

Anonymous said...

Susan he said CAN BE not is. Learn the difference.

Joshua

Steve Canyon said...

Does Susan Walsh have kids? While there's no "cure" for female solipsism (or narcissism), having kids does tend to dampen the phenomenon a bit. She'll at least put her children first, herself second, and men last.

A single woman might look at a charge of being solipsistic as "Your experience is not mine, therefore your experience does not exist" while a woman with children would say "NAWALT! I can't be solipsistic! I put my kids first!"

Anonymous said...

I'm with Rollo. This is hilarious. And embarrassing.

Men have been fully aware of the self obsession of womankind since the dawn of time, starting with Eve, a fine example of female solipsism if ever there was one...

alphamission said...

Your very comment is evidence of your solipsism.

Jack Amok said...

Yeah, I thought of that later. She could have referred to spouses / parents, and not just women.


But you know she almost certainly would never have done that, right? What use would it be to her to make a statement that relegated women to the same status as men? "People suffer in war, even the ones who survive." Hard to find a justification for whatever boondoggle Wymyns program she was selling in that. It's the old "World Ends Tonight: Women and Minorities Hardest Hit" joke.

Jack Amok said...

Mimetism. Evolutionary mimicry. Women are attracted to traits that indicate socially powerful men who could provide well for their offspring, but their sensors are fallable and can be confused. Becoming socially dominant is difficult and fraught with risk, so some genetic lines instead selected a path of mimicing perceived traits of social dominance. Socially dominant men are capable of cruelty when necessary (e.g. ordering the death penalty for a dangerous criminal, or sending men under their command into battle), and are able to remain in control of their emotions while doing so.

Women's tingle sensors simply mistake the psychopaths for socially dominant men in the act of wielding power.

Jack Amok said...

Most any father who has spent time with the parents of his children's classmates will be familiar with the solipsism of the mother who lives through her children.

She fosters the belief that she has made her children the center of her world, but the truth is she has injected herself into the center of everything her children are associated with.

Not All Mothers Are Like That. Wait, excuse me, not all mothers are like that. Lower case, to emphasize I really do mean that only some mothers are like that. But I get the sense that nearly all mothers could be like that, and it takes a certain amount of wisdom and willpower for a mother to avoid falling into that habit.

Wisdom and willpower. Great things, those.

AnonymousManosphereBlogger said...

The concept of solipsism became completely clear to me while attending my grandfather's funeral.

My uncle's eulogy was all about how great of a father, husband, golfer, career man and was well liked and well respected by most who knew him.

My aunt's eulogy was all about she had loved him, and was really greatful that she had a chance to travel and spend a lot of time with him in his last year of life, and how she had great conversations with him and how she never really knew him her entire life until she spent all that time with him as he was slowly dying. She regretted all that lost time and wished she had spent more time with him when he was younger.

Now replace all the "she's" in my last paragraph with "I's", and that was essentially her eulogy, mixed in with tears at the appropriate moments.

"My biggest regret was that I never spent that much time with him when he was younger and I was so busy with my own family..."

I was sitting in the front pews of the church during the funeral, and I was grieving and mournful....and listening to her self-absorbed eulogy made me laugh inside. I remember thinking to myself: "Now THIS is what the eternal solipsism of the female mind looks like!"

VD said...

Because a failure to recognize a single Game concept is not indicative of an individual's objectives. Susan's primary objectives still run mostly in parallel with most of the androsphere's objectives, even if they are not identical.

Anonymous said...

Yoga philosophy (or psychology in this case) describes the function like this:

"Ahamkara takes on partners: This wave of "I-am-ness" called Ahamkara then aligns itself or forms partnerships with the data or impressions in Chitta (causing them to be colored, or klishta), and, in turn, with Manas [the lower mind], which then responds to the desires being sought by this "individuality." Meanwhile, Buddhi, the deep aspect, which knows, decides, and discriminates, remains clouded. Thus, it is said that purifying (or un-clouding) buddhi is a most important task in the path of meditation and Self-realization."

Anonymous said...

"Some women remained rational some of the time, but no women remained rational all the time. It turns out that, after getting to know these women better, each woman shut down rationally when the conversation came too close to some of their most cherished sins. They couldn't engage me intellectually because they could not discuss those issues abstracted from their own behavior. The men, while still sinners, did not display this same tendency."

Yeah. Shame/guilt often shuts down all attempts of self inquiry (or analysis of the outside world).

Peter Garstig said...

I always remember this wonderful quote, but can't remember who said it:

"When I see a man, I see someone looking out a window. When I see a woman, I see someone looking into a mirror."

Sums it up quite good. For women, all the world is reflected to herself first and foremost.

Cail Corishev said...

The solipsistic mother is represented by the line we've all heard and read in numerous dating profiles (let's say it together, you all know the words): "My kids are my life."

She means it. Really means it.

Anonymous said...

If beta traits created tingles and not just comfort women would go for one night stands/short term mating with men based solely on this and not just alpha traits, looks etc.

Vox said...

I am greatly intimidate by the quality of knowledge I've encountered here so it took alot for me to even ask the question and don't know if I will find the courage to do it again.

If you have a question, then ask it. Don't worry about the ensuing sideshows, only concern yourself with whether you received the information requested or not. Fear of criticism is not a good reason to remain ignorant.

And Stingray is correct. "Are you saying..." is the way that many men and women begin a rhetorical attack that is not a genuine question. I did not read it that way, but it is easy to understand why some did.

(Note to those who did: if it is a simple question, it's not a rhetorical attack, it's just a question. If the question is immediately followed by criticism of the assumed answer, then it is usually a rhetorical attack.

Markku said...

Susan's list comes after the first question: "does he provide gina tingles?" Only if the answer is yes, do the rest of them come into play. Women might still end up disqualifying a man based on them (especially if the woman's SMV is very high), but never qualifying a man who fails at the first question.

Susan Walsh said...

The "why" is irrelevant, because it would be exceedingly difficult for a woman to change what turns her on.

Actually, female attraction triggers are quite malleable. This is why small towns produce just as many marriages (or proportionally more) than cities do. Familiarity breeds attraction - this is well documented.

American women need to find a way to hit the Reset button. In the same way that ED is common in young men due to porn (25% of college males have some performance difficulties), young women's triggers have also become desensitized. It takes more dominance today for a man to generate the tingle than it did even 20 years ago.

Rollo Tomassi said...

Your myopia precedes you.

Kathy Farrelly said...

Er yeah.. alphamission.. Really insightful comment. Almost as good as CL's cheap SWUT comment..

Kathy Farrelly said...

VD has a very balanced approach and can see both sides.. Unlike some others who are short sighted and cut off their nose to spite their face, ;)

Markku said...

I suspect that it is a combination of female emotional nature AND the fact that even extreme self-absorption has very little negative consequences for women in modern society. If fathers and friends were to deal with that kind of thinking as harshly as they do with men/boys, the female emotional nature would probably immediately give a warning "This kind of thinking will result in you being very sad soon if you were to verbalize it" when such a thought occurs. In order to avoid such unpleasantness, the mind would probably train itself to think with a wider perspective.

Robert said...

Somehow, I get the feeling that the whole discussion of the unsuitability of 'solipsistic' female thought processes opposed to those of the 'rational' male overlook a very important concept - men and women 'co-evolved' to be complementary. I am a pretty rational 'think things through' kind of guy, but I rely heavily on my wife's intuitions, as I believe they reflect an ability to see the emotional impact of my decisions on our family and on our community, that is to say, those people who are emotionally important to us, better than I can.

Selfishness manifests differently in men than it does in women. I want to avoid the word 'solipsism' because it is a technical philosophical term and can better be replaced by 'self-absorption'. A self-absorbed man is most likely absorbed with his goals and purposes to the exclusion of anyone else's. A self-absorbed woman is most likely to be concerned with her own feelings and emotions to the exclusion of anyone else's.

Self absorption is endemic in the modern West because we no longer live in face-to-face communities, but trapped in some kind of awful hologram where images are continually being projected onto the screens of our attention by parties entirely unrelated to us. Gnostic media such as the Internet exacerbate rather than ameliorate this. Symptoms of this are 14 year old girls baring their breasts on the Internet, but also the constant self-referential anime videos my son posts on You Tube. Hits are the currency.

I wonder what a 'couple-absorbed' couple would look like. It has been a while since I have been around one, if I ever really have. It is where the man is fixated on the woman to the exclusion of all else and the woman is fixated on the man to the exclusion of all else. Although I am certain that the arrival of children would radically alter its dynamic, it seems to me that a couple like this would have a very high survival capability. That is to say, a couple who successfully negotiated their complementarity [polarity?] would have a larger degree of success in seeing their grandchildren's children prosper and expand 'vis-a-vis' the descendants of those who were not so successful in maintaining and cultivating their complementarity.

Markku said...

men and women 'co-evolved' to be complementary

If they did, then how long have their surroundings have included all this equality business, and would evolution have a reasonable chance of causing adaptation in that time frame?

(Rhetorical questions)

Susan Walsh said...

Thank you for saying so articulately what I have been trying to convey. This is exactly the point. Here is my own (clumsier) version of the same principle, left yesterday on my own blog:

To be honest, I think that there are differences between women and men. We are generally less analytical and more emotional. I do not deny that, and I also don’t disparage it because we have evolved for reproductive success, and men probs wouldn’t want to bang logical and analytical women much. Research shows that men rely heavily on their spouses for emotional intimacy in their lives. That is a good thing.

...I have no problem being honest about female nature. I’m on record as saying that if shit tests and hypergamy and all the rest of it went away, we’d be dodo birds in no time. La difference is the energy that creates friction and sparks sex.


I focused more on the sexual aspect of reproduction, while you focus more on the long-term relationship survival, but the point is the same.

You also make an excellent point wrt media, and the way young people experience it. Social media is extremely self-referential, and both sexes routinely use it to gaze in the mirror rather than through a window.

Twenge and Campbell have done a lot of work on the rise of narcissism in our culture. While narcissism and solipsism are not the same thing, there is considerable overlap in the area of self-centeredness. Here are some highlights from their research on college students, from a post I wrote on the rise of female narcissism:

Historically, 75% of those diagnosed with NPD have been male. However, researchers who have recently studied narcissistic personality traits in the American population say it’s an epidemic, increasing just as fast as obesity since the 1980s, and that much of the growth comes from women. Twenge and Campbell, authors of The Narcissism Epidemic, studied 37,000 college students (2006) in an effort to understand modern levels of self-involvement:

1. In 1982, just 15% of college kids scored high on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, but that number has risen to 25%, largely due to a greater number of narcissistic women.

2. In the 1950s, just 12% of respondents agreed with the statement, “I am an important person.” By the 1980s, 80% felt special.

3. In 1967, 45% of American students felt that “Being well off is an important life goal.” By 2004, 74% agreed with that statement.

4. Nearly 10% of 20-somethings are thought to have NPD, and it’s estimated that 26% of people now in their twenties will have developed NPD by the age of 65.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/06/28/relationshipstrategies/20-identifiable-traits-of-a-female-narcissist/

Anonymous said...

"I have no words. Can't win for losing."

Believe me. I know how you feel.

deti

Daniel said...

Additionally, I'm fine with stupid questions, even if they are answered by simply re-reading the posts, but never trust anonymous comments. Anonymity reads like a mob and is the last bastion of the armchair rhetorician.

If your question is innocent, don't don a ski mask.

Cryan Ryan said...

Great conversation today.

The comparison of the eulogies given at a funeral - one by a man - one by a woman - illustrates the whole concept quite well.

Being a boomer, I have attended a number of funerals - and have given eulogies - and it is clear that women view a death as a tragedy because of how it affects HER.

SHE is sad about the death. SHE was shocked to hear of the suffering. SHE cried at the news....etc etc etc.

My own dear grand daughter fits this picture perfectly. She is an exceptionally bright young lady, manages money well, is a responsible young married mother, etc etc.

But you would think every death she hears about is a reason for HER to tell people how SHE feels about the sadness...etc.

Try an experiment. Next time someone dies, make it a point to listen to what the women say...

Just listen.

CL said...

There's plenty beyond that one Game concept that's wrong with Susan Walsh, which Rollo has covered well enough; but to each his own.

SarahsDaughter said...

Precisely, Markku.

The mistake is made in thinking a woman who's brain has been trained to think with a wider perspective is no longer solipsistic. Or that a woman who uses logic in discussions is no longer an emotional thinker. She first chooses, cognitively, to recognize self absorption versus altruism and rhetoric versus logic. Then she begins to train her own brain (assistance from others helps). As with anything else, time and a conscientious focus are essential.

Of course the biggest hurdle is getting a woman to be honest with what goes on in her own head. You think women lie to others a lot, you'd be horrified to know how much they lie to themselves.

Mule Chewing Briars said...

@Markku -

If they did, then how long have their surroundings have included all this equality business, and would evolution have a reasonable chance of causing adaptation in that time frame?

About as long as contraception has been around. That was a rhetorical reply.

Anonymous said...

" I can't imagine that there are woman (or for that matter, men) who do some of things I read about."

This is feminine solipsism as defined by the manosphere. Its the concept of "I haven't experienced it personally, therefore it doesn't exist."

There might be no hard science proving it's existence, but the frequency with which women resort to retorts such as "That isn't the way my friends or I act" are proof enough for me. Even the canonized trope NAWALT is really just a thin veil over what she really means: I'M not like that.

Kathy Farrelly said...

Rollo?

Is he some infallible oracle?

VD: "Susan's primary objectives still run mostly in parallel with most of the androsphere's objectives, even if they are not identical."

Well said..


CL: "There's plenty beyond that one Game concept that's wrong with Susan Walsh,"

Okay, lets hear it then!







Stingray said...

Vox, have you considered chronological comments here? The comments section is growing larger and it is much more difficult to follow the conversations with nested comments.

Vox said...

Not a bad idea. I'm not a big fan of nesting. However, looking at the Settings: Comments on Blogger, I don't see any place to change the arrangement. Any advice?

Anonymous said...

|This is feminine solipsism as defined by the manosphere. Its the concept of "I haven't experienced it personally, therefore it doesn't exist."

Oh come now! If you'd read the full comment, in the very next sentence she says "It lets me know there is a whole world out there that I have no exposure to."

RTFA before replying!

Susan Walsh said...

There might be no hard science proving it's existence, but the frequency with which women resort to retorts such as "That isn't the way my friends or I act" are proof enough for me. Even the canonized trope NAWALT is really just a thin veil over what she really means: I'M not like that.

Isn't NAWALT or INLT a rational response to AWALT?

AWALT is obviously gross generalization, which is necessarily highly inaccurate. Shall we say that the manosphere indulges in gross generalization re female nature? As opposed to, say, viewing traits on a spectrum or within a bell curve?

Kathy Farrelly said...

"Aunt Giggle's entire echo chamber of blog is a monument to feminine solipsism. From her blatantly evident censorship of ideas, to her insistence on repeating the aphorisms of the feminine imperative that border on echolalia, to her conspicuously obvious lack of comment participation on any blog where others would disagree with her, to her entire online existence is a testament to the fact that women define their very reality based on individuated experiences."

What a mouthfull of pretentious gobbledegook!

Sounded good, but, eh? Blinded ya with science didn't he?



Susan Walsh has for some time now, struck me as a very tolerant person, allowing a myriad amount of opinions and ideas on her blog.

She even gives PUA's their head (pun not intended! ;) ) If it had been my blog I would have given some of these guys the flick from the get go. Not Susan, she let these young bucks have their say, even though she disagreed with what they said.

She is interested in listening to differing views.. As long as the discourse is civil.

The nasty epithets( directed at Susan) coming from certain quarters, I put down to jealousy and envy of her good natured and positive disposition. And, she draws a crowd ..

Remember this is a woman who has been happily married to a man she deeply loves for some 25 years or more.. And together they have raised a couple of well adjusted kids.. Must be doing something right!

Pretty hard record to match.

Wouldn't you agree, CL?

I have been reading her blog for some time now, and I find Susan to be a genuinely decent person.

Of course I don't always agree with everything she says, either, but I respect her because she treats others as she herself would like to be treated... With dignity and respect.

VD said...

Isn't NAWALT or INLT a rational response to AWALT?

It depends. In most cases of AWALT, people are speaking rhetorically, not literally. In such cases, it indicates a degree of pedantry, not solipsism. Where solipsism - or perhaps a simple failure to understand the nature of statistics - is indicated is when a general statistic is cited as evidence of AWALT and is subsequently contradicted by a specific and personal example of NAWALT.

Note that this is usually NOT the case when men are disputing social science. This is because they have an articulated rationale for doubting the validity of the science, a rationale which is not only based on a core Game maxim, but has actual scientific support.

Susan Walsh said...

Note that this is usually NOT the case when men are disputing social science. This is because they have an articulated rationale for doubting the validity of the science, a rationale which is not only based on a core Game maxim, but has actual scientific support.


That has not been my experience at HUS. I look forward to the R-U-Solipsistic test.

Rollo Tomassi said...

Generalization

n 1: the process of formulating general concepts by abstracting common properties of instances [syn: abstraction, generalisation] 2: reasoning from detailed facts to general principles [syn: generalisation, induction, inductive reasoning] 3: an idea having general application; "he spoke in broad generalities" [syn: generalisation, generality] 4: (psychology) transfer of a response learned to one stimulus to a similar stimulus [syn: generalisation, stimulus generalization, stimulus generalisation]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0


Generalization gets a bum rap. The term ougt to be used in the way it was actually intended - drawing hypothesis and conclusions from a greater, general whole of observed behavior. Pay close attention to #2, "reasoning from detailed facts to general principles [syn: generalisation, induction, inductive reasoning]." I am sorry if this process offends you, but the manosphere is interested in the general Rule, since it, and not the exceptions to it, better help to predict an outcome.

Like it or not generalizations are useful and we use them all the time to see the forest for the trees. It's not isolated abnormalities in a system that we use to describe the circumstances of that system, it's the whole. We study majorities to assess overall condition, not isolations. That's the scientific definition of generalities, but when they refer to things that are close to women's mark they tend to put themselves into the generalization and cop the "not-in-my-case" menality. They'd like to think that their experiences are unique and special (and they are, to them), but in the generality they're simply statistics. So the word 'Generalize' gets a negative connotation and the person using it is vilified, because it's an afront to those "special" conditions.

Anecdotes is not the plural of data.

Anonymous said...

I agree with VD: when men say things like AWALT, we aren't speaking literally. Susan, you mention bell curves, and I think its fair to say that when men speak of "all women" they're really speaking about the vast majority that are "on the curve." Its just a lot simpler to say "all" than it is to say "all except for the .1% outliers." Men lean towards communicative efficiency.

Stingray said...

Men are going to speak differently at HUS than they do at other men dominated sites. At HUS they are joining a conversation of women. This different dynamic forces a different type of conversation using very different words and phrasing of ideas. These same men will converse with a group of men, regarding the same subject in a very different manner than they will when women are present.

A very large part of the reason for this difference is because of women's solipsism. We see the world from our own perspectives first (many will only see it that way). It is after is goes though this filter that some will see it from a different perspective. So, men knowing this, will phrase things so that we can relate to it from our perspective and then hopefully broaden this perspective beyond that.

jso said...

no, that isn't what autism is or means.

Stingray said...

Is there "Layout" or something similar in the Settings? It could be in there.

ar10308 said...

The first Solipsism ever recorded:

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from [a]any tree of the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5 For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate."

Notice how Eve alters God's command by adding "or even touch it" to the end of it?

Stingray said...

Vox,

I think this is it. It's at the end of the article.

Rollo Tomassi said...

I covered feminine solipsism ages ago in War Brides:
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/war-brides/

Evolution has largely selected-for human females with a capacity to form psychological schemas that preserve an ego-investment that would otherwise afflict them with debilitating anxiety, guilt, and the stresses that result from being continuously, consciously aware of their own behavioral incongruities. Evolution selects-for solipsistic women who are blissfully unaware of their solipsism.

Given the harsh realities that women had to endure since the paleolithic era, it served them better to psychologically evolve a sense of self that was more resilient to the brutal changes she could expect be subjected to. Consider the emotional investment a woman needs to put into mothering a child that could be taken away or killed at a moment’s notice. Anxiety, fear, guilt, insecurity are all very debilitating emotions, however it’s women’s innate psychology that makes them more durable to these stresses. Statistically, men have far greater difficulty in coping with psychological trauma (think PTSD) than women. Why should that be?

Men are the disposable sex, women, the preserved sex. Men would simply die in favor of a superior aggressor, but women would be reserved for breeding. So it served a feminine imperative to evolve a psychological flexibility to cut former emotional ties more readily (in favor of her new captor) and focus on a more self-important psychology – solipsism.


Huggums said...

Really? Faulty tingle sensors? I suppose.

Daniel said...

What are you trying to win, Susan? Do you think solipsism is an evil or sinful quality?

Because it isn't, even if it can be used as a vehicle for bad things. It is simply a trait: not something you are going to personally win or lose at, whether you are correct or incorrect in your understanding of it.

Sarah's Daughter is correct, below: awareness of solipsism will not (and, in my opinion, should not) result in the elimination of solipsism, but it should result in the improvement of the application of solipsism.

alphamission said...

You swept in defending Susan (and yourself by proxy), almost as if Vox and the commenters were talking about you. As if we were not talking about you at all, but you were compelled to make clarifying rationalizations anyway. That's solipsism.

Cail Corishev said...

Yes, NAWALT is a rational response to AWALT. But no one ever says AWALT, so NAWALT is used as a distraction instead.

If I'm talking to a rational person, I can say "birds fly," and he'll know that I'm stating a general truth, and not insisting that ALL birds everywhere throughout the history of the universe have flown. He won't say, "There are TOO flightless birds; haven't you ever heard of ostriches?" We'll be able to have a conversation about the flying-ness of birds without getting dragged down by irrelevant exceptions.

Vox said...

I think this is it. It's at the end of the article.

Thanks, Stingray. That did it. Apologies to everyone who was following the nesting, but this should work better going forward.

Stingray said...

NAWALT is a form of female competition, as well. Inherently we know that NAWALT, but it is necessary to say it about ourselves as we must set ourselves above all the other women out there. This need to satisfy the competitive mode outweighs the inherent knowledge of NAWALT.

Also, there are a couple of things that are indeed, AWALT. Solipsism and hypergamy spring to mind immediately. They are on a sliding scale, however and can be controlled to a certain extent. I do not believe they can even be eradicated in an individual.

Vox,

Glad that helped.

CL said...

Remember this is a woman who has been happily married to a man she deeply loves for some 25 years or more.. And together they have raised a couple of well adjusted kids.. Must be doing something right!

Pretty hard record to match.

Wouldn't you agree, CL?


Yes K, you are entitled to your own opinion.

Dr. Jeremy said...

Vox,

Thanks for bringing this debate to my attention. You can find my reply and thoughts on my own site here:

http://attractiondoctor.com/social-gender-issues/solipsism-is-one-gender-more-selfish-than-the-other/

Susan Walsh said...

Men are going to speak differently at HUS than they do at other men dominated sites. At HUS they are joining a conversation of women. This different dynamic forces a different type of conversation using very different words and phrasing of ideas. These same men will converse with a group of men, regarding the same subject in a very different manner than they will when women are present.

This is incorrect. There are more male than female commenters at HUS. The unique quality of the blog is a lively debate among a very diverse group of people, including both sexes, radfems, MRAs, and PUAs, as well as people just interested in discussing gender dynamics.

We see the world from our own perspectives first (many will only see it that way).

I disagree that this is unique to women. It may be that women are more emotional, and therefore bring that emotion to their interpretation of the world. It's a good thing too - imagine a world of nothing but logic.

Men are more likely to view something analytically, but they too interpret events through their own perspectives. Also a good thing. Imagine a world of nothing but emotion.

It really is about complementarity. What is problematic, in my view, is the gender antagonism fomented by accusations of "flaws" or "faults" in either sex. I encourage everyone to read Dr. Jeremy's post on the matter, it is very well done and thoughtful.

For anyone who doesn't know, Jeremy Nicholson is a psychologist who blogs at his own site as well as Psychology Today. I would describe him as friendly to Game.

Susan Walsh said...

What are you trying to win, Susan? Do you think solipsism is an evil or sinful quality?

Win? Haha, not a thing. I am trying to satisfy my own intellectual curiosity about the use of this term in the manosphere. I was struck when I went to learn more about solipsism that I could find no mention of females until page 9 of the Google results, which was a post by Private Man. When I Googled "female solipsism" the first 9 hits were Game blogs. I found that curious.

As to the nature of solipsism, I find the terms evil and sinful hyperbolic. Since Vox uses the "egoistic self-absorption" definition, I think it's fair to say most of us would not wish to be described this way.

Susan Walsh said...

If I'm talking to a rational person, I can say "birds fly," and he'll know that I'm stating a general truth, and not insisting that ALL birds everywhere throughout the history of the universe have flown.

Precisely. I reject "women are egoistically self-absorbed" as a general truth. Or at least, any more than men are.

Mike C said...

Men are going to speak differently at HUS than they do at other men dominated sites. At HUS they are joining a conversation of women. This different dynamic forces a different type of conversation using very different words and phrasing of ideas. These same men will converse with a group of men, regarding the same subject in a very different manner than they will when women are present.

This is incorrect. There are more male than female commenters at HUS. The unique quality of the blog is a lively debate among a very diverse group of people, including both sexes, radfems, MRAs, and PUAs, as well as people just interested in discussing gender dynamics.


Susan,

How you can make this statement with a straight face?

I believe it was the other day you characterized my commenting style as "confrontational, and accusatory". Clearly, you doing so is an attempt to get me to change my verbal style to match what you consider a more "acceptable tone" and thus confirm exactly what Stingray is saying.

I'll be honest and frank...this is the sort of thing that gets me wondering because it seems so disingenuous. The fact of the matter is Stingray is absolutely right. Now it is your blog and you have every right to do what you want, but you have taken a very active role over the last 12 months to do exactly what Stingray is saying, change the nature and tone of male participation at your blog. This stretches from things like banning Rollo and Yohami, to going after me every single time you think I've overstepped in tone. I'm not stupid..I recognize the many attempts to shape how men participate there. You've scolded Ted D a great number of times about it not being a place for therapy or to digest the red pill, or why are middle-aged men complaining about this or that.

Again, its your blog, your rules, and you have the right to shape the overall environment, but please don't insult my intelligence that you very much are attempting to direct how men comment there.

Susan Walsh said...

NAWALT is a form of female competition, as well. Inherently we know that NAWALT, but it is necessary to say it about ourselves as we must set ourselves above all the other women out there.

I have noticed that some females supplicate on some of the male blogs in this manner. In my experience, NAWALT is generally a response to a gross overgeneralization.

Athol had an interesting post on this:

The Manosphere can be a black hole sucking in all your happiness and positive thoughts can’t escape it.

Most of the Game websites view women exactly as you say, as “exotic pets” and they give advice as such. Frankly though if women really are exotic pets, you shouldn’t mess with one at all.

...if women are essentially dangerous wild animals, divorce and cheating are essentially assured unless you relentlessly manage their behavior. If that were truly the case, my advice would be to buy a Fleshlight, a ten-foot-pole and the highest quality streaming porn money can buy.

Both men and women have biological drives toward a primary pair bond and opportunistic sex. Both men and women have modern socialization, education and intellect. Both men and women have access to technology that can gain some degree of control over sexual outcomes. Both men and women have rationalization hamsters.

What most of the Manosphere advises assumes that the male is conscious (“Takes the Red Pill”) and the female is unconscious. What I generally seem to find happening with MMSL is both men and women become conscious.

Mike C said...

I have noticed that some females supplicate on some of the male blogs in this manner.

Stingray, you are just a big supplicator to the da menz :) BTW, you hate your sex as well, and wish you were born a man.

Susan Walsh said...

@Mike C


Fallacy Based on Appeal to Ridicule

Sarcasm is always hostile. Ridicule, sarcasm, and the “horse laugh” are the persuasion techniques of bullies. Appeal to ridicule tries to convince you to accept an argument in order to avoid becoming the butt of the joke. The laugh might be at the person (see “Ad Hominem,” above) or at his position (see “Straw Man,” below). Whether it is blatant or subtle, ridicule essentially denies discussion.

CL said...

@Susan Walsh

So the vague sour grapes appeal to supposed "supplicating females" on male blogs is not an ad hominem fallacy; making fun of said appeal is. Gotcha.

Anonymous said...

Actually, female attraction triggers are quite malleable. This is why small towns produce just as many marriages (or proportionally more) than cities do. Familiarity breeds attraction - this is well documented.

I don't think your stat proves what you think it does. Familiarity breeds compatibility, not attraction. Marriages, moreso than STRs and ONSs, are about compatibility.

Mike C said...

So the vague sour grapes appeal to supposed "supplicating females" on male blogs is not an ad hominem fallacy; making fun of said appeal is. Gotcha.

And passive-aggressive as well with the thinly-veiled reference. As a guy who prefers direct, I'll admit I get annoyed by passive-aggressive stuff. I'm 99.999999% sure she is talking about Stingray, so if that is how you really feel, directly say it, don't throw out indirect stuff.

And Susan, I'm pretty sure you did once say she hates her sex when I quoted her on something. Correct me if I am wrong and I will retract that.

Stingray said...

I have noticed that some females supplicate on some of the male blogs in this manner. In my experience, NAWALT is generally a response to a gross overgeneralization.

This happens, yes. It also happens much of the time in a very in your face, combative manner. Either way, it's a "I'm different than those other girls and here's why. I stand out." This is how it's usually done when it is outwardly said. It need not ever be said because it automatically demonstrates that the woman saying it is very much like the generalizations being discussed. It is up to the women to prove she is different in her manners, words and actions.

There is no need to be offended by majorities or generalizations. Men talk about the majority of the curve as these are the women they come into contact with everyday and the women they are attempting to deal with. If a woman does not fall into that majority then she doesn't fall into that majority. Why does it need to be announced?

Stingray said...

I'm pretty sure you did once say she hates her sex when I quoted her on something

Hate my sex? Nah. I simply disagree with what many hold dear.

Stickwick said...

It is up to the women to prove she is different in her manners, words and actions.

Excellent point. This is a more masculine way of looking at things -- show me, don't tell me -- and one that does not resonate with a lot of women. In many cases, a woman announces she's different because she only imagines she's different; but, then, as you said, her actions betray her words.

Stingray said...



Looking back over that, "words" doesn't appear to make sense as I was talking of actions, as Stickwick said. Just to be clear, I was referring to the words one chooses to use when conversing. How one chooses to phrase something has an impact on how it is portrayed and received.

Anonymous said...

... an observed predilection for egoistic self-absorption which occurs to such an extent that the woman's behavior makes it appear as if she subscribes to some form of philosophical solipsism.

Restated, this appears to be your working definition of "female solipsism": an unusually extreme egoistic self-absorption that makes it appear as if the woman believes that only she exists (as per the philosophical definition you provide).

If this is not your working definition, I suggest you provide an explicit and brief definition of female solipsism when you follow up with your proof/demonstration that most women conform to that definition. I also suggest that you quantify "most" - 51%? 2/3? 95%?

Athor Pel said...

Susan Walsh said...
...
Whether it is blatant or subtle, ridicule essentially denies discussion.



It denies discussion in the minds of those that equate their emotions for objective reality.

How does that make you feel? Does the truth of that resonate with your gut instincts? Never mind, I'm only using teasing and ridicule to educate.

SarahsDaughter said...

"American women need to find a way to hit the Reset button. In the same way that ED is common in young men due to porn (25% of college males have some performance difficulties), young women's triggers have also become desensitized. It takes more dominance today for a man to generate the tingle than it did even 20 years ago." - Susan

Off topic.
Susan has asserted and correlated a few things here that warrant review or at least a link to the evidence of these supposed facts. Particularly the "due to porn" assertion. I'm not a reader of HUS so perhaps she's discussed this and has a reason to make such a sweeping declaration. The medical sites I've read have lists of the potential causes of ED in young males, topping the list is obesity and drug use (to include drugs to treat ADHD).

Again, it's off topic. It would be interesting to see this discussed, Vox. How sad if women who read this type of baseless crap actually believe if their partner has an erectile issue that it is due to porn and not some other underlying medical issue.


CL said...

@SarahsDaughter

Adding to your comment: also the artificial female hormones that are not easily filtered from the water, the fluoride in the water, the additives in food... There are many possible causes besides leaping to the porn hypothesis. It's possible that there is more than one cause.

As for men needing to be more dominant than 20 years ago, it might be that the things men used to learn from their fathers have got lost both through the removal of fathers from homes and social engineering brainwashing programs in government school for the last 50 years. If they do need more dominance, it's because of all the previous hooking up ("smart" or otherwise) women are doing before getting married.

Markku said...

NAWALT is, of course, trivially true. The problem is that it is said with indignation where it isn't even the discussion. The woman might ask a man how come he isn't married. The man answers truthfully. Woman becomes very indignant.

But the question was not about that woman. It was about the likely outcome of marrying a woman for that man. The only reason she would think it as an insult is if deep down her mind works with the assumption that she is the only woman in the world, even if this never comes so close to the surface that she could verbalize it.

Ian Ironwood said...

Riffed on it here: http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-tangled-chains-on-swing-set-of.html

Markku said...

Of course, men learn very early on that women can't handle the truth, and cope with the situation with either avoiding the full truth, or telling outright lies. This works most of the time, but it always makes you wonder when the time comes when you absolutely need a woman to react like a responsible adult, because she happens to be in a position to do something you aren't. Due to location, for example.

Markku said...

There's this mutual understanding between men about when it is obligatory to lie to a woman in order to spare the group from having to deal with drama. Because men really don't like drama.

I have violated this understanding many times and gotten... feedback.

Susan Walsh said...

How sad if women who read this type of baseless crap actually believe if their partner has an erectile issue that it is due to porn and not some other underlying medical issue.



http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201107/porn-induced-sexual-dysfunction-is-growing-problem

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201003/porn-goes-performance-goes-down

http://marnia.scienceblog.com/44/porn-induced-erectile-dysfunction-is-a-growing-problem/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2051902/Men-use-internet-porn-likely-hopeless-bedroom.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marnia-robinson/no-porn-no-viagra_b_489194.html

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Enjoy.

Susan Walsh said...

So the vague sour grapes appeal to supposed "supplicating females" on male blogs is not an ad hominem fallacy; making fun of said appeal is. Gotcha.


I have noticed that at some of the blogs where women are generally suspect and rarely comment, a couple of females will ingratiate themselves with the host and other commenters by confessing various female flaws. It's an extreme version of NAWALT.

In time, most of these women slip up in some way and are drummed out of the corps. Then a couple of new ones show up and the cycle begins again.

A quick perusal of comment threads will easily confirm this claim.

Markku said...

If someone has the time to test that theory, I'll make a prediction: What you will find is merely that they get responses with the same level of harshness as men do, and then they run away crying for daddy. You will find very few if any instances of men telling them to go away. Only informing them that they are welcome to do so after they threathen to leave.

CL said...

@Susan Walsh

confessing various female flaws

What is wrong with that? Are we supposed to keep it secret lest the men find out? Why assume everyone does it as an "extreme" form of NAWALT for the purpose of ingratiating one's self?

I notice you don't say "imagined flaws", but, if I can be excused the mixed metaphor, the queen bee of the herd has no problem pointing out and even inventing male faults on which to project blame and then can count on the herd to beller supportive moos in unity.

Why do cows moo?

Cail Corishev said...

"Actually, female attraction triggers are quite malleable. This is why small towns produce just as many marriages (or proportionally more) than cities do."

How does that follow? Seems more likely that it proves that we can find many different people attractive, so we don't need a crowd of millions in which to find our special snowflake. As long as a town is big enough to have several dozen of the opposite sex in our age range, we'll be able to find a match. Keep in mind that small towns also tend to be much more homogeneous than cities -- not only in race and culture, but often even in religion -- so all the eligible people are truly in play. I entered high school with 25 people in my class, and some of the girls were mighty purty -- my attraction mechanism didn't have to be "malleable" at all.

Once people pair up, small towns produce more marriages than the cities because the people are more traditional and family-oriented. Still nothing to do with settling for an unattractive mate.

Markku said...

It's easy to imagine solipsism if you're into video games. Think of a single player RPG. There's a huge amount of events and dialogue, sometimes between NPC's and you are just overhearing them. But every single word, and every single event is there for you, and you alone. Perhaps to entertain you, or to inform you about the world. There is not a single NPC, tree or flower that isn't there for you. And of every single word, you'll be thinking "how does this apply to me?"

This seems to be how the solipsistic person sees the real world.

SarahsDaughter said...

Susan, providing 5 links in which 4 of the 5 are commentary based on the same survey of Italian men is hardly scientific evidence. Certainly not enough evidence to wholly conclude that ED in young men is due to porn.

I trust you've read resources like the following:

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?Volume=163&page=1504&journalID=13

http://www.erectiledisfunctioncausesandtreatment.com/Erectile-Disfunction-General-Information/Erectile-Disfunction-At-A-Young-Age.html

http://www.menshealthcures.com/2936/cure-for-erectile-dysfunction-in-your-20s/

I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt. In this comment: "In the same way that ED is common in young men due to porn (25% of college males have some performance difficulties..." are you only talking about porn addicts? And likening their ED to the desensitization of young women's attraction triggers? Or are you truly asserting the 25% of college males with performance difficulites is due to porn?

7man said...

I sense it is time for a flounce followed by a pout culminating in a snoot.

This commonly happens after a hole digging exercise.

LP 999/Eliza said...

Female solipsism is completely observable. In mala fide used to provide endless examples. I don't expect women to agree to even dare to examine their own self awareness but female solipsism exists in most if not all women. It is the way emotional, hormonal and defensive creatures reason.

BC said...

The discussion value of a comment thread about a SMP/MMP concept decreases in proportion to the number of HUSsies posting.

Corollary: As the discussion value of the comment thread decreases, its educational value increases as an almost perfect illustration of the SMP/MMP concept being discussed.

Anonymous said...

How about Susan take the time to review, say, a thousand divorce trial transcripts and then she can assess whether the wife was justified in her actions.

If she looked at them objectively, that is, to see whether one side was justified in the divorce, she may find out that solipsism rules the day in a lot of women's thinking.

Because of no-fault divorce, marriages have been destroyed for flimsy reasons.

- Lovekraft

BC said...

Oh, no no no, Lovekraft. Don't you know that frivolous divorce is overstated and occurs much, much less than the manosphere claims? This is absolutely true because Giggles says so. See?

"I have my own truth, and you have no right to judge it as a lie, because you don't know what it is."

"HT to CL above"

Anonymous said...

Susan Walsh: "What is problematic, in my view, is the gender antagonism fomented by accusations of "flaws" or "faults" in either sex."

I haven't delved into your writings much, and tend to support Vox's call since I am a follower of his blog.

But, I have been a member of the manosphere for a few years and have contributed my share to debates using much personal experience.

The problems our society face are multiple and defeating feminism is high on the list, IMO. So, when I see your comment (above), I think one of two things.

Either a desperate call for a cessation of hostilities. But without an actual admission of defeat on the part of feminism.

Or an attempt to portray feminists as peace-makers, just trying to find common ground. Highly dubious coming from a movement that promotes affirmative action, big government, abortion on demand, Gay Rights etc. The result IMO would be absorption of the MRM under the Cultural Marxist umbrella.

Thanks, but I'll pass.

Lovekraft

Anonymous said...

I took a few minutes and pointed a search engine at the well known web site pubmed, searching with terms ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION YOUNG MEN. Here are a few results.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21269394
In this Taiwanese survey we learn that lower testosterone levels and higher body mass are predictors of ED.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22727073
In this Swiss study we learn that ED was directly linked with use of various drugs, length of sexual life, and physical health.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22712819
In this Finnish study we learn that anxiety and depression were significant predictors of present erectile problems in men aged 18 to 48.


So in about 10 minutes I found that obesity, drug use, anxiety and depression all are clearly factors in ED in young men. Given the fact that more young men are obese now than every before, and that diabetes is a well known cause of ED, it would seem obvious that multiple factors are involved in ED in men 18 to 30. It is possible that use of prescription ED medications is a factor as well. I'm sure that with diligence one would find even more articles on the topic.

Perhaps this task is too difficult for some people. What people? Oh, the people who would rather indulge in confirmation bias, by reposting links to the same article from that well known, peer-reviewed journal "Psychology Today" than expend any serious effort actually learning something about the problem.

Anonymous said...

"In the same way that ED is common in young men due to porn (25% of college males have some performance difficulties)"

Why can't we tell this woman that she's just too stupid to understand cause and effect?

Cause: Fat, stupid and disgusting bitches with Princess complex.

Effect: Men with more than three active braincells retreat to porn, get used to the perfect bodies and in consequence don't get turned on by said bitches any more.

There's no f* Dysfunction there, au contraire, Madame, show those same men some young fertile European, Asian or Latin woman in real life and wonder where all the "Dysfunction" went.

This is just another example of female solipsism and utilitarianism: If he can't get it up, he's "dysfunctional". Pathetic.

Mike C said...

I'm not sure how pervasive it is but it is a FACT that there are men who have self-reported ED issues due to excessive porn use, and once they went cold turkey for a few weeks to a month, the ED issue with real women went away.

There is a probably a lot factors at play, and it is incorrect to attribute too much to porn use as a percentage, but it is equally incorrect to totally ignore it.

Anonymous said...

The fun in reading Susan Walsh's blog lies in the fact that she's blissfully ignorant of the underlying political and economical motives behind the introduction of feminism to the unwashed female masses.

She actually thinks that women played a role in it other than being the useful idiots of the system, a system which she'll never comprehend, for all of her silly talk about being "red pill".

That's also why she thinks that government published stats are "the truth" and gets totally confused when running into a wall as she's presenting them as the "holy grail".

You have to admit, at least it's funny to watch.

Dr. Jeremy said...

I see the commentary went off topic. Nevertheless, regarding the concept of porn use and ED in men...

The common psychological explanation is that porn use is a factor in ED. It is said, this is because porn is a "Supernormal Stimulus". In other words, porn lights up the reward centers of a man's brain more intensely than any real woman ever could. As a result, the man becomes desensitized to normal stimuli (real women).

The "solution" then, is for men to avoid the desensitizing, supernormal stimulus. This allows them to re-sensitize and become responsive to normal women. Because this does indeed "fix" the issue, it is taken as support for the whole theoretical explanation.

HOWEVER, equally valid is the idea that "normal" women have become relatively unappealing. As such, men are seeking adequate stimuli in porn. They get used to normal and adequate stimuli and then cannot function with sub-optimal sexual cues (i.e. unappealing real women). Of course, if you cut him off from that adequate sexual stimulation, he will become sexually frustrated. As such, he will eventually be able to "make due" with a real, unatractive woman. Essentially, he would be so horny, anything would work.

I know the "establishment" prefers the first view. It has the benefit of not blaming women for the issue and making them feel bad (although it pathologizes men). It also gives some guys relief, who simply want to re-connect with their mates (although, they are kind of shamed into it).

However, I am a student of behaviorism. I know that an animal will ignore a steak, if it is hooked on drugs. BUT, I also know, if it isn't fed a steak, it will get hungry enough to eat garbage.

In essence, the real truth is in the middle. Porn is so enticing because the average woman just isn't. Porn is real (attractive) women after all. Drop a porn star onto a guys lap and I would imagine he would get erect.

So yea, if a guy doesn't look at really hot women, average women will look hotter. We've known that for years. Looking at playboy makes men less interested in their wives. Is that because playboy is "unfair" and sets a standard "no women can reach"? Or, is it just setting the bar where it should be?

Frankly, I think that answer is up to the individual guy. If you want to become uncontrollably passionate about average women, then "starve" yourself from porn and any really attractive stimulus. However, if you want to not be a slave to your sexual needs and be able to be picky for really beautiful women, then set the bar high with porn. But, take note. You WILL most likely need hot girls after looking at porn. So, if you don't have game to get very attractive women real life, and you want actual sex, you might be best served to set your porn stimulus bar no higher than your real-life partners. This isn't about "shame" or "dysfunction" - rather, about teaching men to satisfy and tailor their sexual responses for what is best for them.

Vox said...

If you want to become uncontrollably passionate about average women, then "starve" yourself from porn and any really attractive stimulus. However, if you want to not be a slave to your sexual needs and be able to be picky for really beautiful women, then set the bar high with porn.

Alternatively, one could take the strategy of artificially setting the bar very low with really ugly woman porn, thus making regular women look attractive by comparison. That strikes me as excessively masochistic, though.

Anonymous said...

Why do you even talk to this jerk, Vox? He's obviously some sayanim...

Keeping the lid on the James Holmes black ops, are we, "doctor" Jeremy?

This ding dong writes for Psychology Today, don't make me laugh.

LP 999/Eliza said...

@ BC:

Let us not call the readers of HUS 'hussies'. They are well-meaning seekers and Susan is a good lady.

Susan Walsh said...

the queen bee of the herd has no problem pointing out and even inventing male faults on which to project blame

I'm flattered. Queen Bee was my nickname in b-school.

Which invented male faults to you refer to?

As for the confession of female flaws, they may be legitimate, exaggerated or even imagined. What's most telling is the MO:

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

Susan Walsh said...

Seems more likely that it proves that we can find many different people attractive, so we don't need a crowd of millions in which to find our special snowflake. As long as a town is big enough to have several dozen of the opposite sex in our age range, we'll be able to find a match.

There is no special snowflake or soulmate, that's the point. We make due with what we've got. Attraction is malleable. If you put random people on a desert island with no hope of rescue, I guarantee they'll be attracted to one another inside a month.

Susan Walsh said...

In the same way that ED is common in young men due to porn (25% of college males have some performance difficulties..." are you only talking about porn addicts? And likening their ED to the desensitization of young women's attraction triggers? Or are you truly asserting the 25% of college males with performance difficulites is due to porn?

Re the links - I found 10 pages of Google results linking porn to ED. You can easily read up on this without my help if you are curious to know the truth.

Re male college students and ED:

" One-third of male college students say they’ve experienced erectile dysfunction. Leonard Sax, a family physician for nearly 20 years who authored the book Boys Adrift, saw more and more of them in his Maryland office, asking for Viagra and Cialis. Constant access to porn has desensitized them; they can’t get it up with live girls. “We’re seeing the replacement of penile sex with oral sex,” says Sax, “with the girl on her knees, servicing the boy. Boys and girls both end up losers.” One in five men ages 18 to 25 are now classified as “sub-­fertile” because of low sperm count and quality, both of which have been dropping in the developed world for the past 50 years. Curiously, 50 years ago, around 64 percent of all college students were male.

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/the-sorry-lives-and-confusing-times-of-today-s-young-men/3/

Additionally, the Director of Student Health Services at Tufts University told me that half of all appointments for male students relate to sexual activity, and half of those are about ED. She told me that her first question is ALWAYS "How much porn do you watch?" They almost always deny it initially, but she said that in 15 years of treating students there, every single patient with this complaint has confessed to frequent porn viewing when pressed. (This is a necessary filter before a battery of tests is ordered for checking for physiological problems.) The good news is, there is a way of resetting the brain, but it involves going cold turkey on porn so that the visual images can fade enough to allow arousal with an actual woman.

In my search for information, I came across this hilarious bit of hamstering, I think Vox's readers will enjoy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNBU7cgLqBY

CL said...

@SW

What's most telling is the MO:

mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa


Who does this? And again, what is wrong with admitting one's faults? The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, assuming some of them are genuine and want to learn. While that is admittedly rare, it doesn't mean it's non-existent.

No need to assume the worst intent of any woman who comments in the manosphere rather than at a blog called "hooking up smart". There is no such thing as hooking up smart; hooking up is destructive and stupid.

Susan Walsh said...

@CL

There is no such thing as hooking up smart; hooking up is destructive and stupid.

That is an ignorant statement. Kissing is hooking up. What is destructive and stupid is allowing physical intimacy to precede emotional intimacy, and that's what I write about. Hooking Up Smart = No Sex Before Monogamy.

I hope you don't dispense advice to others.

By the way, I like the term HUSsie. I've adopted it and fondly refer to my readers this way. It is the cleverest thing Dalrock has ever said.

Susan Walsh said...

And again, what is wrong with admitting one's faults? The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, assuming some of them are genuine and want to learn. While that is admittedly rare, it doesn't mean it's non-existent.

Agreed, so here is how you should voice your opinions from now on:

I, CL, am solipsistic.

I, CL, am hypergamous.

I, CL, am incapable of logic and reason.

I, CL, have a very unpleasant online demeanor.

IOW, speak for yourself. You have no credibility to speak for your sex.

CL said...

Ah, now the truth comes out. Quelle surprise!

7man said...

@SW
You seem to be saying that there are no invented male faults since no list has been provided. Therefore the things you say and imply about men are all real and legitimate. Then you invoke special snowflake status (NAWALT) by waffling about the general existence of female flaws. You imply that female flaws do not apply to you but instead apply to CL since she dares to mention them. To reiterate, you are declaring that it is CL’s MO to say mea culpa and so the faults apply to CL but not to you since you admit nothing.

But it is good to see that you still remember a bit of your Catholic faith.

7man said...

@SW
No one claimed that there was no correlation between porn use and ED. Others merely stated that the issue was more complex and that there were other factors that could be even more significant in causing ED.

You are claiming that the porn link means it is the primary cause and you cite anecdotal ‘evidence’ from a university employed social worker as proof.

Most things are more complex than one factor can account for. You are not using intellectual rigor to support your assertion that porn is the primary causal factor. And by attempting to negate other possible factors, you continue to assert that porn use is the only cause.

Anonymous said...

Hooking Up Smart = No Sex With Betas Before Monogamy


Fixed that for you.

SarahsDaughter said...

"Re the links - I found 10 pages of Google results linking porn to ED" - Susan

I've been spoiled with Vox Popoli and that which qualifies as intellectual discourse and answers to questions.

There are 10 pages of Google results for the search "porn is good."

Dr. Jeremy, you've done a fine job regurgitating the information in the links Susan provided.

My apologies for having gone off topic it sure turned out to be an exercise in futility.



Booch Paradise said...

They almost always deny it initially, but she said that in 15 years of treating students there, every single patient with this complaint has confessed to frequent porn viewing when pressed.

Men tend to filter themselves around women, so sometimes you get a really naive statement like this. The fact of the matter is that porn use among men of this demographic is pretty close to 100%.

Anonymous said...

Susan Walsh said Re the links - I found 10 pages of Google results linking porn to ED.

That's great! Isn't learning how to use new things exciting? Now, with your brand new skills, type these words into the Google window. Be sure to include the quotes.

"Confirmation bias"

You should get results like this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm

And then type "Peer reviewed", you should get results like this:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/lsl/help/modules/peer.html

Don't be worried if you get lots of results, these ideas are very widespread and discussed lots of places. It's OK to get hundreds of hits on "confirmation bias", for example. Now, if you want to compare the results of your search with the articles above, just drag your mouse across the URL's that I have posted and use "copy". Then open a new window in your browser, put your mouse cursor into the address area, and use "paste". Then you can see one of the results I got from my search, and compare it to the results from your search. I'm sure it will be very exciting to you, to learn even more new skills!

Now here's the hard part. You have to actually read at least one the articles that you find, all about "confirmation bias" and "peer review". Don't let those big words throw you, the ideas are really easy to understand. Lots of high school students have learned all about these ideas in their advanced classes such as biology, chemistry, physics, etc. and you can too!

Once you understand what "confirmation bias" and "peer review" are, you'll be ready to take on something closer to real online research! Just like college students do! I'll help you learn how to search one single site in depth, and it's really easy!

I hope this has helped you to learn, Susan. It's really great to see you learning how to search the world wide web! So many older people are afraid of new technologies, like search engines, it's wonderful to see you are still growing in knowledge!

Please don't hesitate to ask anyone here for more help, we all want you to succeed in learning new things.

Lovekraft said...

What I want feminists to consider is this, regarding the porn issue:

Is porn a cause or a symptom? If men's sexual needs are fulfilled, would porn disappear? If their women/girlfriends provide them with regular sex, would porn disappear?

Because feminists likely don't care one bit about the Omegas using porn. They are upset that men use it to neutralize the woman's power of sex over them.

Kathy Farrelly said...

"And again, what is wrong with admitting one's faults? The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, assuming some of them are genuine and want to learn. While that is admittedly rare, it doesn't mean it's non-existent.

Agreed, so here is how you should voice your opinions from now on:

I, CL, am solipsistic.

I, CL, am hypergamous.

I, CL, am incapable of logic and reason.

I, CL, have a very unpleasant online demeanor.

IOW, speak for yourself. You have no credibility to speak for your sex."

Indeed Susan, you have hit the nail on the head..

CL has never admitted that her relationship with 7 man is not a Godly one either.. All bunnies and unicorns.... She has made no effort to seek a divorce from her first husband, yet waxes lyrical about her relationship with 7 man.. (as does he with her...cringe..)

Good Catholic woman that she is..

And, 7 man, Susan has been happily and faithfully married to a man she deeply loves , for over 25 years, which is more than can be said for you and your.. er.. friend!

Kathy Farrelly said...

Susan Walsh: "I hope you don't dispense advice to others."

Yes! Yes she does Susan. And that is the problem.

She and 7 man both have had unsuccessful marriages, and yet, they are both fond of telling people what works in a relationship.

Beggars belief!

CL said...

@Kathy Farrelly

She has made no effort to seek a divorce from her first husband

How do you know this? Are you an oracle now?

For the record and hopefully the last time - I AM DIVORCED. Fuck you and your slander.

Kathy Farrelly said...

Finally did it, eh? In your last emails to me you were not very interested in divorcing.. Kept making excuses..

So, my nagging paid off then? Wasn't so hard now, was it?

Slander?? Lol!

Now the next step is to seek an annulment.

I really do hope that is your intention.. And 7 man's too.







7man said...

@Kathy,
The last emails CL sent to Kathy were about 10 months ago. Interesting how Kathy takes credit for CL's divorce and justifies nagging (which is a very destructive trait in a woman).

Kathy Farrelly said...

The white knight arrives again..:)

Sorry 7 man but CL was extremely reluctant to seek a divorce.. And yes I did get on her case about it.. Particularly when she told me that you two would just live together.. :(

In any event, you both need to obtain annulments...

Living together is not an option.. (maybe an easy cop out?) Not if you are professed Catholics anyway.. So, I hope that you have both reconsidered that option.

Kathy Farrelly said...

Remember too, that I brought the subject up(of not divorcing) on several blogs. As well as quite recent emails which CL ignored.

Kathy Farrelly said...

Oh and you are fibbing when you said that CL sent her last email 10 months ago. I seem to remember a terse reply a few months ago calling me a "bitter pharisee" when I pointed out an obvious truth.

I still have all the emails. (I am a terrible hoarder)

7man said...

@Kathy
CL is fully capable of working things out without your involvement. The email to which you refer was in response to several nasty emails you sent. Please cease your harassing emails.

It is not possible for CL and I to live together without being married.

Anonymous said...


Could you people (Kathy Farrelly, CL, 7Man) please take your soap opera crap somewhere else? Like to email?

Or to /dev/null...

bouaablli issam said...

unblockedgames unblocked online games unblocked games at school and work unblocked school games unblocked fighting games unblocked games 4 free unblockable games Unblocked Games At School unblocked games 4u unblocked mario games
jogar sinuca jogos de tiro online jogos da polly sinuca online jogos de carros 3d jogos de dama jogos de estrategia jogos de motas ballerspiele affen spiele giochi gratis per ragazze giochi delle winx giochi di cavalli juegos de vestir barbies juegos de vestir muñecas juegos de vestir bebes juegos de vestir novias juegos de vestir princesas juegos de vestir a modelos juegos de vestir ala moda

Pussy-ManiaGirls: http://goo.gl/w9Oepq said...

watching my collection, we have upload more video at here:

Collection Part 1:

Doggy Style and In Missionary Position

Hot Sex Anal With Amazing Girl Friend

Sex Under Hot Lights Bad Girls

Give Me The Cum

Cum In My Panties

Nude Amateur Teen Girls

Sexy Brunette Girls

Young Kinky Sluts

Busty Tattoo Chick On Car

Young Asian fucked anal

Latina Havana Ginger gets

Teen Threesome Porn

Hot Blowjob

Amateur Pulls Down Tanga

Sweet girl amazing hot

Sexy japanese babes getting their tight

TEEN BLONDE ANAL SEX ORGY




Collection Part 2:


Hot asian blowjob and pussy creampie

Sucking dick, Audrey put vegetables in all holes

Blonde love fuck

Naomi Russell And Her Royal Ass

Sexy blonde gives blowjob in the car

ASIAN XXX PORN VIDEO

JAPANESE XXX PORN VIDEO

ARABIC XXX PORN VIDEO

HARDCORE PORN VIDEO

GAY XXX PORN VIDEO

WATCH STREAMING PORN VIDEO

USA CELEBS XXX PORN

LATINA XXX PORN

LESBIAN XXX PORN

Hardcore Porn Celebrity

HOT TURKEY PORN MOVIE

INDIAN NUDES CELEBRITIES VIDEOS

UZBEKS Fuck PORN VIDEOS

HOT RASTA GIRL


100% MAKE you satisfy......








































Reply Delete

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.