Thursday, November 8, 2012

The challenge of intersexual communication

One of the common themes among female commenters at HUS is the inverse of the Sports Guy's mantra, men ruin everything.  And just like the mantra, it's based on legitimate observation.  Susan Walsh writes:
I do know that there has been a constant blurring of boundaries between this blog and others as some have sought to bring ideas from those blogs to debate here. You have done this yourself, mostly using Roissy as an inspiration. Mike C is a Rollo Boy. Others here may be Dalrockolytes. I have referred to the introduction of these “toxic” ideas as “infecting” HUS.

I know you are aware of the effect these conversations have had on my female commenters (crickets), and it’s long been apparent that a sizable number of women elect not to comment here because of the “gloves off” demeanor of the conversations. In addition, female commenters who do stick it out often weigh in with constructive criticism of the male highjacking of threads. Yesterday, both Anacaona and Iggles, I believe, attempted to express their frustration with the tenor of the conversation, and more importantly, the destructive effect it was having on intersex communication.
I regard the problem as a near-insoluble one.  The challenge is that intersexual communication requires two-way communication, and women, for the most part, have zero interest in that.  The reason the young women at HUS have been falling silent is because they have no interest in their opinions being challenged and their assertions being questioned.  They have no interest in changing their lives, instead they want to be comforted and have their decisions confirmed.  For the most part, women prefer to treat their interlocutors as children who must accept Mommy's word as divinely inspired law; it can be more than a little amusing to see the shocked expression on a woman's face when one does nothing more than directly question the factual truth of her statement.  The stuttering, hasty retreat that usually follows her realization that she's been busted isn't without humor either.

Don't believe me?  Try saying this as politely as you can manage the next time a woman attempts to slide an obvious whopper past you: "I'm sorry, but I don't believe you.  Can you provide me with any evidence that is true?"

What I suspect you'll find to be reliably the case is that merely questioning the perfect truthfulness of a woman's word is regarded as rude, aggressive, offensive, and boorish.  In femsprache, "gloves off" means "unconcealed disagreement".  But don't take my word for it, try it out when the next opportunity presents itself.

As long as women are unwilling to accept having their opinions and assertions questioned, and as long as they prefer to fall silent rather than defend their statements, no substantive intersexual communication is possible.  Now, obviously some women can handle it, whether they find it distasteful or not, but the observable reality is that most women either cannot or will not.

And men are well-advised to understand this is an area where most of them fall down.  Most men are often inclined to let ludicrous statements go unchallenged, but they absolutely should not, because the woman making the statement tends to regard a man's acceptance of her version of reality as evidence of her dominance over him.

231 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 231 of 231
Spacebunny said...

Still whinging! I wonder how long he'll keep going?

VD said...

There's a group of female commenters who have been around since before Dalrockgate, or whatever you want to call it, and the vast majority of them are genuinely interested in real, honest discussions without being overly sensitive.

Yes, I agree. You, Ana, Ion, Sassy and others obviously don't mind being contradicted. Of course, I've also seen that all of you are capable of changing your minds.

I've noticed instances when something you've said has elicited the "I can't handle this, leaving now!" reaction from certain ladies. Take it as a compliment: the intimidation factor in some of your posts is off the charts. Not sure if other women do this, but occasionally when I'm perusing the comments of a blog I come across a particular post that makes me think "oh shit, I wouldn't want to argue with him, he would absolutely crush me." That pretty much sums it up.

You know, Susan used to say that, but she doesn't hesitate to argue with me anymore. Which is good. I think she now understands that if you're wrong, it is actually good to get crushed, because that improves your thinking for the future. The problem, of course, is when someone wants to cling to their opinion even when they know it is wrong. That's the sort of person who can't bear contradiction and has to cover their ears and run away.

I mean, I couldn't have been more wrong about the election results. But now I know the state polls are actually reliable despite their seemingly implausible party identification weightings, so I won't make that mistake again.

VD said...

It makes one wonder though, what kind of math are we supposed to do about a woman with large agressive dogs? Adding up her commenting behaviour and the fact the it takes quite a dominant personality to master large agressive dogs, and dividing by the square root of b minus a, I would say there seems to be something aggressive and masculine about it all.

Incorrect What you're leaving out of the equation is the very feminine desire to feel safe and protected. And you're completely ignoring the obvious correlation to an element of basic Game theory, namely, the shit test.

I'm not "whinging", I'm just making some observations. I get the impression that you're a nasty piece of work, and I'm just expressing it. Don't take it personally.

Actually, you've repeatedly engaged in passive-aggressive behavior consistent with either a woman or a man of low socio-sexual rank. You're certainly welcome to your opinions, whatever they may be, but it is your need to keep sharing them despite the fact that no one has expressed any interest in them that helps categorize you.

Ted D said...

FWIW I didn't see Spacebunny's comments as an attack. More like a warning shot across my bow, and it got my attention.

Deti - Wait...

So HUS is a modern day/virtual version of mom teaching her daughters how to be women and in the care and feeding of husbands? She wants to be virtual mom to college age women on the 'net?

Not that there is anything wrong with it, but IMO it won't change much. If these young women don't get why they tend to chase 'bad boys', the best HUS will do is sell them on a beta that they may become bored with and divorce in 10 years.

Its like selling a sedan to a kid that wants a sports car. IF he buys the sedan, he'll regret it later, resent it later, and probably treat the car like shit. Unless he comes to understand and appreciate what the sedan can do for him, he will never be happy with it. I suspect many of these young women hitching their wagon to beta/delta guys may feel great at first, but I suspect it won't be long before they get tired of the ride.

But I am a dense idiot. It makes perfect sense why HUS is a "moral free" zone of sorts, because Susan has no intention on really calling out women on their bad behavior. She is just pushing them along towards the "proper" thing to do. It may create a few marriages, but in the grand scheme of things it won't change one thing about what is wrong with the current SMP/MMP and certainly not anything else related.

But you and VD are right, IF that is the primary purpose of HUS, perhaps male voices are pointless...

Yohami said...

Betas are not the "Sedan" of cars.

A beta is a car which is constantly offering you some kind of compensation because it's driving sucks. Plus you hurt it's engine by letting it know so. And it fails under stress and bad road conditions. And makes weird sounds when you push it. And it doesnt understand why having a good stereo or trying really hard to please you is not enough for you.

Yohami said...

My comment went into the spam bin for some reason

Ted D said...

Yohami - that sounds like most of the cars I drove in high school.

Whatever the comparison is, I don't see it working out well for any of the men these women settle for based on simple "betas are good guys" advice. Most young women already know that from their orbiters.

Olive said...

Ted,
Two things. First, I get the sense you would like Susan to expand her mission to not just talking about how to "get" relationships, but how to maintain them. I've read some of her posts from pre-2011 and have to say she's always been *mainly* interested in the mate selection process. Remember that she has a large audience, and has to keep stuff light enough so people keep coming back. I don't know this, but I wonder if all the heavy stats posts have been discouraging new participants. Girls suck at math. :-)

...Which brings me to my second point. You must know by now that Susan is interested in expanding her female readership and inviting more women to participate in the comment threads. She will not achieve that if she's constantly "calling women out on their bad behavior." I'm sure that frustrates you, because you feel that women need exposure to the Cold Hard Truth. Realize that this type of exposure would actually be counter-productive, as most women won't be able to read "stop being a slut!" without sticking her fingers in her ears, or crying about unfair judgement. I don't like it either, but that's just reality.

Ted D said...

Olive - all completely fair. But again, if these women DO marry a beta/delta/whatever without chaning how they think ABOUT their new husband (if that is even possible) the end result will be divorces.

I can't see any other ending to this story, and I'm finding it rather difficult to support anyone encouraging people to marry without all the information first.

I've seen other men accuse Susan of trying to encourage exactly this dilemma, but I used to believe they were just bitter/angry/nuts. Now? Not so much. I can completely see their point of view now, as she isn't really chaning women's behavior, but is encouraging them to look for "beta" guys to marry. (I put beta in quotes because at this point I'm unsure of what definition of beta she actually uses. In most places beta=normal guy (loser). Here beta is something more.

Olive said...

Ted,
I actually do agree with you, in that encouraging women to seek out betas/deltas/gammas/whatever simply to answer the question of "why don't I have a boyfriend?" is not going to solve the issue of "wrong choices" and divorce, or even serial monogamy (I have a few friends who jump from relationship to relationship).

I'm of the opinion that it's not about changing behavior, but about a changed mindset. Women actually have to come at the mate selection process from a "how is this guy attractive?" standpoint, rather than a position of "how is this guy NOT attractive?" And there are ways for women to take responsibility for their own attraction once they're in relationships (favorite post ever: Bellita's "peahenning" post, which is now sadly gone). I even think there are ways for women to encourage certain traits in their men, though I haven't totally figured this out.

But again, it's not about saying "you bad girl, get your shit together!" It's about giving women the tools to know themselves well enough to choose the right mates and stick with them. HUS is only offering one part of that picture.

In other news, I gotta get myself back in business. ;-)

Anonymous said...

@ Olive, Ted:

"You must know by now that Susan is interested in expanding her female readership and inviting more women to participate in the comment threads. She will not achieve that if she's constantly "calling women out on their bad behavior." I'm sure that frustrates you, because you feel that women need exposure to the Cold Hard Truth. Realize that this type of exposure would actually be counter-productive, as most women won't be able to read "stop being a slut!" without sticking her fingers in her ears, or crying about unfair judgement. I don't like it either, but that's just reality."

This is another reason I think VD is right and I've been slow to come around to it. HUS and its readers are just not ready for the red pill. HUS got a hard dose of unvarnished red pill for a good 8 to 10 months in 2011. It was promptly spit back up, cut in half, and mixed with some blue applesauce. The readership was absolutely shocked at some of the male viewpoints.

Some women who read need to be called out on their bad behavior, but HUS isn't going to do that. HUS is purple pill, because that's all its readers can handle.

deti

Olive said...

Deti,
Again, I actually do agree with what you and Ted are saying, to a certain extent. After all, there's a very good reason my blog is no longer listed on Susan's blogroll, and I suspect it's not just because the blog had been inactive.

IMO HUS was at its best when the red pill was openly acknowledged. The quality of conversation was incredible. I think Susan's willingness to consider the red pill view actually aided the intersexual dialogue, as the guys felt they could speak freely, and the women who stuck around were willing to listen. And sometimes vice versa.

I will repeat this again: what you see now is not necessarily a reflection on the old female readership, but a reflection on Susan's desire to distance herself from the manosphere, and bring in NEW female participants. Or, let me put it this way. As a female regular, I did not find the red pill too bitter to handle.

Anonymous said...

Olive:

"IMO HUS was at its best when the red pill was openly acknowledged. The quality of conversation was incredible. I think Susan's willingness to consider the red pill view actually aided the intersexual dialogue, as the guys felt they could speak freely, and the women who stuck around were willing to listen. And sometimes vice versa.

I will repeat this again: what you see now is not necessarily a reflection on the old female readership, but a reflection on Susan's desire to distance herself from the manosphere, and bring in NEW female participants. Or, let me put it this way. As a female regular, I did not find the red pill too bitter to handle."

And this is why the experiment with men and women talking to each other hasn't worked. That's why frankly, the men's presence there isn't necessary and isn't furthering HUS's purpose, which I gather is to give women a gentle introduction to red pill concepts. It's also why you will see much, much less of me there from here on out, and I speculate it's why Esco, Ted, and Mike C have made themselves a bit scarce lately.

deti

Ted D said...

I'm trying to work out IF there is a way for me to participate that will actually help. I'm not sure to be honest, which is why I've cut back on posting there.

Perhaps simply asking the "right" questions can get the conversation going in a good direction without making it hostile to the female readership. I'm not sure, and don't know if it's worth the effort. Not a dig at HUS, but if it doesn't serve the purpose I'm looking for, then HUS simply isn't the right place for me perhaps.

Anonymous said...

ted:

I am sure my participation at HUS is probably counterproductive and that's why I won't be around much anymore. I have no interest in poking Susan with sticks, nor rousing the rabble, nor shouting from the mountaintops at people who don't want to hear me.

So the women who comment will continue asking why they don't have boyfriends, and the women will continue endlessly going around and around with no direct resolutions and no problems solved. I still think that if these problems are to be solved, women ought to listen to the male side of the equation. You'll get a lot of selection bias in this because those with the strongest opinions are the ones who flail away at keyboards. It has become pretty clear HUS does not want to hear the, shall we say, more vocal manosphere contingent.

deti

Yohami said...

If you're looking for a committed lifelong relationship everything has to go through the life-long-long-term mindset. Where "attraction" plays a much smaller, almost insignificant part. Or put in another way, attraction itself gets redefined, because the goal and context for the mate process gets redefined.

Yohami said...

deti,

"which I gather is to give women a gentle introduction to red pill concepts."

I havent been there for a while, but if you deny hypergamy and smash the alphas and rationalize that you should be attracted to beta... I doubt there's any soft introduction to red pill. But maybe things changed since I left.

Anonymous said...

Yohami:

"I doubt there's any soft introduction to red pill"

That's the point, really. It's really purple pill, equal parts red and blue. That is all the HUS contingent can stomach.

deti

Yohami said...

which aspects of the red pill is she incorporating?

Ted D said...

Yohami - "If you're looking for a committed lifelong relationship everything has to go through the life-long-long-term mindset. Where "attraction" plays a much smaller, almost insignificant part."

I think in the past this was true. But today? If a woman isn't attracted to her husband, she will bail on him no matter how well he provides beta comfort. I'd say that in marriage 2.0, attraction may be MORE important than beta, if the goal is to make it past middle age anyway. Seems to me many of the mid-30's women EPLing their way out of marriage are doing so because they are not attracted to their husbands. They may love them, but they are NOT attracted. And, it is attraction that will keep her there long term. (or at least until she can't get a better deal than you due to age...)

Yohami said...

Ted, yup, that's the point. People today are not looking for lifelong relationships. It's about having fun in the moment and trying to stretch it - which doesnt work.

Anonymous said...

Yohami:

To Susan's credit, she subscribes to the necessity for men to show alpha traits such as confidence and dominance, a little cockiness and teasing (negs).

That being said, she relies heavily on studies that purport to show women are attracted to beta traits. She believes studies now show that it's the sluttiest 20% of women sleeping around with the 20% "slutty" men; not the 20% top men getting 80% of the sex.

Red pill mixed liberally with blue. I'm not being critical here; just calling it like I see it.

deti

Yohami said...

Funny

Ted D said...

Yohami - "People today are not looking for lifelong relationships. It's about having fun in the moment and trying to stretch it - which doesnt work."

Gotcha. I'd say that holds true for the vast majority of folks under 30, and probably for many in the 30's. At some point it seems that many come to the realization that it isn't working, and they change strategy and make a mad dash to marriage and family.

This is probably because the West allows immaturity to continue well past when it should, meaning people in their late 20's and early 30's are still not looking at relationships from a mature viewpoint.

Anonymous said...

Heуa! Ι understand thіs is
kind of οff-topiс but I needed to ask.
Doеs manаging а well-establisheԁ blog such as yours require а lot of work?
I аm brand new to blοgging howeѵer I do wrіte in my journal on a daily baѕіs.
I'd like to start a blog so I can share my own experience and thoughts online. Please let me know if you have any recommendations or tips for new aspiring blog owners. Thankyou!

http://www.gooruze.com/members/cctvsecuritypros/
Stop by my page - OKC roofing

Anonymous said...

Yеsterday, while I ωas at ωoгk, my cοusin
ѕtоlе my iРad and tested to see if іt can ѕurvіve a 25 foot drop, јust so she can
be a уoutube sensаtion. My apple ipad iѕ nоω broken and
ѕhe has 83 views. I know this іs
сompletely off topic but I had to share it
ωith someone!

httр://www.ρurevolume.com/listeneгs/ЅamCarter
Here is my web-site utility trucks

Anonymous said...

I'm really enjoying the design and layout of your website. It's а very easy оn the eyes ωhich makes it much more
pleasant fοr mе to cоme here and vіѕit more oftеn.
Did уou hіre out a ԁеvеloper tο creatе уour
thеme? Exceptiοnal ωoгk!


http://www.sеriеѕ7eхamргep.

com/seriеs-7-blog/page/2/
Also visit my web blog series 7 license

Anonymous said...

Наving read thіs I belіeved it
wаs rathег informative. I aрprecіate you taking the time аnd effοгt to put this article togethеr.
I once again find myself ρеrsonally spenԁing a lot of timе both reаding
and commenting. Вut so what, іt was still
woгth it!

My ωeblog :: tens therapy

Amit Parashar said...

real money casino
Reading this post reminds me of my old room mate! He always kept talking about this. I will forward this article to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!

Amit Parashar said...

real money casino
Reading this post reminds me of my old room mate! He always kept talking about this. I will forward this article to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!

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

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 231 of 231   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.