Thursday, January 3, 2013

The feelings slut

Susan Walsh lists seven reasons why women reject over-eager men.  But she probably could have quit after number one:
1. Women understand the male role as the gatekeeper of commitment, just as we are the gatekeepers of sex.
In the same way that a man may question the long-term potential of a woman who grabs his junk on the first date, women are wary of men who are “emotionally promiscuous.” 
Certain it is I liked her, 
And boarded her i’ the wanton way of youth: 
She knew her distance and did angle for me,
Madding my eagerness with her restraint, 
As all impediments in fancy’s course 
Are motives of more fancy; and, in fine, 
Her infinite cunning, with her modern grace, 
Subdued me to her rate: she got the ring;
Shakespeare, All’s Well That Ends Well
What men need to understand is that when they leap to profess their feelings at the first opportunity, they are viewed by women as being akin to the male version of the woman who doesn't hesitate to make herself sexually available on the first date.  In other words, in the same way that men feel no responsibility to reward a physical slut with a relationship after she presents them freely with her body, women feel no responsibility to reward a feelings slut with sexual relations after he presents them freely with his emotions.

From the female perspective, the highly indifferent man is the male version of the highly chaste woman.  He is a trophy worth the hunt, the virgin for whom great sacrifices are both required and merited.  To be free with ones feelings is to be sluttish and despicable.

This shows where and how Susan and other women have gotten the "male slut" concept completely backwards.  The "male slut" is not the man who has indiscriminate sex with numerous women and yet remains emotionally aloof; he is ironically more akin to an analogical "male virgin".  The real "male slut" is the man who declares his love on first sight, who wears his heart on his sleeve, and who engages readily in grand romantic gestures.

165 comments:

Shimshon said...

The "male slut" is not the man who has indiscriminate sex with numerous women and yet remains emotionally aloof; he is ironically more akin to an analogical "male virgin".

Vox, would you say that accusing a man of not getting any is a woman's attempt at the equivalent of slut-shaming? Granted, the accusation is usually hurled at alphas, but the typical not-getting-any guy is a gamma, delta, or omega. In that, it just doesn't work, but I can see why they think it would.

Peter Garstig said...

So, in Vox's terms: women prefer the male slut to hang out with but prefer the male virgin for marriage.

It fits all so well...

alphamission said...

This is one of those truth's that I discovered before even finding the manosphere. There was a link on Reddit to a sorority website that had an article about girls not liking nice guys because they were emotional sluts, and comparisons to females being sluts, etc. It was my sample red pill.

Vicomte said...

Saying that women understand the concept is laughably inaccurate, on both points.

Over-eagerness is unattractive. This is a fairly basic concept. Susan provides a decent list of appropriate rationalizations, however.

VD said...

Vox, would you say that accusing a man of not getting any is a woman's attempt at the equivalent of slut-shaming?

Yes, very much so. Although it is at least consistent with observable socio-sexual reality, and even though ineffective when inaccurately targeted, more relevant than the attempts to actually slut-shame sexually successful men.

It is incontinence that makes the slut. Physical incontinence on the part of women, emotional incontinence on the part of men.

Shimshon said...

To further the analogy, just like alphas (well, anyone who can, but it's mostly alphas) use physical sluts, orbited girls (is there a succinct term for this?) use the emotional version. As long as he's not a creep (I've known both types).

Vicomte said...

Orbited Girls = girls

taterearl said...

Powerful stuff.

But in the end I think most guys know deep down expressing feelings doesn't equal love. Learning to keep my emotions in check is another step in my improvement process.

Anonymous said...

Orbited Girls = girls

lol +1

facepalm said...

This is nonsense. Girls don't care about "emotional incontinence". They don't much care about any kind of incontinence as long as it doesn't hurt them, in reputation or resources.

What is "emotional incontinence" from an average beta suddenly becomes passion and poetry from a man with options. It's vanity. A guy like Berlusconi probably falls in love every other weekend and he's not having any trouble with the ladies.

Wendy said...

No Facepalm, girls do care about emotional incontinence. One time I went to a movie on a date. He cried. I didn't. As hard as I tried, and I did try because he was a nice guy and we had a lot in common, I couldn't like him after that...

taterearl said...

"What is "emotional incontinence" from an average beta suddenly becomes passion and poetry from a man with options."

Know the difference...betas let it come out within the first meeting. Either by word or action. The other guy lets it come out when he feels like and usually if he has options it will take a while.

VD said...

Girls don't care about "emotional incontinence". They don't much care about any kind of incontinence as long as it doesn't hurt them, in reputation or resources.

You just keep telling yourself that as you strap on yet another pair of Depends, Champ.

Shimshon said...

I've experienced it personally, both as a perpetrator and observer. Women will either run away or LJBF you the second you come on too strong.

I knew a girl in college (who later became my GF) who was heavily orbited by a poem-writing niceguy. She hated it. Felt totally smothered. Didn't even want him as a friend or orbiter. I wrote a poem to her myself, which she loved, but only after we had been together many months.

Years later, I wrote a poem to girl after a third date. She was quite interested in me before (this was after I became observant and was set up by a matchmaker, trust me, three dates is already considered pretty serious in my world), but ended it almost immediately after that. I'm pretty sure it was the poem that did it. I came on too strong too soon. Lesson learned (:-).

facepalm said...

No Facepalm, girls do care about emotional incontinence. One time I went to a movie on a date. He cried. I didn't. As hard as I tried, and I did try because he was a nice guy and we had a lot in common, I couldn't like him after that...

Yeah, well, an average dude doesn't have the same freedom of action.

You just keep telling yourself that as you strap on yet another pair of Depends, Champ.

I wouldn't want to know how many times Keith Richards or someone like that shit themselves in the depth of some heroin overdose, but I doubt it did them any harm with the groupies.

Don't let me stop you from basking in the soft light of your halo though, you great "emotional virgin", you. You're like a Madonna!

Anonymous said...

'The "male slut" is not the man who has indiscriminate sex with numerous women and yet remains emotionally aloof; he is ironically more akin to an analogical "male virgin". The real "male slut" is the man who declares his love on first sight, who wears his heart on his sleeve, and who engages readily in grand romantic gestures.'

Sounds totally illogical, but actually makes sense ;-)

However, there is difference - men will sleep with slut, while chick will not sleep with 'emotionally promiscuous' (aka."nice guy").

I am still at this stage (getting fcloses, but too eager to commit), I guess it will take few more fcloses to get over it...

Vicomte said...

The 'emotional slut' will get mindfucked hard.

The comparison remains apt.

taterearl said...

"The 'emotional slut' will get mindfucked hard."

That first one is always the most painful...then eventually you become cynical and learn not trust any of them.

Just like your 'physical sluts'.

Anonymous said...

'The 'emotional slut' will get mindfucked hard.'

aka.: nice guy buys drinks/dinners = resources extraction/mindfuck

Actually it makes sense even more :-)
Another piece of puzzle fails into its place... Kudos for that!

Sometimes I think, how the hell world did come to that situation? Our fathers did not have to learn all that shit to land decent women.

Cail Corishev said...

Ha, I did the poem too. And the love letter, and the gift from a secret admirer (which she probably hoped was from the jerk ex-boyfriend), and the birthday present after going to the trouble of finding out when it was. Every time it killed the relationship dead, although I wasn't savvy enough about what LJBF means back then to realize it right away. Come to think of it, the only relationships I didn't kill by coming on too strong when I was young were the ones where she came on so strong that I didn't get a chance to screw it up.

If you take the cutest girl in the dorm to a movie for your first date, and you end up back in her room talking half the night while she's in her nightie and her roommate is out for no particular reason, and you want to kill the sexual attraction in a hurry, just say goodnight and write her a love poem the next day.

Kyle In Japan said...

Good stuff, I can't remember seeing this observation anywhere else.

The good news is, unlike a female slut, a male slut can quickly reform his behavior, without leaving any physical traces. And while being a sap around girls is bad for relationships, it doesn't cause the same long-term damage that sleeping around does for women (who, as we've read, loose their ability to form lifelong bonds with a partner due to promiscuity.)

DrJohno said...

Got it. So men don't give "female sluts" what they want (commitment), the same way as women don't give "male sluts" what they want (sex).

Anonymous said...

'Ha, I did the poem too. And the love letter, and the gift from a secret admirer (which she probably hoped was from the jerk ex-boyfriend), and the birthday present after going to the trouble of finding out when it was.'

I wrote no letters, but I recently wanted to introduce major slut to my family (it's quite serious where I am from). Lucky, found out before flight about other guys she fucked.
The best part was: 'but I am a good person' :-)

Anonymous said...

'The good news is, unlike a female slut, a male slut can quickly reform his behavior, without leaving any physical traces.'

Don't believe that. Some chicks are perfect at lying especially smart ones - you will not even think what they are capable of.

Anonymous said...

"Girls don't care about "emotional incontinence"."

Well, yeah they do care about a man's throwing his feelings around and then offering himself up as her protector and provider. Women care it much the same way men care about a female slut screwing every Tom, Dick and Harry and then selling herself as loyal, faithful wife material.

A woman's sluthood is great sex for a man, but that's pretty much it. He's reluctant to commit to her. He thinks "She's great in bed, but she gave it up easily to me. How many other men has she slept with? And how hard did THEY have to work for it? How can I trust her to be loyal and faithful to me?"

A man's emotional offerings right out of the box are great for a woman; but it makes her see him at best as a friend; never as a lover. She thinks to herself: "He's a great friend and nice to me. But is he going to fall apart at the first sign of trouble? Can he handle difficult situations? If he can't keep himself under control with me, how can he do it in the world? If he can't stand up to me, he'll fall apart when faced with real opposition. He's weak. He can't protect me or provide for me."

deti


Anonymous said...

'He thinks "She's great in bed, but she gave it up easily to me. How many other men has she slept with? And how hard did THEY have to work for it? How can I trust her to be loyal and faithful to me?"'

I see danger here - guy trained in PUA/Charisma might open girls legs pretty fast. For example - I have been banging 8hb after 2hrs, while her ex-millionare-boyfriend needed 4 months.

'He can't protect me or provide for me.'
I don't see relation. 'Emotional slut' can still protect/provide - see Nice Guys (TM) marrying Reformed Sluts (TM)

facepalm said...

Just because something is analogous to something else and "fits" doesn't mean that it's applicable. That is an autistic way to see things.

Women are not interested in fidelity. Not even emotional fidelity. Emotional fidelity is a proxy for commitment. With enough resources that line gets blurred. Even without too many resources but a cultural environment that allows it, it gets blurred. A large portion of the French female population who's husbands take mistresses can testify to that. And the French are not the most stoic people when it comes to romance.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:41 am:

Well, sure, a guy with Game/charisma might be able to get a previously chaste girl to sleep with him by pushing all her buttons. If she's going to sleep with a guy with lots of Game after a couple of hours, that speaks directly to her character.

An "emotional slut" can provide resources, but that's pretty much it. He cannot give her what she really wants: emotional security, a safe harbor for her emotions, and a sense that she is shielded from physical danger, short term and long term. The protector/provider role she wants from a man is more complex than his ability to earn money and pay bills.

deti

facepalm said...

Well, yeah they do care about a man's throwing his feelings around and then offering himself up as her protector and provider.

Because he's risking claims being put on his resources by other women.

Shimshon said...

Women are not interested in fidelity.

True. Male fidelity is not an attraction cue to a woman like it is to a man. But confidence and strength are, and an overly emotional man displays a lack of both.

Sue mentioned this briefly when she posted about shit-testing a guy in high school. From what I remember, she lost whatever attraction she had for him the moment he went all teary-eyed on her. She didn't just distance herself from him, either. She mocked him, even if indirectly.

Anonymous said...

@Deti
'...If she's going to sleep with a guy with lots of Game after a couple of hours, that speaks directly to her character...'

I get your point, but it's much more varied IMO.
She might be ovulating, guy might filled all her boxes, she might be just dumped, etc. Too many variables there, I will be very careful with making opinions on her character on just time-to-lay.

My best relationship ever was with girl who put out on 3rd date - I have spend 18 months with her. She was true good girl (4 sex partners, 27yrs old).

My worst relationship was with proper golddigger/manipulative-bitch, who put out after a month (her lover just dumped her as I found out later). She had like 20-30 sex partners and she was 26yrs old.

'The protector/provider role she wants from a man is more complex than his ability to earn money and pay bills.'
Yeah, agree on that 100%.
Nevertheless, most of 30+ have to settle for money-provider.

Daniel said...

Oh come on! Men have every right to be emotionally vulnerable and open on first contact! It is their emotional content! No one, certainly no woman has any right to tell him what to do with his emotions.

He should be able to emote with anyone as he sees fit, without judgment.

Emotionality is sacred. It is a beautiful thing for a man who is comfortable with his poignancy to share his emotions with a woman: love knows no timetable.

Of course, just because a man is free with his emotions, that doesn't give a woman any right to have access to them on demand, and she should never fall into the trap of our matriarchal society that has for generations simply assumed that a man's emotions are the property and currency of women in a base pathos-driven culture.

Our emotions, our selves! We'll cry when we want to, gals, and there ain't nothing you can do about it.

How dare you call me a slut. I'm going join up with all the emotional men I know, and we will gather in the public square and cry our eyes out. Watch the hot strippers flock to us!

I am man! Hear me whimper!

swiftfoxmark2 said...

I will say that the emotional man does succeed when the woman he is seeing is also incredibly desperate.

But she's already got to be pretty desperate for a man, so I doubt an emotionally wimpy man will be that lucky.

Signe said...

Women are not interested in fidelity. Not even emotional fidelity.

That's why emo-slutdom is so damned sexy, as demonstrated here, amirite?

Seriously, there's something special about being the only girl to see inside her man's head. Most women will put up with just about anything if they get to be insiders, as it were, including physical infidelity.

(Not that I would. I'd probably set a lethal trap for two if I found out my (hypothetical) man was cheating physically. But I'm weird, so probably I don't count.)

Booch Paradise said...

So if a man who is free with his emotions is a slut, then a woman with a ton of beta orbiters must be a cad. Obvious now that I think about it, but it never occurred to me till just now.

Ted D said...

“If he can't keep himself under control with me, how can he do it in the world? If he can't stand up to me, he'll fall apart when faced with real opposition. “

This makes no logical sense to me. Just because a guy can’t “stand up” to his wife does NOT mean he wouldn’t kick ass and take names if shit hit the fan. Why is it that women seem to think THEY are the end all, be all of a man’s strength? I’ve known former military guys that were total pussies with their wives, but *I* wouldn’t want to piss them off to the point that physical violence ensued. It would be complete folly for such a wife to feel her husband “can’t protect” her because she pushes him around.

“An "emotional slut" can provide resources, but that's pretty much it. He cannot give her what she really wants: emotional security, a safe harbor for her emotions, and a sense that she is shielded from physical danger, short term and long term. The protector/provider role she wants from a man is more complex than his ability to earn money and pay bills. “

Now this is an interesting comment. Especially the part about a woman wanting a “safe harbor for her emotions”… Are you implying that the reason a woman subconsciously wants a guy that is unaffected by her temper tantrums is because she KNOWS she will be throwing them, and wants to know her man will not be moved BY them? If so, then why can’t she simply STOP BEING AN EMOTIONAL MESS and relying on someone else to keep her “in control”?

This is the part that bothers me to no end. As a responsible adult, it is my responsibility to keep my own shit in check. So why enable women to completely shrug off responsibility for being bat shit crazy by being their "safe emotional harbor"?!

Signe said...

So if a man who is free with his emotions is a slut, then a woman with a ton of beta orbiters must be a cad.

This makes sense. It explains why the woman you describe is so contemptible.

Maybe those of us women who hate that kind of thing and reflect on how we'd be good to one of those poor orbiters are gammas and guilty of white-knighting, too.

Cail Corishev said...

A woman wants to be on her man's pedestal, but that doesn't mean she wants to be put there immediately. If he puts her on it right away, he's done the same thing with other women, and it doesn't say anything special about her. When he (sparingly) shares his emotions with her, she wants it to be because she drew them out of him in a way no other woman could.

So yes, a man putting a woman on a pedestal right away or dumping his heart out on the first date is like a woman walking up to a strange guy and saying, "Want a blowjob?" Even if the guy accepts, he's liable to be a little leery; and the better quality guys will pass, wondering what's wrong with her. It's a great analogy.

facepalm said...

This is the part that bothers me to no end. As a responsible adult, it is my responsibility to keep my own shit in check. So why enable women to completely shrug off responsibility for being bat shit crazy by being their "safe emotional harbor"?!

Because they would like to "let their emotions run wild" in the safety of your steady masculinity. Without any consequences of course. They are "waves of the ocean" beating upon you, the unmoving rocky shoal. In the old days the solution was to smack the bitch. Nowadays, our PUA priests preach "amused mastery" or "aloof indifference". Might as well castrate yourself and become a zen monk.

Desert Cat said...

"From the female perspective, the highly indifferent man is the male version of the highly chaste woman. He is a trophy worth the hunt, the virgin for whom great sacrifices are both required and merited. To be free with ones feelings is to be sluttish and despicable."

...arrrrrrrghh.h.h...the truth! It burns!

+3 flaming vorpal blade of Real. Thank you, sir.

Anonymous said...

'This is the part that bothers me to no end. As a responsible adult, it is my responsibility to keep my own shit in check. So why enable women to completely shrug off responsibility for being bat shit crazy by being their "safe emotional harbor"?!'

This is actually simple - because women are sex-provider (till hot and young to be specific) and guys have to compete for that if they want to get laid.

Therefore, guys are mercilessly shit-tested by girls who look for the best man available.

Have you ever heard "woman is, man has to become man"? Unfair? True.
Now get your shit together and learn how to pass those shit-tests :-)

Josh said...

This makes no logical sense to me. 

Ted, haven't you realized by now that woman are not rational, but rationalizing?

Signe said...

If so, then why can’t she simply STOP BEING AN EMOTIONAL MESS and relying on someone else to keep her “in control”?

And for that matter, why can't every man just STOP BEING A WUSS and bulk up like Arnold?

Physical limitations, you say? No kidding.

The thing that makes the average woman an emotional mess is called hormones, Ted. It makes it very hard to be consistent from day to day. Today I'm in control; next week I'm a hellcat; the week after, I'm a sobbing wreck. And since the changes are necessary to fertility, it's a physical limitation that, unless you're one of those "no kids for me" types, you don't wish away.

A man who puts his foot down to me is a man who can deal with the things I may or may not be able to, depending on what week it is.

Just because a guy can’t “stand up” to his wife does NOT mean he wouldn’t kick ass and take names if shit hit the fan.

But female solipsism says that if I don't see him do it, it doesn't count. True story.

Signe said...

But none of what I wrote is meant to excuse me when I act like a looney. The hormones just make it harder not to. It's like, well, trying to work when you're injured: can be done, just a lot harder and more painful.

Booch Paradise said...

"This makes no logical sense to me. Just because a guy can’t “stand up” to his wife does NOT mean he wouldn’t kick ass and take names if shit hit the fan."

It makes perfect sense to me. Guys I've known who are prone to emotional vomit also tend to have a severe lack of self assessment and tend to be guilty of self inflicted victimization. I've also never seen a man "kick ass and take names" who was an emotional slut.

Ted D said...

Josh - "Ted, haven't you realized by now that woman are not rational, but rationalizing?"

I know I know. But I refuse to stop thinking logically myself simply because half (or more) of the human population simply can't manage it themselves. I mean, someone has to make sense once in awhile right? :P

Signe - Yeah, sorry I don't buy it. If I'm feeling like shit, I still get my ass out of bed, go to work, and "behave" in an appropriate manner for public consumption. If your hormones are so bad week to week that you can't control yourself, I'm thinking medical attention is in order. I suppose you still use PMS as an excuse to be a bitch too? In the end, it isn't my problem if your body fucks with you. Figure out how to deal with it on your own.

"And for that matter, why can't every man just STOP BEING A WUSS and bulk up like Arnold?"

Because I like being able to scratch my own shoulders?...

facepalm said...

Just because a guy can’t “stand up” to his wife does NOT mean he wouldn’t kick ass and take names if shit hit the fan.

I think it was Carl Jung who pointed out in the early to mid 20th century what pathetic pussified doormats American men were at home and yet how hard charging and ruthless they were in business.

Ted D said...

Booch - "It makes perfect sense to me. Guys I've known who are prone to emotional vomit also tend to have a severe lack of self assessment and tend to be guilty of self inflicted victimization. I've also never seen a man "kick ass and take names" who was an emotional slut."

I didn't say emotional slut. I said submissive and deferential to his wife. I have a friend that was a Marine. he is a hard ass among hard asses, but his wife stomps all over him and he simply sucks it up because that was what he was taught to do. His wife would be a total moron to believe that he was incapable of defender her from physical violence. Hell man, if shit really did hit the fan, I'd be trying to get his ass to my house ASAP.

My point was: just because a man is a wimp to his GF/Wife does NOT mean he wouldn't kill another man threatening her. And, to be honest, I'd say he is more likely to do so, because of his over investment in her existence in his life. I've seen lots of this with former enlisted men in fact, my Marine buddy being just one example.

Signe - "But none of what I wrote is meant to excuse me when I act like a looney. The hormones just make it harder not to. It's like, well, trying to work when you're injured: can be done, just a lot harder and more painful."

There you go! This sounds like a reasonable adult approach to PMS/Hormones making you BSC. So women CAN take responsibility, it just takes effort and work. Sounds a lot like a guy trying to up his attractiveness, doesn't it?

Desert Cat said...

Remember Freddy from "My Fair Lady"? He plays the classic role of the emotional slut. Does he win Eliza's hand? Nope. It is the emotionally elusive Higgins that compels her to return.

Anonymous said...

"This makes no logical sense to me. Just because a guy can’t “stand up” to his wife does NOT mean he wouldn’t kick ass and take names if shit hit the fan."

She wants him to put on the show for her. She wants to see him stand up to her and display his confidence and strength. She wants him to qualify himself that way.

"Why is it that women seem to think THEY are the end all, be all of a man’s strength?"

Because she is keenly aware that he is who he REALLY is when he is with her. She knows that he is showing her who he really is.

"Especially the part about a woman wanting a “safe harbor for her emotions”… Are you implying that the reason a woman subconsciously wants a guy that is unaffected by her temper tantrums is because she KNOWS she will be throwing them, and wants to know her man will not be moved BY them?"

Yes, precisely.

"If so, then why can’t she simply STOP BEING AN EMOTIONAL MESS and relying on someone else to keep her “in control”?"

She can't stop being an emotional mess because as Signe said, it's hormonal and to at least some extent she cannot control it. Just like we can't control noticing a slamming hot woman.

WRT the last part, she wants you to keep her "in control", but she wants to see that you can keep yourself in control while she is out of control.

Come on Ted, you've been around these parts long enough to know that's how it is. We're never going to change it, so we may as well accept it and learn how to deal with it.

deti



Signe said...

There you go! This sounds like a reasonable adult approach to PMS/Hormones making you BSC. So women CAN take responsibility, it just takes effort and work. Sounds a lot like a guy trying to up his attractiveness, doesn't it?

That was kind of my point. Jumping up and down and screaming about why more men aren't more attractive isn't going to take away your physical limitations, any more than jumping up and down and screaming about why women aren't more emotionally consistent is going to take away OUR physical limitations.

Adults are aware of their disabilities and work around them--THUS, the desire of your average woman for an emotionally stable man who doesn't put up with her nonsense.

Something being subconscious doesn't make it illogical.

Booch Paradise said...

@Ted D
Understood, I don't totally disagree with you there. I do think that there is still a correlation in the case you described with men who unable to stand up to the world, but it's a not nearly as strong and there are many exceptions.

Which if you're coming from the evo-psychology perspective men's attraction is just as bad an indicator. There are plenty of women with little to no sexual appeal who are capable of bearing many healthy children, and many very attractive women who are flat out infertile.

Peter Garstig said...

It also explains why Katie Price and Barack Obama are centerfolds in this world... And the latter was possible only after woman suffrage.

Anonymous said...

A man should never let a woman know his emotional feelings for her, instead hint here and there with bread crumbs if even that at all and after sleeping with her for quite some time. The hamster loves to wonder, guess, and paint pictures about her man and cant do that with full disclosure coming from him. By overtly stating his feelings, he's stripping away all the layers that she wanted to figure out on her own. I've been with plenty with women and they never want full disclosure, keep them guessing, always. Be a unknowing mystery man, she wants to play inspector and the hamster is your friend. Ever hear a woman say I just can't figure him out? That's a man she's infatuated with. By proclaiming your feelings for her you're projecting what you want her to do to you. It will happen, but as a man you can't force it.

Ted D said...

Deti – “Come on Ted, you've been around these parts long enough to know that's how it is. We're never going to change it, so we may as well accept it and learn how to deal with it.”

Oh I deal with it just fine. But accept it? Probably not. Not as long as humans have conscious choice will I accept that biology trumps common sense and logic. Sure, it isn’t an easy thing to override what your body is telling you because you logically know it is false, but to me that is the purpose of consciousness and intelligence. It is to overcome the fact that underneath it all, we are simply animals. If we can’t manage that, then we are indeed no better than apes.

Look, I’ve suffered from anxiety issues, so I get the concept of the body working against you. But you know what? I realized that the anxiety I felt was not real, and although my body continued for some time to “go through the motions” I eventually managed to learn how to control it without going on drugs. (which was my doctors solution of course…) To this day I watch for the feeling that an attack is coming, and simply concentrate on talking myself off the ledge. I still feel anxious, but it no longer completely disrupts my life when it happens.

Women hit puberty around 12 right? So by 30, isn’t it reasonable to think they should have a pretty good idea of how to manage their own hormonal issues? If not, like I said, medical intervention should be the next step.

Signe – “Adults are aware of their disabilities and work around them--THUS, the desire of your average woman for an emotionally stable man who doesn't put up with her nonsense.”

The problem is, such a woman is NOT working around her “disability”, she is expecting her husband to do the hard work FOR her. (which is my biggest complaint in all of this. Finding someone else to deal with YOUR shit is not fixing it yourself) What the hell would she do to keep herself “in control” if her husband gets hit by a bus tomorrow?

Signe said...

I've been with plenty with women and they never want full disclosure, keep them guessing, always.

Are you still with all of them?

VD said...

So if a man who is free with his emotions is a slut, then a woman with a ton of beta orbiters must be a cad.

Precisely.

This makes no logical sense to me. Just because a guy can’t “stand up” to his wife does NOT mean he wouldn’t kick ass and take names if shit hit the fan. Why is it that women seem to think THEY are the end all, be all of a man’s strength?

Strange, I could have sworn you were here for the female solipsism debate....

Stickwick said...

Good grief, Ted, but you are annoying with your dogged determination to not understand what is and deal with it.

WRT the last part, she wants you to keep her "in control", but she wants to see that you can keep yourself in control while she is out of control.

It's kind of like when we were children -- some had parents who were obviously in control, others didn't. We all had a responsibility when we were growing up to learn self-control, but good parents also understood that we were limited by normal kid things, i.e. our immaturity. The most miserable children I knew growing up were the ones with wishy-washy parents who crumbled when met with the slightest resistance. The most content were those who had, on occasion, tested their parents' limits and gotten confirmation that their parents could handle anything thrown their way. Think about it. Is there any more physically vulnerable state than being a little kid? They need to know that their parents can protect them, and a parent who is calm in the face of a kid-storm is demonstrating that s/he is up to the task.

Likewise, a woman (who is also physically vulnerable) tests her man occasionally to see if he is fit for command. If he is, she'll be content and the tests won't occur very often.

Ted D said...

VD - "Strange, I could have sworn you were here for the female solipsism debate...."

Indeed I was. Like I said to Deti, I may work around all this crap, but I don't think I'll ever simply accept it as default. I certainly don't spend my days walking around telling random women how illogical they are, but I also don't think I'll every stop being annoyed by the fact that they probably are illogical.

In short: stupidity still pisses me off even when I understand the why of it.

Anonymous said...

@Ted D

Ted, young woman does not have to work on herself - she's granted high value by mere fact of having vagina (as beta as it sounds...). She simply does not have pressure to become better - she has her way already.

Later, most of women become more reasonable, but they are forced to do so (not many men will put up with their shit if chick is ugly).

You are forced to become emotionally stable, just by mere fact of having sexual drive.
However, I have few friends - sons of rich people. They are spoiled as well. The reason is they do not have to be better.

I have thought of that some time ago and the answer is simple - they do, because they can.

Ted D said...

Stickwick - "Good grief, Ted, but you are annoying with your dogged determination to not understand what is and deal with it. "

I do deal with it, and I understand it from a biological sense. I still can't get over the fact that everyone thinks its OK to let it just happen naturally, when we are all capable of overriding our natural instincts for the better (or worse in some cases.)

I get it, I just don't like it, and don't think that will change going forward. I do what I have to do to get what I want, but it will continue to annoy me probably until the day I die.

Doggedly determined is something I intentionally strive for, but I seem to have a natural talent for it. ;-)

Hoots said...

Spot on Vox. I thought the same thing when reading that post. So much confusion over the double standard is squashed by observing that a woman's most valuable asset in the "market" is her body, and a man's most valuable asset is his commitment (time, money, protection, etc.).

Feminist politics, technology, and deficit spending have diluted the value of male commitment. Technology (porn, sexbots, medical advance, etc.) has slightly diluted the value of the female body, but not to the same extent. The future is uncertain.

Daniel said...

Ted, your posts read like they were processed by an android. You seriously need to employ a pre-emptive subroutine to evaluate and qualify the inputs:

Currently, you are still taking garbage in.

If what you believe "should be" is consistently housed in the "will be" bucket, you are always going to come to the same erroneous conclusion, no matter how many ways you process it.

You do not understand the design of consciousness and choice. From your perspective, most, likely all, women consciously choose an emotional landscape. Who are you to tell them they can't?

Athor Pel said...

Personal theory time:

In truth, nobody has a high opinion of themselves. We know how much we fail. We fail ourselves most of all. So we all know what jerks we are even if we don't intend to be.

Since we know what jerks we are then if we meet someone that accepts us at first sight then we think that person has no discernment. They are seen as stupid, at least they are unacceptably gullible. We know it is only a matter of time before their false high opinion of us will be punctured with likely ugly results.

This is why an attitude of outcome independence in men is seen as attractive by women because it lines up with their own low self-regard. They know there are conditions that must be met before you will choose her. Your standards, your frame, she accepts that or she doesn't get chosen anymore. They may not be conscious of it but that's how it works.

Love is only accepted when you know they see all of you and love you anyway, in spite of your faults. You become grateful for the gift, since that is what love is, a gift. This of course assumes you have some modicum of humility. At that point you begin to desire to make yourself worthy of that love. You begin to work on yourself, make yourself better, in order to honor the love you've been given.




There's another way of looking at this as well.
We know women generally hate gift obligation. They hate to feel obligated to a gift giver. Bitches denigrate the gift in order to lessen the obligation. Non-bitches work their asses off to square the obligation. They will do whatever they feel needs to be done in order to even things up.

A guy that gives commitment, a gift, without any reciprocal obligation form the woman, like sex, generates a crap ton of gift obligation anxiety. She doesn't want to feel obligated to an obvious lower rank male. It lowers her rank to do so. She must reject it.

Bob Wallace said...

"The "male slut" is not the man who has indiscriminate sex with numerous women and yet remains emotionally aloof; he is ironically more akin to an analogical "male virgin". The real "male slut" is the man who declares his love on first sight, who wears his heart on his sleeve, and who engages readily in grand romantic gestures."

Actually they're both. I know a guy who acts like the latter because he is the former. He has slept with about 100 women and did it by targeting women far less attractive than him. He told me, "If they dump me, who cares?"

The name for such a man has traditionally been a cad, and I have found they essentially end up ruining their lives.

Ted D said...

Danial - "You do not understand the design of consciousness and choice. From your perspective, most, likely all, women consciously choose an emotional landscape. Who are you to tell them they can't?"

Who is Vox? Or Rollo? Or Susan Walsh? There are many people telling more people what to do or say, I'm just one instrument in the symphony.

I wouldn't say that I believe women "choose" the emotional landscape. I think most of them probably don't know there is another choice. I for one would like to see a world where everyone knows the scoop, and can then make a decision based on it. At least then, there will be no one escaping responsibility for their actions based on some biological excuse.

And as far as it goes, to me this is not simply an issue for/about women. There are plenty of men living in that "emotional landscape" as well. In fact, I'd say the Modern West has practically perfected the concept of redirecting blame from the source: the person responsible for it.

"If what you believe "should be" is consistently housed in the "will be" bucket, you are always going to come to the same erroneous conclusion, no matter how many ways you process it."

No, I've pretty much given up on any hope that what I believe "should be" ever "will be" at this point. I suppose I'm still bitter about it though. :p I act on the reality I find myself in while bemoaning the fact that I have to act that way at all. But I've always been the type that will bitch and moan while busting my ass doing something I don't feel I should have to. I'll get it done, but I won't like it. Maybe I just like to complain?

Signe said...

Ted, okay, let's take a second here.

What it looks like you want is an acknowledgment of your amazing awesomeness in getting yourself under control. All right, bravo. You questioned the system, broke the chains, and got yourself together. You're a great guy. You've done something wonderful. If only everyone on Earth were as self-aware as you are, and then we'd live in Paradise.

Is that enough? I hope so; I'm not doing any more.

Now, let's lay aside what nobody is saying:

Nobody is saying that women should never exert control over ourselves. Nobody is saying that it is good and fine for us to be utterly self-unaware and go careering around life like a ping-pong ball in a clothes dryer. Nobody is saying that men should have no feelings.

Cleared up for you? Okay, now let's get to why I'm not agreeing with you:

Despite humanism's favorite delusions, it is not possible to achieve perfection while you're still alive. You can only accomplish as much as your body will allow. Some people can do more, some people can do less.

Women are not like men. We have different bodily conditions that make it difficult, if not downright impossible, to achieve the emotional consistency you men can.

You may not understand why, but you are essentially yelling at a kid in leg braces, demanding to know why he doesn't run marathons. You are calling him lazy and selfish for relying on those braces. You are telling him that if only he would work harder, he could get out of them and be healthy and awesome just like you.

There is nothing immoral about relying on a crutch if you need a crutch. Yes, most women really need not lean so hard on their men for emotional stability, but there are very few women who need not lean at all.

TL;DR version: You are an outlier. Women are different from men. "Should" does not usually intersect with "is".

DJ said...

@ VD
Thanks put a few more puzzle pieces together for me

@ Ted
Look at it this way, if women were logical like men, the human species would not have made it Adam and Eve's first child. They consciously know that during child birth it is very painful, they also know the next moment when they hold the Baby that they wanna do it again.
Women are dynamic and emotionally true to the moment.
Men are static, true to their form every moment until they make a decision.

You are suffering from projection, big time. Try pulling a bodily oriface over a small watermelon and then logically decide to do it again.

Josh said...

Maybe I just like to complain?

You think?

Here's the thing, dude. Do you get your panties in a wad when an infant starts randomly crying? Or when a puppy bites your shoe?

You'll have much more happiness with women if you look at them like a baby or a puppy.

Anonymous said...

"are you still with all of them?"

I'm still in close contact with some, but naturally people come and go... What's your point?

Signe said...

You'll have much more happiness with women if you look at them like a baby...

A loud voice at one end and no accountability at the other?

...or a puppy.

Ever wonder why a nasty woman's called a "bitch"?

Nate said...

People who say women are illogical simply don't understand the goals or givens that those "illogical women" are operating from.

If you understand WHY they shit test then you see that shit tests are in fact perfectly logical.

The power games are necessary. Not because she wants to win... but because she wants it demonstrated that you are capable of protecting her.

Nate said...

anyone that says women are "mysterious" or "unpredictable" is a bloody idiot.

They aren't even particularly complicated.

Signe said...

I'm still in close contact with some, but naturally people come and go... What's your point?

My point is that you have a bunch of beta-orbiter girls. You have as much relationship with them as the orbited chick has with guys for whom she doesn't put out.

I mean, fine, if that's what you all want, but being a man of no face is not useful for guys who want more than that.

/shrug/

Ted D said...

Signe – “What it looks like you want is an acknowledgment of your amazing awesomeness in getting yourself under control. All right, bravo. “

Quite the contrary. My take on it is, if I can manage it, anyone can, because I’m really not that special. I don’t see my self control as being anything to brag about. I see it as an acceptable baseline to work from. I often find myself thinking “Holy shit! If I can figure this out, why can’t everyone else?” I consider myself rather slow on the uptake, because I tend to stew on things for some time before I make a decision about them.

“Despite humanism's favorite delusions, it is not possible to achieve perfection while you're still alive. You can only accomplish as much as your body will allow. Some people can do more, some people can do less.”

Agreed

“There is nothing immoral about relying on a crutch if you need a crutch. Yes, most women really need not lean so hard on their men for emotional stability, but there are very few women who need not lean at all.”

Your last sentence sums it up for me. I believe there are FAR too many women “leaning hard” on their men to get emotionally stable, and on top of it much of pop culture and even the ‘sphere promotes such behavior. We sit here and talk about how to “work around” a woman’s emotional turmoil instead of simply going to the source, the woman in question, and helping HER deal with it herself. I’ve got no problems helping my wife get through tough times, but I expect her to put in 100% of her own effort first, and if she can’t make it I’ll shore up the rest. I’m not about to start expending my own effort until I’ve seen that she has done all she can herself. That being said, I wouldn’t go to her for support until I’d exhausted every bit of personal effort I had first.

DJ - Project is a huge problem for me, no doubt. I spend far too much time in my own head, and when I venture out I am often taken by surprise that the world outside isn't like the one in my head.

Loki of Asgard said...

This thread is not complete without this.

You are welcome.

Josh said...

Dealing with emotional turmoil in women:

Sometimes the best thing to do is pull a Sheldon Cooper, pat her on the head, say "there, there," and offer her a warm beverage.

Or just let her vent without saying anything.

Loki of Asgard said...

Signe: Report at once to the address I am texting you. I have an assignment for you.

Bring pretzels.

Ted D said...

Josh – “Here's the thing, dude. Do you get your panties in a wad when an infant starts randomly crying? Or when a puppy bites your shoe?”

Would it be bad if I said yes? I’m one of those people that gets pissed off when a baby starts crying in a restaurant or some other public place. Yes, my children were babies once. When they started acting up, I took them out of whatever public venue we were in so that others didn’t need to listen to the noise. Puppies get on my nerves like mad. I love to play with them for a bit but only if I can hand them back to someone else when I’m done. That way I don’t deal with chewed on shoes, poop on the floor, and a whole host of other pet related things. We had a dog once. We found it a new home because it wouldn’t stop messing with my shoes. I kid you not…

taterearl said...

Or men should practice...emotional chastity. Let her develop feelings for you first.

http://haleyshalo.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/emotional-chastity-and-the-break-up/

taterearl said...

I imagine the more T you have the better you can suppress the displays of weakness like worry and anxiety. I think those are the two emotions that bring out a lot of anger in men.

I certainly feel like I can take on the world after a good workout.

Daniel said...

I wouldn't say that I believe women "choose" the emotional landscape. I think most of them probably don't know there is another choice.

You are dead wrong here, on multiple levels:

1) The emotional landscape is critical to a woman's survival, the acquisition of long-term relationships, family building, child-rearing and a host of other things. It is not only an important "choice", it is the ideal choice for them. A woman who thinks and acts like a man is an outlier: able to be incorporated into greater society, but no way to run one should her population increase to a critical mass.

2) Women are fully aware that there is another choice: it is called affectless butch lesbianism. Perfectly decent people, mind you, but not exactly men magnets, nor any fertile territory on which to build a future society.

3) It is not logical for most women to aim for logic. Despite your ape-based protestations, they are (mostly) not capable of it as a guiding principle, even if they are adept at it in certain social conditions. Illogic, if it serves one's best interests, is superior to logic that undermines them.

Show me a period in our history, heck demonstrate a dozen women from any given time period, who demonstrated logic as a guiding principle in their lives, and maybe then I'll believe you that women are intrinsically capable of your personal vision of what consciousness is.

You are confusing sets and subsets. Just because a woman can demonstrate logic does not mean that she has the capacity to be inherently logical.

The irony is that you are failing to use logic here in your insistence that things as they are not are in fact, just so.

Aeoli Pera said...

So what's the current exchange rate between the two, I wonder? Sex is undervalued and commitment is overvalued, but by how much?

And could this ratio be depended upon to predict the rise and fall of nations?

Nate said...

"
Would it be bad if I said yes? I’m one of those people that gets pissed off when a baby starts crying in a restaurant or some other public place. Yes, my children were babies once. When they started acting up, I took them out of whatever public venue we were in so that others didn’t need to listen to the noise. Puppies get on my nerves like mad. I love to play with them for a bit but only if I can hand them back to someone else when I’m done. That way I don’t deal with chewed on shoes, poop on the floor, and a whole host of other pet related things. We had a dog once. We found it a new home because it wouldn’t stop messing with my shoes. I kid you not…"

Your trouble with women is truly confounding.

Anonymous said...

No Signe, I never had a bunch of orbiter girls that I withheld commitment from or led on. I had meaningful relationships but never got all lovey dovey with them. I always treat the women in my life with respect, honesty, and security and they respond to that more than anything emotionally. They don't care how I feel, only how I make them feel. I hope that makes a little sense? Todd

Aeoli Pera said...

This idea is a lot of fun.

If

men:emotional investment
is as
women:putting out

Then

Man who hangs out with a group of girls:???

Ted D said...

Daniel – “You are confusing sets and subsets. Just because a woman can demonstrate logic does not mean that she has the capacity to be inherently logical.”

Well damn. You are absolutely right on this one… Showing logical behavior does not equal one’s ability to BE logical.

Nate – “Your trouble with women is truly confounding.”

I did well enough for my own happiness until I pussed out several years into being married the first time. I fell for the blue pill concept that it was MY duty to make my wife happy, and began to slowly and systematically deconstruct everything in my life that didn’t revolve around her until I had nothing left but work.

FWIW my current wife hates cats, and shares the same dislike of pets in general as they take too much effort to keep. She tried to talk me into having another child, but I pointed out that taking vacations would be much less stressful, and perhaps in a few years when our youngest gets to high school, we can trade the van in for a new convertible. I guess I was persuasive enough.

And Lord willing, I won’t have “trouble with women” going forward. Doing my best to figure out how to “manage” the one I have now, and hoping I’ll never have to “manage” another in my lifetime. I’m not sure it’s worth all the effort, so volunteering to do it again if I find myself single somehow seems unlikely.

BigWheat said...

Athor said Love is only accepted when you know they see all of you...

I think you're on to something there, and this contributes to one of Roissy's rules for why to never say "I love you" first.

Shimshon said...

Ted, I would say you are well on your way to gamma-tude at the rate you're going. You acknowledge that women are a certain way but simply refuse to accept what is and demand they conform to your view of logical behavior. No different than telling a man he's got a problem because he finds butt-ugly women repulsive.

VD said...

My take on it is, if I can manage it, anyone can, because I’m really not that special.

Yes, your take is solipsistic and illogical. Let me put it in perspective for you. My father, who was an MIT engineer, had a similar problem grasping how anyone could possibly have a problem with calculus.

[Note to those seeking public IQ validation: this is your cue to claim how easy you find calculus to be.]

Your position is intrinsically illogical because it is based on a false assumption, which is that women have the same capacity for logic that you do. They do not.

And logically speaking, my friend, when both Aristotle and current science are lined up squarely against your conclusions, that is the sign to seriously rethink your basic assumptions.

Daniel said...

Ted D, I think it is a really good idea for you to figure out how to manage the one you've got, and leave it at that. I just think it would be a lot easier to manage her if you stopped expecting her to think like you.

I mean, its great that you two share a hatred for cats and puppies, but the memory of those vacations aren't going to provide balm to the void in her emotional soul of that extra special "last child" she was hoping for...and she's gonna blame you for trading away a potential child for a temporary life of ease.

The empty nest could start out very unpleasantly just based on the seemingly innocuous "seeds of logic and agreement" you are planting now.

You are also missing your rhetorical ploy and mistaking it for logic. To you, you don't want any more kids (because you don't care for babies and children are too expensive) - that's logic. However, you've "convinced" her temporarily that another child between the two of you is a bad idea because it is a limit to your earning potential and her short term ease of access to happiness.

But there's something else going on in her mind. Something like, this maybe:

"Ted's not a quality man. He's shirking his role as a family builder in order to pursue other pleasures: cheap vacations, probably cheap women too. He cannot or will not provide. I've got to take of things myself, or, if someone stronger comes along, I have to weigh those options. He's not looking out for my best interest. Why doesn't he just make more money if he thinks a kid is too expensive?"

It's all emotional nonsense, sure, but just like you can't comprehend thinking like a baby, you obviously can't comprehend thinking like a woman.

If you had simply framed up your decision not to have any more children as one that was emotionally and spiritually a) best for her b) best for your other kids c) likely best for you, but a sacrifice and d) best for her again in a different way, you would have gotten more than a temporary detente.

You want to manage your wife better? Learn to play to her emotions to have her become an emotional booster to your bold decisions, instead of making decisions you justify as logical and then manipulate a "yes" of temporary agreement from her lips.

If you've ever done business with the Japanese, you know exactly what I'm talking about. They'll never, ever, ever say "no" to your face, even if they they think your proposition is the stupidest one they've ever heard.

Next thing you know, they've gone to your competitor who has implemented your exact idea, only ten times more effectively than what you presented. And they still haven't turned you down.

Women are naturally more doubleminded than men. On the one hand, it makes the best of them decent advisors. On the other hand, it makes them freaking doubleminded. See what I'm doing here?

Stop trying to break them like bad code. Start trying to break them like a horse. Tame her body, quiet her mind, and leave the spirit alone.

Josh said...

If Spock had emotions and was infinitely stubborn, I imagine he would sound like Ted.

Ted, I hereby dub thee "angry Spock"

Josh said...

[Note to those seeking public IQ validation: this is your cue to claim how easy you find calculus to be.]

Or to lie about how easy you find calculus to be.

MC Ultra said...

Indicia of feelings sluttishness:

Being a drama queen.
Being a beta orbiter to women (or even just one).
Oneitis.
Premature or incontinent ejaculation of emotion or admiration (especially for her looks, er, "beauty").

But what's the analogy to the tramp stamp? To tattoos?

Ted D said...

Shimshon - “Ted, I would say you are well on your way to gamma-tude at the rate you're going"

To be frank, that is exactly what I'm aiming for.

VD – “Your position is intrinsically illogical because it is based on a false assumption, which is that women have the same capacity for logic that you do. They do not.”

So we are back to the IQ discussion from months ago. All people are not smart. All people are not logical. So, when can we as a society stop telling each other we are all equal? When that happens, I’ll stop complaining that people aren’t all the same. As long as that myth is perpetuated, I’ll keep bitching that people aren’t living up to it.

Daniel – “Ted D, I think it is a really good idea for you to figure out how to manage the one you've got, and leave it at that. I just think it would be a lot easier to manage her if you stopped expecting her to think like you”

I don’t expect her to “think like me”. I expect her to act like an adult and be responsible for her own issues, and expect her to ask me for help when she can’t.

“I mean, its great that you two share a hatred for cats and puppies, but the memory of those vacations aren't going to provide balm to the void in her emotional soul of that extra special "last child" she was hoping for...and she's gonna blame you for trading away a potential child for a temporary life of ease.”

Brother, we have four children in our house, three of which are still under 18. I’m 42 and have NO DESIRE to start over again. She has her two, I have my two, and we have none together. I’m good with it. If she isn’t, that is her problem. I’ve made it clear from day one I’m done having kids. She knew that when she signed on.

“The empty nest could start out very unpleasantly just based on the seemingly innocuous "seeds of logic and agreement" you are planting now.”

Actually we are making plans for our lives once the kids are finally gone. Talking with another couple we are close with about starting a business, perhaps out of the U.S. if things continue to decline here. Shit man, I haven’t even started living MY life yet, because I’ve been living it for my responsibilities (that is my children) since I was 26. I can’t wait to get my life back!

“Stop trying to break them like bad code. Start trying to break them like a horse. Tame her body, quiet her mind, and leave the spirit alone.”

But that’s just it, I don’t want a “broken horse” for a wife. I want a fully functioning adult, capable of handling her own shit, and willing to come along with me on whatever adventure I dream up. I’m going. If she wants to come along, she is welcome. Otherwise? The exit is to the right.

Josh – “Ted, I hereby dub thee "angry Spock"”

I like it so much I might put it on a t-shirt!

“[Note to those seeking public IQ validation: this is your cue to claim how easy you find calculus to be.]”

I suck at math, mostly because my early Catholic school education was seriously lacking in math and science. I can read like a pro though!

Daniel said...

Brother, we have four children in our house, three of which are still under 18. I’m 42 and have NO DESIRE to start over again. She has her two, I have my two, and we have none together. I’m good with it. If she isn’t, that is her problem. I’ve made it clear from day one I’m done having kids. She knew that when she signed on.

It's like you've gone to war with logic and forgot to wear pants.

Look, you don't need to convince me not to have more kids with you, I get it, but I'm not a chick married to you! My point is she doesn't, and using that sort of logic is a terrible way to put her fragile soul at some semblance of peace about your life decision. I'm telling you that has repercussions down the road: repercussions you can avoid today.

As long as you are okay with the potential solution to "her problem" becoming "her boyfriend," I guess that's one way to look at it.

And that's the best case scenario. Do you really want to be spending your twilight years with a hive of bitterness cooling your sheets at night?

If she "knew" before you ever were married that kids weren't in the picture, and yet brought up children after you were married then here's a new logic problem:

Whatever can a childless (disregarding the imported kids) couple do if the husband isn't emotionally stable enough to even discuss the possibility of adding a new kid without shutting down or blowing up?

Put it another way: you logically don't want kids. She logically (apparently) does (right now). You are deciding not to have kids. She is deciding...what, exactly?

[Hint: the answer is not necessarily "the two of you have a kid" nor "she has a kid on her 'own'".]

You, making the mistake that women think like men, believe that "I said it once, it remains as such until I say anything different. She, making the mistake that men think like women, believes that "he said that a long time ago. He must have changed his mind, like I have, a thousand times since then. Why wouldn't he find me desirable enough to have a biological child together? I wonder if he's cheating on me. Well, if he is, I'll return the favor and get the kid we want. Ted'll come around eventually. He probably will even love the little kid, especially if I make sure to mate with someone with better genetics than him."

Please note that none of the female readers have argued against my (obviously somewhat hamhanded) example thought patterns. In fact, I'd be surprised if at least a few readers don't gloss it and say to themselves: "That's exactly what I'd do if I had that jackass for a second husband."

Don't get me wrong. I'm not calling you an a jackass. I'm trying to help.

Women's minds whirl like this all day and all night long. You've got something right on one level: ignore it, it is trifling. On the other hand, don't try to jam your giant wand of semi-emotional logic into that hornets nest, or you're going to get stung.

I know what you are thinking: well, then, I'll just shut down. I give up.

Yeah, that's a good way to turn yourself into a vortex. Her bees of insanity are going to get sucked right into your pores until they drive you mad or drive you unnecessarily away.

There's a third way, man.

Josh said...

I want a fully functioning adult, capable of handling her own shit, and willing to come along with me on whatever adventure I dream up. I’m going.

As a leader, are you worthing of being followed?

Shimshon said...

Ted,

Gamma: "The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter."

I don't know about the first three, but you sound like you like you are frustrated that women don't behave more like men, and on the way to angry about it, soon followed by bitterness. That's not a goal or something to boast about.

Anonymous said...

Ted: If she wants to come along, she is welcome. Otherwise? The exit is to the right.

Sorry, but with that kind of attitude, she'll probably choose the exit, today, tomorrow, next year... Agreement is temporary and will evaporate in no time.

You don't crush her, you tame her and promote growth and maturity. You help her by managing her very powerful emotions. It's easy for you to do with a calm, logical, male mind -- and saves you both a ton of grief. That's the complementary nature of male-female interaction.

Use the M-F differences to strengthen your bond and provide something that she needs/wants. Step back and see the big picture. You can cover her soft spots, just as she covers yours. It's a win-win.

Alan

Nate said...

"To be frank, that is exactly what I'm aiming for."

Then she'll be cheating on you inside of a year.. if she isn't already.

Brilliantly logical.

Josh said...

Ted, why not just divorce your wife now?

Soga said...

"Am I my brother's keeper?" said Cain.

"Am I my wife's keeper?" said Ted.


But really, some real questions to ponder (Christians, please):

Are women morally culpable for decisions they make regarding relationships? Is the man being a gamma a valid excuse for a woman to cheat on him?

Josh said...

Are women morally culpable for decisions they make regarding relationships? Is the man being a gamma a valid excuse for a woman to cheat on him?

Yes

No

Nate said...

"Are women morally culpable for decisions they make regarding relationships? Is the man being a gamma a valid excuse for a woman to cheat on him?"

Blame is not a zero sum game. more than 1 party can be 100% to blame.

if a wife is not putting out... and a husband cheats... she definitely has some blame to bear... as does he. Both are guilty.

I think the same type of principle would hold true for a male bitching out and causing his wife to cheat. Both would be culpable.

Anonymous said...

Ted:

You're getting good advice here.

A little more time you spend with Vox and Rollo; a little less time you spend with Susan.

deti

Stickwick said...

Ted, why not just divorce your wife now?

Because that would be far too direct. It's got to be something more passive-aggressive, like staying the present course, waiting for her to react in a way that will implode the marriage, and then he's off the hook.

Are women morally culpable for decisions they make regarding relationships? Is the man being a gamma a valid excuse for a woman to cheat on him?

Yes. No -- there's nothing in scripture that says adultery is excusable under any circumstances. But a man can be motivated to rise above gammahood for the simple reason that it reduces a woman's temptation to sin, just as a woman can avoid contributing to a man's temptation by not routinely denying him sex and pleasant companionship.

Soga said...

Nate wrote:
"I think the same type of principle would hold true for a male bitching out and causing his wife to cheat. Both would be culpable."

I agree for the most part, but I'm balking at the idea that a man bitching out causes his wife to cheat. If a woman is morally culpable, then it follows that she has the ability to decide whether or not she follows through with an action.

A man bitching out may be a factor leading to her decision to cheat, but it is still solely her decision to cheat. She has a choice.

That's why I get annoyed by the constant calls for men to "man up", but rarely do I see any calls for women to "woman up". This is especially a prevalent problem in churches. It seems to me like women are given a license to do whatever they like with respect to relationships without any regard for moral purity.

I think that's a part of what's bugging Ted too. I don't deny that men have a duty to be real men and to take responsibility, especially for their wives and families. But I think what Ted is having trouble with here is the notion that women are both responsible for their own actions and decisions, yet at the same time less able to make the right decisions in light of what we may view as abstract moral principles (e.g. "God said so." "Sure, but I don't see God here in the room with me, so what does that have anything to do with my real-world, tangible situation?").

I think at the core of what Ted is struggling with is he is trying to reconcile the state of gender "equality" as it exists currently with what the red pill has to say about that. He wants to believe that women aren't mental children and that they can make the right choices on their own as well as men.

Basically, like some of you are saying, he seems to think women can be treated like men. The irony is that he's making the same mistake the feminists do, he's just approaching it from the opposite direction. He believes in gender equality, he just believes that it doesn't mean women can do whatever they want, and that women should be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as men.

taterearl said...

Ted here is a word I want you to see.

Humble

not proud : not thinking of yourself as better than other people

Men and women both have their strengths and weaknesses. Men are just as capable of making poor choices logically as women are emotionally.

That being said...somebody has to be a leader and somebody has to be a follower. Due to logic producing better decisions consistently over emotions that would place the male at the head. But part of being a good leader is to not places standards on her that you yourself couldn't live up to.

And that is why women flock to confidence like a moth to a light.

Vicomte said...

What the fuck is calculus?

Stickwick said...

Calculus? Bah! So derivative.

Retrenched said...

@ taterearl

"Or men should practice...emotional chastity. Let her develop feelings for you first."

Roissy's first commandment comes to mind here.

Toby Temple said...

it is best to display your emotional side on someone else. but do this rarely.

it works wonders, especially when she least expect to see it from you.

she will be fantasizing about the day that she will be the receiver of that sweet side of yours. this will make her more flirty with you in the attempt to make that fantasy a reality.

facepalm said...

Given the increasingly specialized skills demanded by the economic system we live in, it's no wonder that men are less traditionally "masculine". They spend most of their lives outside a traditional social heirarchy and even apart from other people much of the time and increasingly immersed in a conceptual world. There is very little need or opportunity to develop "dominance" or charisma when most of your time is spent dealing with algorithms. Our biological drives, and the old forms of social arrangements are obsolete, and inefficient at producing the kind of offspring the economy needs. You don't need dominance to secure resources anymore, you need technical skills. Women whine that men are not masculine. There's no reason to be, except to attract women. Since the environment doesn't generally demand it, men have to start learning to be attractive. Sexuality is being abstracted from daily life because of technological progress.

The future will be an extension of current trends: at the upper income echelons ulgy, nerdy dweebs will pair off and produce the next generation of technicians while at the bottom everyone is fucking like animals and living in squalor. And once in a while the women from the upper classes will come down and copulate with a thug to satisfy their vestigial biological urges. After turning the proletariat into appendages of machines, the system is turning the petty burgeois into keepers of algorithms.

Basil Ransom said...

Strongly disagree. The equivalent to the slut is not a man who loves too quickly, but a man who gives up his resources too freely. Call him a white knight if you like. He offers his support and resources to her when he isn't even a sexual prospect to her. There have always been men, however, even players, who are quick to declare their affections for a woman.

You're also looking at the cuntish, emotionally desiccated being that is the American woman, and taking her to be the epitome of a woman. I don't doubt they find interest in them repulsive, a delicious form of self-hatred - but I wouldn't extrapolate that to women of all stripes.

Legendary player Porfirio Rubirosa bedded one of the most desired women of his time by having countless red roses delivered to her hotel suite. Subtle, hardly.

Basil Ransom said...

Additionally, a man can like (or love) a woman from a position of strength, or from a position of weakness.

Strength: He appreciates her and enjoys her immensely, and will eventually want to declare her as his own. He is like a generous host, who wants to invite her to enjoy his world and stay a while. His body language with her is never cringeworthy - here are some good photographic examples - http://tinyurl.com/awx6jhv . If he emotionally responds at all to her departure, it's more likely to be with anger than with sorrow.

Weakness: He doesn't know what he'd do without her. He grips her closely as if he's scared she'll leave. He looks at her as his salvation from an incomplete, unsatisfying life. He will hysterically pine after her when she leaves. His body language with her is *frequently* cringe-worthy - http://tinyurl.com/cyvb2t

Emma said...

I kinda see the analogy, but "feelings slut" is a ridiculous sounding expression. Also, kind of agree with Basil Ransom.

Shimshon said...

Ted, there is a way to get women to act more logically and less emotionally. It's called Game. Be her anchor. Her safe harbor.

My wife was borderline batshit, as I've mentioned before. Before Game, she would explode at the drop of a pin, and could stay agitated for days. Now, the frequency, amplitude, and duration of these episodes are all WAAAAAAAAAAY down. They barely happen, they're much less intense, and they're over in a few minutes (or a few hours at worst). She's almost normal (:-).

Beyond that, decisions that she makes, even without me hovering over her, are less whimsical and now more closely track my preferences than before.

But you're running anti-game on her. In just the child example you gave, by giving her logical (to you) reasons), that undoubtedly sounded petty and selfish to her, you handed her the frame. You are also denigrating her feelings by trying to placate her (with a baby we can't go on awesome vacations together!). You don't have to give in to her feelings, but never mock them! It would have been better to stick to something like this: "I hear you want a baby, but we discussed this before we got married and I haven't changed my mind since then."

RC said...

My wife found calc very simple and straightforward.

Ted D said...

Daniel – “If she "knew" before you ever were married that kids weren't in the picture, and yet brought up children afteryou were married then here's a new logic problem:”

I see where we are crossing here. This discussion happened prior to getting married. We discussed having another child early in the relationship, and I clearly indicated I had no desire to do so. I told her if she had hope for another child, that she should look elsewhere.

I’ve taken her on a few of those “empty” vacations, and she seemed pleased as punch. In fact, she jokingly calls one couple we are friends with our Jones’ because they are slightly older and “empty nesters” themselves. They are making good use of their free time travelling, and my wife wants to emulate their lifestyle. They are also the couple we are talking business with.

“I know what you are thinking: well, then, I'll just shut down. I give up.”

That isn’t an option. I did that once already and it got me a divorce. I’m not saying it can’t happen again, but if it DOES happen again, it won’t be because I did nothing at all.

“There's a third way, man.”

I appreciate the concern. I know there are many ways to skin a cat, but truth be told I’m pretty damn bound and determined to skin this cat my own way.

Ted D said...

Josh – “As a leader, are you worthing of being followed?”

That is a good question man, and once upon a time I would have said without a doubt yes. The more I realize that most people don’t think or feel like I do, the more I start to wonder if I’m not the right guy to “lead” anyone. I fully believe that my conclusions and solutions are sound, but more and more I’m finding that my views and “people’s” views are very different. Can I lead my family? Yep, without a doubt. Could I be a “leader of men”? I honestly don’t know. I think I could do the job well, but I suspect I wouldn’t be very popular with the “troops” if I did.

Shimshon – “I don't know about the first three, but you sound like you like you are frustrated that women don't behave more like men, and on the way to angry about it, soon followed by bitterness. That's not a goal or something to boast about.”

Again, I’m not as upset that women don’t think like men as I am that women (and many men) are getting a free pass to be irresponsible and inconsiderate. I don’t expect my wife to think exactly like I do (in fact I don’t really want many people at all thinking like I do. I don’t think it would be good for society to have more of “me” around) but I do expect her to act and think like a mature adult.

And as far as it goes, I’m not bitter at women in the least. I’m bitter at a society that allows and promotes women (and men) to act like immature brats well past the age when they should know better. I’m bitter that we are still being fed lies that “all men and woman are equal” while we can clearly see that isn’t the case. I’m not looking to go Gamma because I’m proud of it, but I refuse to ever accept that THIS is the best humanity can do. I refuse to accept that Western Civilization as it exists today is the answer to the human condition. I may deal with the world as it is, but I refuse to accept it any more than I have to in order to survive. I love women, but I hate the society we have created in the West. Hell man, personally I’m in a better place today than I have been in over a decade. But that also means I can see the world clearer, and it is FAR worse than I ever imagined in terms of morality and ethics. I am just starting to understand why most of the world dislikes the U.S. so much, and truth be told I’m starting to agree.

“But you're running anti-game on her. In just the child example you gave, by giving her logical (to you) reasons), that undoubtedly sounded petty and selfish to her, you handed her the frame”

You are basing this on very little information. The baby talk was pre-marriage, and was rather brief. SHE is the one that actually suggested buying a convertible, so my impression is she is more than on board with not having more kids. I actually told her that I was very flattered that she considered it at all, and that under different circumstances I would find the idea very compelling. But we both started having children very young, and both of us feel like we missed out on a lot of life because of it. I believe her desire to have another baby was directly related to her feeling like she found someone she would WANT to have a baby with, not so much that she WANTS a baby now. My current wife is not an emotional mess like my ex was (in fact my ex and your wife sound very similar…) which is great because your description of how you “game” your wife sounds endlessly tiring to me. I don’t mind a little light gaming (swats to the ass, sexting, cocky/funny, etc.) but I’ll be damned if I’m going to spend that much effort simply trying to keep my wife relatively sane and normal. If you can do it and not blow a fuse, more power to you and I wish you the best. But to me that sounds like a life of hard labor, and a distraction on top of it. I can’t get where I want to go if I have to spend that much time getting the passengers on board.

Ted D said...

Alan – “Use the M-F differences to strengthen your bond and provide something that she needs/wants. Step back and see the big picture. You can cover her soft spots, just as she covers yours. It's a win-win.”

Well at the individual level this is pretty much exactly how our marriage functions. I know I suck at communicating (especially in written format) but I must be really going off the reservation here. I have no desire to crush OR tame my wife. I don’t believe I should be responsible for “taming” her in fact. She is an adult, and as such she should be completely capable of controlling herself. Now, if something happens and she flips a nutty (rarely happens. For a woman my wife is pretty damn logical and reasonable, and compared to my ex she is freaking stoic!) I certainly step up and control the situation. But I don’t do it to ‘tame’ her, I do it because someone has to.

That being said, I am woefully inadequate when it comes to social stuff, and in that respect she fills the void for me. I don’t know her motivations, but I suspect she steps up on the social stuff because she knows one of us has to, and I am not equipped to do it. So, when we go to social events she knows I’ll be asking her names of people all night. I’d like to think she does it because she wants to, and not because she is somehow “taming” me socially.

Deti – “A little more time you spend with Vox and Rollo; a little less time you spend with Susan.”

I’m sure you realize that I’m not ranting in real life like I do here, right? I mean, my general angst with the world doesn’t really translate down to the individual level. I’m not in the least bit bitter and angry at my wife. She is by far one of the most reasonable women I’ve ever known. The only issues we have between us is her “feeling” verses my “thinking” tendencies.

I’m here and at Rollo’s often, I simply don’t post much, mostly because I don’t have much to argue against and don’t know enough to contribute.

Stickwick – “But a man can be motivated to rise above gammahood for the simple reason that it reduces a woman's temptation to sin, just as a woman can avoid contributing to a man's temptation by not routinely denying him sex and pleasant companionship.”

Can you elaborate here? What exactly should a gamma be aspiring to be? An alpha? Does that require that said Gamma simply accepts the world as it is and happily extracts all he can from it by any means necessary? I don’t disagree with much Red Pill theory or the ‘sphere in general. What I disagree with is that “game” is the solution. Seems to me the correct way to fix this is to fix our sick and morally corrupt society, and that can’t be done if everyone simply keeps finding ways to work around the dysfunction. I’m not being contrary, I’m genuinely asking. This is my sticking point: why should I simply accept the world as it is if I don’t like it? It would be folly to stick my head in the sand and deny it completely, but just because I learn to cope doesn’t mean I should also learn to like coping.

Ted D said...

Soga – “That's why I get annoyed by the constant calls for men to "man up", but rarely do I see any calls for women to "woman up". This is especially a prevalent problem in churches. It seems to me like women are given a license to do whatever they like with respect to relationships without any regard for moral purity.”

THIS. This is most of my bitterness and angst, but instead of “within the Church” I’m seeing it as prevalent in our society at large. Men are getting away with some of this as well, but by and large women are the greatest benefactors of our “no fault” society.

“He believes in gender equality, he just believes that it doesn't mean women can do whatever they want, and that women should be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as men.”

Exactly. Here it is in a nutshell: we should all be playing by the same rules. Either we are all responsible for our own actions, or none of us are responsible for shit. I’m tired of seeing “some” people held to a standard that others are not. I am about equality, but I’d say I’m probably on the “equally unfair to all” side of the fence.

Taterearl – “But part of being a good leader is to not places standards on her that you yourself couldn't live up to.”

I am in no way exaggerating when I say that I live by these words daily. In fact, I’d say that my standards for myself are FAR higher than the standards I hold others to. I have simply learned not to expect most people to live up to my standards.

Nate said...

" In fact, I’d say that my standards for myself are FAR higher than the standards I hold others to."

How high are your "stop whining like a bitch" standards?

Do you believe you live up to them?

Nate said...

I am reminded... I genuinely enjoy sigmas... though I think I have only ever met one... I appreciate alphas... and for the most part appreciate deltas and betas... I hold no ill will for Omegas. I just pity them.

But holy crap do I hate fucking gammas.

Loki of Asgard said...

I have simply learned not to expect most people to live up to my standards.

Have you? Have you truly resigned yourself to the truth that most people will not conform to your personal ideal of perfection? Then why, pray, are you made angry when this truth is yet again put before you?

And why, pray, do you believe you have the right to set a standard for anyone? "My standards, my standards, my standards". By what right do you judge others? What qualification, what perfection in yourself grants you the power to decide what makes for a good man or a good woman? Do you judge by anything other than what pleases you? Did you create woman, that you know what any woman is capable of doing or being?

You dream of a world where everyone conforms to your ideals, yet you demonstrate complete ignorance of basic human nature. Here is the proof of your stupidity: "I’m tired of seeing 'some' people held to a standard that others are not. I am about equality". You are still a true believer in feminism; you think men and women to be essentially the same, capable of sameness, and that sameness to be desirable.

That is the root and twig of your lack of wisdom. You believe in this strange illusion called "equality"--but not the benevolent "equality" that respects the humanity and dignity and limitations of another, oh no. You believe in the envious "equality" that says "I'm as good as you; you should be treated no better than I; why should I, being good by my own judgment, receive less consideration than another?" Your belief in equality, like your fantasy "ideal world", is entirely driven by your sense of what you are owed.

But what can any of us know? A man who must perpetually bribe his wife into contentment with toys and vacations and luxuries, a man who admits to having "no social skills", is in a far better position to comprehend human nature than any of us poor benighted souls who embrace the reality that is and do not rage when it fails to live up to our personal demands.

Stickwick said...

Once again, Loki defies his title as Lord of Obfuscation as he lays bare the root of Ted's problem.

Ted, if you genuinely have any interest in understanding yourself and others, as opposed to just endlessly bloviating about your frustration, you'll print out Loki's assessment, read it, and reread it. Post it next to your bedside or print it upside down on a t-shirt and wear it every day until you understand the point Loki and the others are making.

Desert Cat said...

Ted,
No, I've pretty much given up on any hope that what I believe "should be" ever "will be" at this point.
And yet you keep ramming your ship into that rock. The rock remains. Your ship takes on water with every quixotic run.

I suppose I'm still bitter about it though. :p
Ya think?

What I disagree with is that “game” is the solution. Seems to me the correct way to fix this is to fix our sick and morally corrupt society, and that can’t be done if everyone simply keeps finding ways to work around the dysfunction. I’m not being contrary, I’m genuinely asking.
Do you not realize that every time a man successfully games a woman within the context of a LTR or marriage, and she decides she likes it better that way, that he is subverting the dominant paradigm in as big of a way as he can personally hope?

This is my sticking point: why should I simply accept the world as it is if I don’t like it? It would be folly to stick my head in the sand and deny it completely, but just because I learn to cope doesn’t mean I should also learn to like coping.
You personally have no hope of changing the world, let alone changing the nature of woman. You can, however, strike a blow against the sickness of this society on an individual level.

Think about this: you disagree with the notion that men and women are equal in the way that the dominant paradigm insists that they are, and yet on a personal level you are insisting that women live up to this false equality? How does that make sense, dude?

Wendy said...

Can you elaborate here? What exactly should a gamma be aspiring to be?

Delta. Good old normal delta.

Loki of Asgard said...

Once again, Loki defies his title as Lord of Obfuscation as he lays bare the root of Ted's problem.

You forget, Madam Stickwick: I am also an expert at fliting, particularly of the "insults that burn" variety. Nothing burns worse than the truth.

Ted D said...

Nate – “How high are your "stop whining like a bitch" standards?

Do you believe you live up to them?”

I don’t have one. I don’t see bitching about what is unfair or unjust as a bad thing. After all, if no one ever bitches, nothing will ever improve. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that…

“But holy crap do I hate fucking gammas.”

I am indeed the biggest pain in the ass of anyone I know, hands down.

Ted D said...

Loki – “Then why, pray, are you made angry when this truth is yet again put before you?”

Because as a society we are still collectively denying the truth. I would be happy to accept people as they are, if everyone would simply be honest about exactly WHO and WHAT they are. But the continuation of delusion ideas about equality and fairness really just get under my skin.

“And why, pray, do you believe you have the right to set a standard for anyone? By what right do you judge others?”

First of all, I never said I should be the one to set the standards. But as it stands now, NO one seems to be setting them, and the result is continual decline. And, I’m an INTJ, I judge everyone always. I don’t really care if you or anyone thinks I can or should. You don’t have to listen to me, and since I’m not in the position to impose my will on you, IMO you have no reason to bitch that I’m judging you.

“Do you judge by anything other than what pleases you? “

Really? I don’t judge anyone by what “pleases” me. What pleases me is mostly irrelevant to this conversation. It is a matter of right and wrong, and the problem is nothing is wrong anymore. I tend to side with what I believe is best for everyone, regardless of how it affects me directly. Do you think the West is in good shape right now? Do you think we are a moral and decent society? Do you think it is likely to get better at this point?

“ Did you create woman, that you know what any woman is capable of doing or being?”

Of course not. But since we are being told women and men are all the same, I’m simply expecting them to live up to that standard. If we can simply admit publicly that this isn’t a reality, I’ll stop being frustrated that it isn’t true.

“You are still a true believer in feminism; you think men and women to be essentially the same, capable of sameness, and that sameness to be desirable.”

No sir. I firmly believe that we are all NOT the same. Not just women/men, but even from race to race there are differences that matter. I have no desire to get into some debate about a “superior race” or any such nonsense. But the truth is: WE ARE NOT ALL EQUAL. I’m going to continue complaining that we aren’t all equal until we finally admit it’s true. THEN we can get to work on actually improving everyone’s situation.

“Your belief in equality, like your fantasy "ideal world", is entirely driven by your sense of what you are owed.”

Nah, I don’t want anything from anyone I didn’t earn myself. But there are plenty of people around me that DO take everything they can get their hands on, and I’m getting pretty damn tired of supporting them. But this goes far beyond male/female relations of course.

“A man who must perpetually bribe his wife into contentment with toys and vacations and luxuries,”

Wow. Way to take a single instance/conversation and extrapolate it out to entire lifestyle. I think you sold yourself short, you could have made a much bigger mountain out of that mole hill with a little more effort.

“ is in a far better position to comprehend human nature than any of us poor benighted souls who embrace the reality that is and do not rage when it fails to live up to our personal demands.”

I don’t give a rats ass about “human nature”. Human nature is nothing more than a baseline to build from, not something to accommodate and capitulate to. What you see as “embracing reality” to me is simply giving up hope for something better. You call it acceptance while I call it throwing in the towel. I think things are crappy now, and likely to get worse as my children reach adulthood. I don’t want them to have to face a world worse than what we have today, but I don’t see any way to change it, and yeah, that makes me just a bit grumpy at times.

Ted D said...

Stickwick – “Ted, if you genuinely have any interest in understanding yourself and others, as opposed to just endlessly bloviating about your frustration, you'll print out Loki's assessment, read it, and reread it.”

What does any of what Loki said have to do with fixing anything? Yes, I could easily just accept that “people” suck, Western Civilization is doomed to slide into the abyss, and the best I can do is be happy with what I can get. On some levels I do exactly this, but I don’t see how it is so easy for most people to simply let go of the fact that it still sucks. How in the hell can anything ever improve if no one even acknowledges how bad things are?

I know what my “problem” is: I live in a sick and twisted society that refuses to set decent standards and hold people to them. I live in a society that lies to everyone including themselves so that no one’s feelings ever get hurt. I live in a world where even the Church itself refuses to follow its own rules, which led me to lose faith. No one stands for right and wrong anymore, and everything is grey because Lord forbid we tell someone that they are wrong and make them feel bad about themselves.

It is the lack of congruence in a society that claims to be the best in the world while allowing the worst behavior humanly possible that is the “problem”.

Stickwick said...

Loki, we shall henceforth add "Lord of Caustic Veracity" to your list of titles.

I don’t see bitching about what is unfair or unjust as a bad thing. After all, if no one ever bitches, nothing will ever improve. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that…

You sound like a girl, Ted. Girls bitch and expect someone else will do the improving. Men take stock of the situation and then take action.

Ted D said...

Desert Cat – “Do you not realize that every time a man successfully games a woman within the context of a LTR or marriage, and she decides she likes it better that way, that he is subverting the dominant paradigm in as big of a way as he can personally hope”

Of course, and that is part of what gets my panties in a bunch. Even a “win” such as this is nothing, because it doesn’t even change THAT woman’s mind at all. She may go along with it, she may even like it, but I bet dollars to donuts she still thinks she is a “feminist” at the end of the day. If enough people just stood up and said enough of this BS, perhaps we could get past the need to “game” our wives into happiness?

“You personally have no hope of changing the world, let alone changing the nature of woman. You can, however, strike a blow against the sickness of this society on an individual level.”

On an individual level I do my best. Perhaps I’m misleading folks here implying that I am dealing with any of this personally when I am not. My personal life and marriage are just fine. Most of my angst here is for my children who should not have to endure such a dismal future in such a morally corrupt society.

I have no desire to change the “nature” of women, I’d simply like it if we could, as a society, stop lying about it and hiding it. I DO NOT hate on women for being women. I hate on society for hiding the truth. It is misinformation, and misinformation (especially when propagated intentionally to deceive) just sets me off. It is much like a constant thorn in my side.

Ted D said...

Stickwick - "You sound like a girl, Ted. Girls bitch and expect someone else will do the improving. Men take stock of the situation and then take action."

I'm taking action at the individual level. But, as Desert Cat pointed out, I have no hope of changing the world alone. For that, many more people will have to get as pissed off as I am about it, and unfortunately I don't think enough people are really hurting yet. Or perhaps they don't realize they aren't alone...

I'm doing what I can at home to improve the whole, but even if I was 100% successful at that task, my children would still be facing a world full of shitty people. And honestly, I'm starting to think that having a real sense of morality in the Modern West is detrimental to a successful and happy life. Seems the less moral a person is, the easier it is for them to get what they want. I suppose having no sense of morality or guilt goes a long way in that respect.

Loki of Asgard said...

I'm doing what I can at home to improve the whole, but even if I was 100% successful at that task, my children would still be facing a world full of shitty people. And honestly, I'm starting to think that having a real sense of morality in the Modern West is detrimental to a successful and happy life. Seems the less moral a person is, the easier it is for them to get what they want. I suppose having no sense of morality or guilt goes a long way in that respect.

Agree with him entirely, else he will accuse you of having no morals.

If Ted achieves nothing else, at least he has provided entertainment.

Ted D said...

"Agree with him entirely, else he will accuse you of having no morals."

Despite leaving the Catholic Church years ago, I mostly base my sense of morality on the Bible and what I was taught in Sunday school. If you have a problem with my sense of morality, take it up with the Pope.

"If Ted achieves nothing else, at least he has provided entertainment."

Glad to be of service. ;-)

Loki of Asgard said...

Despite leaving the Catholic Church years ago, I mostly base my sense of morality on the Bible and what I was taught in Sunday school. If you have a problem with my sense of morality, take it up with the Pope.

So, as it is ever "my standards, my standards, my standards," should we assume you are the Pope? Or do you labour under the belief that you are, perhaps, Jesus?

Else why should any woman give a damn whether she measures up to "your standards"?

Ted D said...

Loki - "Else why should any woman give a damn whether she measures up to "your standards"?"

She shouldn't. As a society we should set the standards we expect everyone to "measure up" to. I'm not implying *I* should set the rules, I'm pointing out that by and large we have no rules, and allowing people to do whatever they hell they want without fear or repercussions is NOT good for society.

I am simply basing my standards on what I was taught is right and just. Problem is, I don't have faith in the Church any longer to use them for support. If they can't follow their own rules, how can they set the bar for everyone else?

Stickwick said...

Ted, I don't know whether you still consider yourself Christian, but I seriously wonder if you actually learned anything about the purpose of life in your readings of the Bible or in Sunday School. To wit:

And honestly, I'm starting to think that having a real sense of morality in the Modern West is detrimental to a successful and happy life.

Not only is this pathetically whiny, but it's irrelevant. A person lives by a creed because he believes his principles to be axiomatic, not because he regards them as a recipe for success. Do you honestly care if your children's morality gets them anywhere but closer to God? That's all you should care about, not whether they're happy and/or successful, both of which are relative and fleeting anyway.

Loki of Asgard said...

She shouldn't.

Well, then, I suppose you do this to stimulate yourself.

You know this sort of thing should be done privately, yes?

Ted D said...

Stickwick - "Do you honestly care if your children's morality gets them anywhere but closer to God? That's all you should care about, not whether they're happy and/or successful, both of which are relative and fleeting anyway."

Absolutely. But at the same time, I don't want to see them suffer needlessly for their beliefs and morality, especially if *I* am the one that set those beliefs and morality on their heads. It is one thing for me to suffer because of my own beliefs, it is something else to push those beliefs on another and see them suffer as well.

FWIW I consider myself Christian, but loosely so. I lost most of my faith in "organized religion" after seeing the things the Catholic Church were willing to hide simply to protect their reputation.

Josh said...

I think Ted keeps jumping off a skyscraper to protest the theory of gravity, then whines because it hurts when he hits the ground.

Ted D said...

Loki - "Well, then, I suppose you do this to stimulate yourself.

You know this sort of thing should be done privately, yes?"

It helps me to keep my eye on the ball. Anger is a great motivational tool for me. Keeping myself a little bitter over all this ensures I don't get complacent simply because I am in a good place.

I purposely piss myself off over lots of stuff. Take smoking cigarettes as an example. I finally quit because I got myself hell fire angry at the fact that I failed to quit before. Stopped cold turkey and haven't looked back. I'm not patting myself on the back just yet though as its only been since the summer.

Same thing with losing weight and getting in shape. No matter how much I told myself I wanted to get in better shape, it was finally anger that got me motivated and off the couch. Now that I'm looking and feeling better, I am finding that I need to stir up a bit more anger, because I'm losing my edge to keep on trucking.

It's something on my list of things to work on. I really shouldn't need to get pissed off to find motivation, but the truth is anger is my go to motivational tool for myself.

Ted D said...

Josh - "I think Ted keeps jumping off a skyscraper to protest the theory of gravity, then whines because it hurts when he hits the ground."

That would only apply if we were taught in school that gravity didn't exist.

Anonymous said...

Ted:

All respect: You're spinning your wheels here.

You were fed a false reality that devastated your life. You know what reality is now. You even made your life better and formed a plan to deal with and respond to that reality.

The problem is that you know the truth, but you hate it. You can see it and recognize it but you avert your eyes, telling yourself "No! NO! this CAN'T be true!" But it is true, you know it is. You cannot bear to accept it because that would mean you will have to continue changing and adapting, and it will mean the irretrievable loss of ideals from a long-bygone time that never existed anyway.

The answer is right in front of you. You have already implemented the answer: you've learned the truth and formed a plan to deal with it. Now you need to take the next step and integrate it into your life and accept what is (not what should be).

You fear for the world and the lives of your children. The best you can do there is educate them, teach them, dispel the falsehoods, and then leave them to make their own choices.

The world is f**ked up. the best we can do is make our own corners of that world as not-f**ked up as possible.

deti

Loki of Asgard said...

It helps me to keep my eye on the ball.

I see, so it helps you get a grip on yourself?

Stickwick said...

Absolutely. But at the same time, I don't want to see them suffer needlessly for their beliefs and morality, especially if *I* am the one that set those beliefs and morality on their heads. It is one thing for me to suffer because of my own beliefs, it is something else to push those beliefs on another and see them suffer as well.

Needless suffering for their morality? Sheesh, Ted, you ought to sue for all that time you wasted in Sunday School, because you obviously got zilch out of it.

It doesn't appear you're getting anything out of these Tedapaloozas, either, but maybe the men can make a dent on your way of thinking one way or another. Good luck to you.

Nate said...

"
I don’t have one. I don’t see bitching about what is unfair or unjust as a bad thing. After all, if no one ever bitches, nothing will ever improve. Squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that…"


shocking.

Verily.

Desert Cat said...

"No sir. I firmly believe that we are all NOT the same. Not just women/men, but even from race to race there are differences that matter. I have no desire to get into some debate about a “superior race” or any such nonsense. But the truth is: WE ARE NOT ALL EQUAL. I’m going to continue complaining that we aren’t all equal until we finally admit it’s true. THEN we can get to work on actually improving everyone’s situation."

Ok, but you are "Preaching to the Choir" in a big way here then.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "frame control"?

A far better way to bring people into your reality is to make your reality more real to them than their own (misguided) reality. Vent and sputter and people will just think you're bent and crazy. Act in complete confidence that your perceptions are the correct ones, and people will meld to your views.

So you understand that feminism is a Big Lie and that men and women are fundamentally different in many ways. How then (I ask you again) would insisting that women live up to the standards of this false equalitarian paradigm serve your goal of convincing them that it is false?

It is not just women, but men and women alike who are far more swayed by a man who is utterly and comfortably convinced of his own paradigm than they are by a man who fumes and rages about how wrong someone else's is.

Desert Cat said...

See, "frame control" is a game concept. But this is another example of why game is about so much more than 'P in V'. It can also be about paradigm shifting and reality building.

Frame control is one item in the toolkit that can be utilized to achieve your goals. What you are doing with your approach, on the other hand, is ceding the frame to the opposition and then railing against it.

Fail.

Desert Cat said...

A) "Hypocrites! Hypocrites! You MUST live up to your ideals, even if they are patently false!"

"..er, ok. I'll try harder"

B) "Fools! Your ideals are false. HERE is reality."

"..hmm, what if he's right?"

Desert Cat said...

Ah, damn. The horse was already dead.

Brad Andrews said...

A bit far back, but I noticed Ted's statement:

> I haven’t even started living MY life yet, because I’ve been living it for my responsibilities (that is my children) since I was 26. I can’t wait to get my life back!


I think you are a bit to focused on yourself Ted. The whole point of life should be to reproduce (biologically and other ways) not just to "have fun." If your own children are not a part of yourself you are truly messed up, as your discussion here would indicate.

You are too focused on "you" yet you wrap it in many other thoughts.

Brad Andrews said...

Can't resist the comment to say that Calculus was easy for me in late high school and college. I suspect it would be quite challenging now even though I aced plenty of math in college. I tried to study Algebra a few years ago and was amazed at how challenging it was after so many years of no active use.

I have seen the same principle of some things being difficult for others in the area of information security. Many people simply cannot easily think how a system is vulnerable (thinking like an attacker). That comes naturally to me, but I have come to see it does not come naturally to others. The same is true for many things in life. Few things come easy (or even hard) for everyone. We are all built in quite unique ways.

Ted D said...

Deti - yeah, that is a pretty spot on assesment man. I used to be miserable in a world I felt comfortable in, and now I'm basically happy in a world that I think sucks. Some days I'm not 100% sure which situation is better for me, my family, and society. I guess I need to stop worrying about society, and simply concentrate on family and myself.

In that case, most of the 'sphere is nothing but mental masturbation, since nothing is going to change at the macro level.

Thanks for your input.

marellus said...

God bless you Ted.

Justthisguy said...

Ted, have you considered getting an account at WrongPlanet.net?

Ted D said...

Justthisguy - the Autism site? I've been there but not registered.

I've never seen a professional about it, but I score very high on the spectrum on self tests (if they are in any way accurate...) Wouldn't change anything if I was officially an Aspie though. Besides, isn't that being removed as a mental illness?

Justthisguy said...

I was just teasing you, Ted. I have lurked on that site since before the Freund murders, but every time I tried to join up, it seemed Alex had recoded it so that my browser was not recent enough.

M'self, I never get less than a B- on those online Autie/Aspie quizzes, so yeah, I think I am one. At my age (into my seventh decade) I no longer give a shit. A while back, Vox got on the cases of auties for not being capable of being Christians, I think I recall. I, and several other Aspie Christians, commented, begging to differ.

Oh, neurotypical women frighten me. I like a gal who rocks!

Justthisguy said...

It is not, and never was, a mental illness. It is a neural difference, an organic thing. There is nothing wrong with having a somewhat-different brain than the majority, except that maybe the majority might think badly about you, silly doodahs that they mostly are.

Ted D said...

Justthisguy - Oh I didn't think you were trying to dig me. I'm completely fine with knowing I'm high on the spectrum. In many ways it makes sense to me actually...

Never heard anything about Aspie's not being good Christians, but I remember very well how unwelcome my questions in Bible study back in Catholic school were. The nuns called my mother in several times to talk to her about my "uncooperative" behavior, which amounted to me asking questions because what they were teaching didn't logically make sense to me.

I left the Catholic Church decades ago because of their politics and desire to cover up child abuse to save their own reputation instead of doing the right thing, which would have been to hang those Priests out to dry. If they can't follow their own rules, I damn sure won't bother to try.

I barely identify as a Christian these days, and it is only because despite my distaste for organized religion (because of political BS) I still have a strong belief and faith in God, as he was shown to me by my Catholic teachings. I've been told I would like Liberal Protestant Churches, but at this point I have no desire to become a member of anyone's "flock".

kadir karabaş said...

XXX vids porn teenpornwatchx movie. Free porn movie pornfuckyx videos. High porn videos pornhubhd porn.

Samuel McNamara said...

Vox, it seems that you're lionizing male promiscuity. Have you *read* the bible?

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.