Monday, February 25, 2013

The curse of the eternal BETA

I find it tremendously amusing that some men find the success of pickup artistry to be more than a little disturbing.  Now, I understand the female lack of enthusiasm about the reality; one of the funnier moments of the show Castle is the pickup artist episode in which Beckett is led to declare: "I weep for my sex" upon learning that three mediocre guys are successfully using formalized Game practices to cut a wide swath through the flower of New York City's strong independent career women.  It's understandably embarrassing for women to learn how many of their educated and high-status sisters will fall for such transparently superficial and insincere tactics.

But what explains the depression of the BETA male?  It is the shattering of his worldview, and the forced realization that all of his self-perceived superiority isn't of any value at all to anyone but himself.  Nevertheless, the world is what it is, not what we wish it to be.

123 comments:

Mike M. said...

To be honest, if I were a woman, the fact that PUA tactics work would worry me. Mostly because it shows how shallow and short-sighted many women are.

I don't think people fully appreciate the magnitude of the task that Susan over at HUS has taken on.

Doom said...

Yeah? You mean the male feminists get upset when they find out they've been had? Oh noes! They sure seem to get all stuffed up about the notion that women like it wet, wild, and often, just not with them. I actually think they believe what women tell them?

I'm not sure what the problem is with some men. Didn't the balls drop all the way or, is there some paradigm shift I or they missed? I have matured, and become much less of a wolf, but I couldn't be a beta if I really wanted. If I'm not really alpha, either. I do try to help other guys but they insist, even while getting none from their woman, that they will somehow prevail. Even after the divorce they simply blame it on the woman, or luck, or money. Gah!

If you find out how to shatter that worldview, in such a way that the guy in question begins to wake up, let me know. It's like waking up a liberal. Even when they are on fire from smoking weed near a gas station, somehow it is still Bush's fault!

Unending Improvement said...

I think you should edit this, as by your own reckoning, Betas do not have this problem. (Though the label was Delta, and it is a Delta problem.)

VD said...

Note the CAPITAL LETTERS. BETA!=beta.

Shimshon said...

Just watched the Castle ep. Pretty hilarious. Thanks for the recommendation.

Trust said...

Women just get upset because game is a mirror and they don't like the reflection.

facepalm said...

Puas were an inevitability once women started going for douchebags. Pick up artistry only levels the playing field for everyone, and takes the game down into the sewer. Where women prefer it.

DaveD said...

"I'm not sure what the problem is with some men. Didn't the balls drop all the way or, is there some paradigm shift I or they missed?"

Speaking for myself, the answer is simple, there were NO male role models in my life for the first 12-14 years. My father was working 16-ish hours a day, all my uncles lived in other states, I had maybe 3 male teachers until I hit 7th or 8th grade. I had no one to teach me about women...except women. You know how that works out.

For years I thought women were just liars. They say they want X but bang Y. There was no one to tell me otherwise.

As far as I've come and as far as I have yet to go, I did it myself. I tracked down the info, I tried things out to see what worked. All I had was articles on the net. Now I try to help my friends but it IS really difficult to break through the feminine imperative wall. Even when they see it working and actively ask you why that hot server 15 years younger than you went out with you, they don't like the answer and ignore or mock it.

Horse. Water. All that.

DD

asdf said...

The XKCD writer has been in a relationship (married?) for a long time. He also has cancer and his gf/wife has been supporting him through it. I can see how the idea of woman being like PUAs say would be offensive to him.

Some betas manage to find that special someone. Do they really want to hear a bunch of people tell them that its just two mediocore people settling. It's better to believe the myth if your going to be with someone the rest of your life.

Retrenched said...

"Do they really want to hear a bunch of people tell them that its just two mediocore people settling"

To be fair, "mediocre people settling" is an accurate description of about 80-90% of all marriages throughout history....

tz said...

The world is not merely what it is, it is what we have made it or allowed others to make it into.

Tradition was called oppressive, but aligned human nature with good results. Feminism tore down the walls, but as I've noted before, sometimes the wall is to keep something nasty out, not keep you in. The barbarians cannot be at the gates when there are no gates.

There may be female lack of enthusiasm, but this is feminism stripped bare of all its fancy and silly rhetoric.

Before it was the parents, community, marriage, and starting a family that built character and formed strong and respectable people.

Now that the quality is lacking, character is lacking, the stark choice is to deal with the new dystopian reality.

For those who don't like game, both make and female, the alternative is to return to traditional families and the ideas about them. Many realize this. Some don't, at least not yet. Some realize it but think things are better (they have not yet collapsed) the way they are.

Disillusioned said...

Game:

Men want to have sex with women. In order to have sex with women, design and develop strategies to convince/trick women to have sex.

If the one being gamed doesn't say "thank you" or "no thank you" in response to be treated as a vessel, just move on. Lots more prospects. Girl = cunt.

Why involve a real body? Just whack off. Please.

Feh said...

I'm not sure what the problem is with some men. Didn't the balls drop all the way or, is there some paradigm shift I or they missed?

I hit sexual maturity pre-internet days, and that is probably the paradigm-shift right there. In my day, there was nothing to counteract the "be yourself, women like nice guys" crap that was overwhelmingly dominant.

Retrenched said...

Re: the cartoon...

It's funny that meeting and attracting women seems to be the only endeavor for which young men are dissuaded from studying and learning from the men who are very successful at it. If a guy wants to be a doctor, a guitar player, a programmer, or a karate expert he'll be told to study under someone who's had years of success doing whatever it is. But when it comes to finding girlfriends, instinct is all he really needs, right?

Joe Blow said...

You think women are upset about PUAs and ordinary guys using game techniques to get them in bed? Just you wait until they figure out the many, many ways in which their mothers' adherence to 2nd Gen feminism (aka Marxist Revolutionary Thought, Women's Subdivision) robbed them of an opportunity to have a comfortable, satisfying, low stress life.

I'm not holding my breath on that happening, but if they do figure it out, I'd expect a lot of newspapers and the liberal arts buildings on college campuses to suddenly catch fire, for no apparent reason...

Mike M. said...

tz has it right.

I'm absolutely convinced that Miss 2013 has had just about every grain of common sense and good judgement sucked out of her. Compared to her mother, Miss 1988, she's terribly immature. We won't even mention the comparison to her grandmother, Miss 1963. By HER standards, Miss 2013 is a Grade-A flake. Try modern PUA tactics on Miss 1963, and she would have laughed in your face. Because she was playing a longer-term game, with a lot more maturity.

That's the other problem with modern feminism. Not only does it turn boys into girls, it turns girls into spineless worms with a nasty attitude.

Rex Little said...

I find it tremendously amusing that some men find the success of pickup artistry to be more than a little disturbing.

Could it be that these men are Christian, and are disturbed that so many of their brothers are wallowing in the sin of non-marital sex?

Beefy Levinson said...

"We never free a mind past a certain age. It's dangerous. The mind has trouble letting go. I've seen it..."

VD said...

Could it be that these men are Christian, and are disturbed that so many of their brothers are wallowing in the sin of non-marital sex?

No, because they're clearly disturbed at the mere fact that it works at all, not what men are doing with it.

Res Ipsa said...

“It is the shattering of his worldview, and the forced realization that all of his self-perceived superiority isn't of any value at all to anyone but himself.”

I’m not 100% sold on your remark Vox. I think the problem with the BETA is that he believed what he was taught i.e. Good guys want to marry good girls and good girls want to marry good guys. His so called “self-perceived superiority” is actually him living up to the standard that he was taught to believe in.

It’s easy to see why he bought what he was sold. Guys do typically want to marry a “good girl”. The mistake is that girls largely don’t want what he was taught to believe a “good guy” is. As long as the BETA is dealing with females that share the same social-sexual norms as he does, he will do OK, inside that framework.

Michael Maier said...

Mike M: I think you have that wrong about Miss 1963. The difference is that she HAD to worry about her reputation a lot more. Society put constraints on her; I doubt women had much more self-control back then.

I find Game disturbing because of time lost more than anything else.

Unending Improvement said...

The sexual revolution promised that everyone would have sex.

As it turns out, sex costs less than it did before. On the other hand, now there are those who get much less than others.

Michael Maier said...

and I think Res is on the mark. At least as far as I was/am concerned. And I was a Gamma in my early to mid 20's.

Anonymous said...

IMO it's just a stage in the process of the old mindset dying - it's like the Kubler-Ross description of physical death. Some men get stuck in the early "anger" phase for a while. And because so many men are going through this right now, there is always a supply of men just hitting the anger phase.

Lots of men have a problem with "is" vs. "should be".

A Man

A said...

I think that PUA can only be explained to be successful now because the generations of men who grew up oblivious to getting women can now learn directly from the masters without ever having to confront the masters because of a matured internet medium. If there were as many natural alphas out there as the male internet population claims I doubt we would see the growth of this industry.

Anonymous said...

Rex Little: "Could it be that these men are Christian, and are disturbed that so many of their brothers are wallowing in the sin of non-marital sex?"

VD: "No, because they're clearly disturbed at the mere fact that it works at all, not what men are doing with it."

Res Ipsa: "His so called “self-perceived superiority” is actually him living up to the standard that he was taught to believe in."

I think this last remark by Res Ipsa gets it. Vox, these men are disturbed at the fact that Game works at all because they were specifically told that it WOULD NOT work. Deltas and Gammas are told as boys that stupid girls and sluts are the only girls who like arrogant cocky guys, the athletes, the jocks, the fratboys.

"well, young deti, you don't want those girls anyway! They're stupid! They're sluts! If you want a girl, you should just be nice, be yourself, show her all your emotions, be her friend, and she will LOVE YOU!"

As we now know, it's garbage, all of it.

deti

Anonymous said...

I think (some) BETAs are waking up to the disturbing reality that the 'nice' girls they are getting are 'bad boy' leftovers.

Not a pleasant thought.

For those who are in denial, the thought is still nagging at the back of their minds...

- Apollyon

Daniel said...

The stress over PUA isn't that the skills exist, it is that the typical BETA has wasted his life not practicing them, and now he's going to be too late to the party to matter, even if he succeeds at the craft. In other words, BETAs fear of failure eliminates the chance of success. Better to resort to sarcasm and dismissal than actually put in effort which is likely to fail anyhow.

BETAs doom themselves to failure by making the aversion to failure a sign of courage and principle. Enough BETAs exist to perpetuate the conspiracy among their loveless selves.

And they get a stick-figure comic out of the deal, that is usually better than Marmaduke. So, they got that going for them...

Jack Amok said...

I figure women are predisposed to respond to the outward signs of a high value man. PUAs have figured out how to mimic the outward signs without actually being the high value man. So I think of them about the same way the folks who make Breitling watches must think of the Chinese knockoffs.

On the one hand, it's obnoxious, but on the other I don't really think of them as competition because ultimately their "customers" aren't really my customers.

They do serve as a useful reminder that I need to educate my daughters and look out for them.

Anonymous said...

Could it be that these men are Christian, and are disturbed that so many of their brothers are wallowing in the sin of non-marital sex?

No, because they're clearly disturbed at the mere fact that it works at all


The Christian men are disturbed by the fact that it works on the Christian women that they one day hope to marry.

The path of the old fashioned Christian gentleman is *supposed* to get you a nice virgin Christian wife, but in our time, the jerks get all to the women first by doing the exact opposite. Christian men see this and weep.

And then they get angry.

Martel said...

@ anonymous It's getting to the point that you can walk up to any random, attractive, young women in a church and ask "How many kids do you have?" Almost no modern women rejet the badboys until they either hit their wall or realize that the badboys won't help with the child-rearing.

Fifty years ago women had the same instincts, but back then there were tangible reasons not to completely surrender to them.

Rex, cry for what your daughters have become, not just for your sons.

taterearl said...

What works with almost all women and what has been torn down by feminism, single mothers, and lack of male role models...

Masculine power.

Game puts some of the principles of masculine power into use which is why it works very well. If you are in a larger town...notice the guys body language or tone or how he associates with women. If you have this power internalized, you are well ahead of most of your peers.

Rex Little said...

Could it be that these men are Christian, and are disturbed that so many of their brothers are wallowing in the sin of non-marital sex?

No, because they're clearly disturbed at the mere fact that it works at all, not what men are doing with it.


Since you're a Christian, Vox, does it (the men's wallowing) bother you? And does it bother you that so much of what's written on this blog implicitly (not explicitly, I'll grant) approves of--indeed, celebrates--such behavior by men?

Martel said...

@ Rex Does advocating gun rights advocate murder?

Advocating being able to appeal to women is not the same as advocating having sex with them.

If you don't have Game, women will sleep with the cads instead. Have Game and get her to desire you, and you can then decide what to do with your leverage.

Teaching Christian men to abhor Game only ensure that fewer women will end up with Christian men. They'll instead only breathe with "heathens".

Weakness is no virtue.

Stickwick said...

The XKCD writer has been in a relationship (married?) for a long time. He also has cancer and his gf/wife has been supporting him through it.

It's the other way around -- his fiancee had stage III breast cancer, and he's been supporting her through it. A few of his comics have reflected this.

rycamor said...

Anyone who thinks that the above-decried women's behavior is only a modern thing needs to read the story of Anne Bonny. The bad boy appeal has always been there. And note the second to last paragraph.

Martel said...

Yes, women have always liked badboys, but they were also more aware of the consequences of hooking up with them.

Observe the cads of the Dangerous Liaisons era. They continually assured the objects of their Game that they were in love and would never do anything to hurt them. They had to try to trick women into thinking they were part-beta.

Now, "I've changed! I'll love you forever" gets you blown out of the water. You're much more likely to succeed with "I admit it. I'm a total player and you'll be my fourth this week."

Natalie said...

I'll submit an addendum to the above: http://xkcd.com/513/ Also, just Google any of the xkcd Journal 1-5 strips. Black hat guy?

Basically, Mr. Munroe is awesome, and any guy who can make imaginary worlds and look sideways to normal and make fricken' awesome stick people comics deserves at least an honorary alpha. I got my degree in English, and he's still my favorite comic strip artist.

(Ok, I'll stop fangirling.)

Anonymous said...

Does advocating gun rights advocate murder?

Advocating being able to appeal to women is not the same as advocating having sex with them


My compassion for the victims of drunk driving crashes, does not logically require that I believe in banning cars.

That said, there's no other reason for wanting to appeal to women, except, ultimately, to have sex with them. But even then, there's a right and a wrong way to have sex. One man might use Game for casual pickups, another might use Game to help find someone to marry.

All tools can be used for good, or ill.

JartStar said...

That said, there's no other reason for wanting to appeal to women, except, ultimately, to have sex with them.

This is patently false. One example: Being of perceived higher value makes working with women in the office much easier as they won't be a bitch to you, or only be one to you until you correct them.

In fact I've found women in the office who bully the other men to be easier to deal with as I know that I have to immediately take a hard line and never give an inch. They generally avoid me at first, but they come around and are nice. They were bullies to the men because the men were weak, not because the men were strong.

Rex Little said...

Advocating being able to appeal to women is not the same as advocating having sex with them.

True, and as I said, the sex part isn't explicitly advocated here. But neither is it explicitly frowned on, and there's implicit approval all over the place.

DaveD said...

Rex, you're projecting.

DD

facepalm said...

The female equivalent of a pua is a goldigger. I bet a lot of women would be disturbed to see men they thought were marriage prospects line up to blow their life savings on a bunch of goldiggers with big tits and round asses, too.

Anonymous said...

The girls I meet will forgive anything if you say 'But that's my move!' Sure, they say they hate players, but they say it like, 'Step up and show me a move, player.' I don't know any guys who are shocked at PUAs. I've read some magazine articles by people claiming to disapprove of guys who chase tail by any means necessary, but everyone I meet in the real world takes it for granted.

Daniel said...

Rex, you are jumping at implicit shadows. Give an example of an implication of celebration or approval of PUA in the original post, please, before continuing on this course of argument.

Josh said...

True, and as I said, the sex part isn't explicitly advocated here. But neither is it explicitly frowned on, and there's implicit approval all over the place.

Who cares? If you want a shaming schoolmarm to scold guys from having sex with girls, this probably isn't the blog for you.

Rex Little said...

@Daniel

I wasn't talking about this post specifically, but about this blog in general. If you really don't see those implications all over the place, fine with me. I'm not trying to convince anyone they're there; I thought it was obvious.

@DaveD

What am I projecting? That I approve of non-marital sex? I do (provided that all parties are consenting adults, no one is being deceived, and reasonable precautions are taken against unwanted pregnancy), but I'm not a Christian.

Rex Little said...

@Josh

I don't care, and I wouldn't find the shaming schoolmarm at all entertaining.

If you look at my comments, I haven't objected to anything. I asked a serious question of Vox, regarding what appears to me as a conflict between his religious beliefs and certain aspects of this blog. Since he is a thoughtful person and not a hypocrite, I thought he might have a serious answer (which of course might still be forthcoming). If that answer points out an error of perception on my part, I'm fine with that.

Jestin Ernest said...

Tatsuya Ishida has also gone completely gamma feminist.

it's sad really, Sinfest used to be hilarious and interesting ( which permutation of Christianity / Buddhism / Shinto is he going to do next? ). then it got preachy.

now he's just boring.

in that respect, Munroe is still doing good work most of the time.

Res Ipsa said...

“That said, there's no other reason for wanting to appeal to women, except, ultimately, to have sex with them.”

So? What else am I suppose to do with them, cuddle on the couch, watch Lifetime, and hold their purse at the mall?

What’s wrong with wanting to (and having) sex with a women? Are you advocating sex with men?

There are two extreme sides to the game concept. One side you have Athol who recommends virginity till marriage and monogamy after that. On the other side you have Rossy et el. Take your pick between the two or come up with something in between. Men and women are both happiest in a marriage when they both can count on getting their needs met and they both know what roles they are expected to play and what they can ALWAYS count on the other person doing.

For those who don’t want to marry, you’ve always got the singles bar. Learning how either one of those scenarios works can help you in the other. The fact is women want sex, on their terms maybe, but they want it. So be the guy they want to give it too. You don’t have to pick up bar sluts if you don’t want.

Jabari said...

@Jestin Ernest:
Glad I'm not the only one thinking that. Used to be the first site I'd visit each day, but I don't even look much anymore. :(

tz said...

@Mike M who wrote Miss 2013 is a Grade-A flake.

You give Miss 2013 too much credit.

Michael Maier said...

Mike M: I think you have that wrong about Miss 1963. The difference is that she HAD to worry about her reputation a lot more. Society put constraints on her; I doubt women had much more self-control back then.


"Self-control" is often backstopped based on whether the society accepts the behavior. See if smokers have more self control now than in 1963.

But it goes deeper. The Grandmother's self-image was that of a wife and mother, so a man, even if somewhere her dopamine receptors or other parts of her body were giving a different message, the man who presented himself was looked at in context of being a husband and father. There are common things to the ideal there and an "alpha" but they aren't identical.

Her "career" was being a mother and raising children. Many children. So there was always this pause and comparison or verification - validation: can I see this man as the Father of my children?

Right now we have women for whom the role of wife and/OR! mother is secondary and normally dependent on the biochronometer. So the women mentioned above are looking for something very different and there is no reason to use reason. They have the robot/rabbit programming, so any PUA who knows how to push the buttons can control them just as anyone can get a quadcopter to go where it wants.

As to Christians, I can divide them into two categories. The first have given themselves over to the world as much as they can twist the scriptures to allow so. Being a preacher can be a "career", even for a woman. Family and children are secondary if not afterthoughts. And it is more responsible to raise a few spoiled brats that can only have some college debt rather than to accept children as a blessing even if they only end up in vocational school and trust the Lord.

The second follow the earlier tradition which was universal between orthodox protestant and Catholic before 1930. For those following the second, the world has become a vast wasteland. Even as late as 1963, you could find a holy mother without too much difficulty (though many would fall to feminism).

For the former, Game is simply what you have to do today to maintain your backsliding. For the latter, well, Paul said it was better not to marry during such terrible days.

(I've also maintained and can go into a long discussion on how feminism created the "gay" culture - men tend to burn, and if the only thing available is a feminist, the only alternatives are LUA or Lambda and I'm not quite sure which is worse).

A Christan summary of Game: "you can attract more flies with honey than vinegar, but why would you want to be Lord of the Flies?".

tz said...

@Martel: Teaching Christian men to abhor Game only ensure that fewer women will end up with Christian men. They'll instead only breathe with "heathens".

If a non-christan woman ends up with a Christian man, either the man will sin or be unequally yoked and be faced with a bitter choice.

That said, it isn't Game per se, but Men have to act as the head of the family. The instinct is that you are hurting wifey if you don't give into her tears. No, you really want to grab her and ravish her like Rhett Butler did to Scarlett. That was a big fem-porn scene in the 1939 movie. I don't know of the men got it. She wants to be led. She wants to be the carriage, not the horse.

Beyond that, the words don't quite properly convey things, good guy v.s. bad boy. In one form, the "bad boys" don't care what others think of them, have confidence, can go against societal norms (good or bad). The "good guys" worry and conform. The former are more exciting, dangerous. But sometimes in the sense of martyrdom.

Women, in the Christian form, are divided. In one sense, "playing by the rules" is said to be righteous, but the society is corrupt so they want what is to society a strong "bad boy". Alpha is part of that so as to oppose the secular world.

We forget Jesus was crucified, and 10/12 apostles were painfully killed for going against things - "bad boys".

C. S. Lewis in his Space Trilogy didn't use the term, but Maleldil was the ultimate alpha, before whom every knee shall bow, every tongue confess.

What goes unanswered is if you are a man, how to obtain a holy mother, in the sense as one writer put it "one holy mother is worth 25 of the best teachers". Or conversely, if your greatest desire is to be a holy mother, to attract a father worthy of your children.

tz said...

Res Ipsa said...

“That said, there's no other reason for wanting to appeal to women, except, ultimately, to have sex with them.”

So? What else am I suppose to do with them, cuddle on the couch, watch Lifetime, and hold their purse at the mall?

What’s wrong with wanting to (and having) sex with a women? Are you advocating sex with men?


If motherhood and children are irrelevant, and pleasure the only reason, is there any reason to worry about the gender (or object) which provides you the pleasure?

What is wrong, evil, corrupt, is to treat another human being with a soul as an object for your pleasure.

Game too can be redeemed as a means - a means to a righteous end, a telos. Who would not want to make the woman he loves and cherishes happier and more content?

The split "have sex with them" and "have children with them" is the rip that has destroyed the culture.

To go Sci-Fi/Fantasy, In Donaldson's the Thomas Covenant Chronicles, sex is euphemistically but theologically correctly called "the child making thing". Not "the pleasure making thing". Women are designed - literally (not the faulty prototype, as that milk thingy works) to nurture children.

It is not "using" a person when they are "used" for the proper thing in the proper way. It takes a man for a woman to become a mother. But that makes the man a father as well.

VD said...

Since you're a Christian, Vox, does it (the men's wallowing) bother you?

No. More evidence in support of my faith's assertion that this is a fallen world does not bother me.

And does it bother you that so much of what's written on this blog implicitly (not explicitly, I'll grant) approves of--indeed, celebrates--such behavior by men?

You are confusing tactics for objectives. I don't approve of hedonism or Roissyan nihilism. But I understand it and I understand the appeal. However, I also understand the limits to the appeal. Truth is truth, it is up to each man to decide what he does with it.

If Game is true, then it is a reflection of the Truth and one is advised to understand it.

Disillusioned said...

Advocating men to develop strategies to con women into sex is not a Christian precept. Encourage men to be protectors and providers. If the the primary aim of Game is sex, you deserve whatever stupid shit you get, so stop whining about women's poor character and own your own. Women aren't hanging around waiting to be gamed for sex; we like to feel desired, but we like equally/better having our children taken care of (ask any wife what turns her on about her husband and it will be hugely related to the way he shows love and care for his children). Convince her you can be trusted to take care of her, be the leader in sexual restraint and after marriage in finding out what it takes to have great sex with your wife, care about your children as much as your sex drive, don't be a stupid noob for pussy (just whack off, really, please). Accept that she doesn't have testosterone; you don't have estrogen/progesterone fluctuations. You are different and have different needs. It's astonishing to me the energy put it to trying to figure out how to fuck a woman. Whack off or get a robot; really. Please. Using flesh and blood women doesn't make sense. Clearly, it's more about the game and conquest than the flesh and blood person, maybe even the the sex.

facepalm said...

Lol at Christians trying to square game with their holy book. There's more game in the ape exhibit at the zoo than you'll squeeze out of your book.

Res Ipsa said...

TZ:

“What is wrong, evil, corrupt, is to treat another human being with a soul as an object for your pleasure.”

What metric do you use to make this assumption?

"To go Sci-Fi/Fantasy,"

Sorry, I live in the real world.

Res Ipsa said...

Disillusioned:

I was going to rip into your last post, but there are a couple of questions I’d like to ask first.

Are you married?

If yes were you a medically intact virgin on your wedding night? Beyond being medically intact, were you totally a virgin when you married, no petting, no finger fucking, no oral, no ever having let a boy have access to your boobs, no making out etc?

If you’re not married are the above things true about you?

While you’re contemplating your answer, let me point out that if it is in any way “no”, you have no rational ground for any of your statements, and no man should take anything you say about sexual satisfaction seriously.

Anonymous said...

For some men, it is more than a game.
http://www.examiner.com/article/borderline-personality-disorder-males

The chase is important, but the insecurity, the risky sex (not using protection with multiple women) can be part of a deep-seated personality issue that women don't notice at first.

Some women just see the gentleman in front of her at the time. The "game" is just that good.

My only wish in this world is that the players in this world would only play these games with the sluts in this world and leave the nice girls out of it...

VD said...

Advocating men to develop strategies to con women into sex is not a Christian precept. Encourage men to be protectors and providers.

We've been hearing those same stupid, self-serving lies for decades, Disillusioned. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just frightened because more and more men are rejecting the female imperative.

The female imperative is not a Christian concept. It is a pagan one, and not even a noble pagan one at that. Marriage and children are important for civilization, but they are at best of secondary importance with regards to Christianity.

SarahsDaughter said...

Disillusioned,
Of course you're lying if you are married with children - but perhaps you might want to stop and think how digusting it is that your panties get wet when your husband is loving on and caring for your kids.

You did know that wet panties is what happens when a woman is turned on, right?

whatever said...


But it goes deeper. The Grandmother's self-image was that of a wife and mother, so a man, even if somewhere her dopamine receptors or other parts of her body were giving a different message, the man who presented himself was looked at in context of being a husband and father. There are common things to the ideal there and an "alpha" but they aren't identical.


Which didn't stop the whores from divorcing the "Husband" and "Father" more than 1/6 of the time.

Oh, you didn't know that more than 1 in 6 marriages to Greatest Generation Whores ended in divorce?

That's because you are a fool.

Anonymous said...

Yesterday, while I was at work, my sister stole my iPad and tested to see
if it can survive a 30 foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation.

My iPad is now broken and she has 83 views. I know this is totally off topic but I
had to share it with someone!

Here is my site ... optionfair

whatever said...

I forgot to add that Greatest Generation Whores had a sweet life with the vast majority of them not even having to work. I don't no exactly what they did, but it was a huge waste of time.

They still divorced the "Father" and "Husband" 1/6 of the time. Even though they were given the easiest possible life on his back.

furiousferrett said...

"It's astonishing to me the energy put it to trying to figure out how to fuck a woman."

Only a woman could write this.

LOL.

kh123 said...

"The Christian men are disturbed by the fact that it works on the Christian women that they one day hope to marry."

Better to find out sooner rather than later the Breitling to be a Chinese knockoff.

Given those Biblical praises sung about that rare woman who's trustworthy and worth more than material wealth - that they're sung precisely because such a woman isn't just falling off a tree at his feet at any given time (but plenty of rotten fruit is to be found)- I'd figure more Christian men would be keen to that reality.

Anonymous said...

I could not resist commenting. Perfectly written!


Also visit my webpage ... get followers
My webpage - get followers

Martel said...

Disillusioned should read this post by Rollo (not that she will):

http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/male-sexual-response/

Sarahsdaughter, awesome comeback.

@ Anonymous "My only wish in this world is that the players in this world would only play these games with the sluts in this world and leave the nice girls out of it..."

Good luck with that. For one thing, VERY few "nice girls" today are actually all that nice. Also, those who are left are still turned on by expert Game. It therefore behooves each man to know it, for if actually somehow comes across a "nice girl", if he has Game he has a chance of winning her.

Besides, women test men all the time. Is it really so bad if I test a woman by throwing good game her way to see if she has enough character to resist it? All women are turned on by it, but not all of them succumb. If I can tell that every cell in a woman's body is longing for me but she still says "no", I know I've got a keeper.

papabear said...

"I'm not holding my breath on that happening, but if they do figure it out, I'd expect a lot of newspapers and the liberal arts buildings on college campuses to suddenly catch fire, for no apparent reason..."

Women generally don't have that within them. More likely they will become hostile to and ostracize younger women who have figured it out in time to seek an alternative.

JCclimber said...

Disillusioned, thanks for showing yet another fine example of how men should never take dating or marriage advice from a woman.

My wife is wondering why I'm laughing. I'll show her your sad little comment that shows a lack of understanding.

JCclimber said...

Disillusioned, thanks for showing yet another fine example of how men should never take dating or marriage advice from a woman.

My wife is wondering why I'm laughing. I'll show her your sad little comment that shows a lack of understanding.

Jack Amok said...

Well, Whatever, if 5 out of 6 people in any generation have themselves together enough to live their life without a major fuckup, that's probably about as good as you'll ever get with the imperfect clay of human beings.

DH said...

your fucking retarded. everyone has to have a certain amount of ego (even if its defensive) in order to be optimistic in life. if the beta firmly knows he sucks in life relative to the alpha, he won't have much desire or motivation to be a happy or useful person in life. he might even shoot you up. what's the point of trying to force betas to "realize the truth"? alphas often see the world more realistically and often have more problems: depressed, disillusioned and drug-addicted, fucked up. it's not necessarily always better. let sleeping dogs lie.

Disillusioned said...

Hey all, thanks for reactions. Just getting back on. Hopefully, some of you will still be out there and read this. Appreciate the feedback.

Res Ipsa: Yes, I’m married. No, I wasn’t a virgin. Not sure the connection between my comments and why no man should take seriously anything I say about sexual satisfaction; in fact, what did I say about sexual satisfaction? “Once married, find out what it takes to have great sex with your wife?” I’m not suggesting the wife not participate or that it’s a one-way street. I’m suggesting by that statement specifically that since men and women are differently wired to desire sex, don’t assume what makes her want to have sex is the same as what makes you want to have sex.

VD: We've been hearing those same stupid, self-serving lies for decades, Disillusioned. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just frightened because more and more men are rejecting the female imperative.

Who has been making those “same stupid, self-serving lies for decades?” And, is “the lie?” that women are attracted to men who are providers and protectors? Doesn’t Game encourage men to at least put on the guise of a powerful male (providers/protectors) indifferent to female whims? Maybe what you take as fear in me is just the frustration at the reality of the male/female difference: men are highly motivated to game for sex; females are highly motivated to use sex (game) to get provision/protection. I do believe the misinformation that men and women are the same, including in regards to sex, is the lie too many men and women believed via Feminism. Nonetheless, It is annoying to think that the point of a man learning certain behaviors is just to gain access for his penis; that the end game of game is pussy doesn't seem to square with Christianity.

I’m a relatively new Christian. I’m struggling with lots of things about Christianity. Indeed, I don’t read much in scripture about marriage; the imperative to go forth and multiply is clear. Yet, one might infer that God’s point is not just to fill the earth with unbelievers. I’m not trying to be a wise ass, and I’ve read other comments that express confusion/concern about Game theory for a believer.

Not sure what you mean by the “female imperative,” so maybe I am frightened because more men are rejecting it.

If Game advocates men not allowing themselves to be manipulated by a woman’s emotionalism and irrationality, to be the leader, I’m all in favor of it. Again, it may be a matter of the goal: sex or better quality & lasting unions/marriages/support systems for children.

Sarah’s Daughter, perhaps I didn’t phrase my statement properly. I’m not suggesting that watching one’s husband care for his children gets his wife's panties wet, although, hey, it might and what’s disgusting about that? I’m saying it’s the ongoing sense of security and admiration a women feels as she experiences her husband’s love, care, and devotion to his family that makes her more interested in having sex with him. Would you agree? I don't think a woman has to have her panties wet/be highly aroused to have enjoyable sex with her husband. Basically, I'm saying it helps a women be interested (and much of the writing on Game seems to be trying to figure out how to have sex with women) but regardless of level of interest/arousal, I think a woman should have sex with her husband.

Disillusioned said...

Here's another thing I'm wondering: is there a Biblical mandate (or even direction) about not having sex prior to marriage? Does an unmarried committed Christian male strive for virginity/abstinence? (I think it's an easier answer for a woman: yes).

Thanks.

Athor Pel said...

"Disillusioned said...

Here's another thing I'm wondering: is there a Biblical mandate (or even direction) about not having sex prior to marriage?...
February 26, 2013 at 6:27 AM "




Don't you have a husband to ask about this?

Disillusioned said...

Athor Pel: Don't you have a husband to ask about this?

He's not a Christian.

Anonymous said...

I am really inspired together with your writing abilities as smartly as with the layout for your blog.
Is this a paid theme or did you modify it your self? Either way
keep up the nice quality writing, it's uncommon to see a nice blog like this one these days..

Look at my webpage bleeding hemorrhoids treatment
my site: hemorrhoids treatments

Desert Cat said...

"All women are turned on by it, but not all of them succumb. If I can tell that every cell in a woman's body is longing for me but she still says "no", I know I've got a keeper."

This should be engraved on a placard and placed high up where all can read it. When someone asks, "why Game, if Christian?" we can just point.

"To weed through the dross, the tarts, the sluts in "nice girl" attire, the whores in "God's little Princess" outfits, to find the gems", that's why.

Disillusioned, in re: your question to SD, you are failing to distinguish between comfort and attraction. This is a fundamental game concept. What builds comfort rarely increases attraction. What creates attraction rarely builds comfort. A man needs to be master of both, but woe to him who listens to the ignorant bleatings of those who push comfort building at the perilous expense of attraction building.

Desert Cat said...

And that brings up the second placard that could be written in response to the question; "to maintain a strong and healthy level of attraction within a Christian marriage."

Christian men have been lied, lied, lied, lied to by women and Gamma males within and outside the Church about what that entails. And no, O Disillusioned One, based on your posts here, you don't have much of a clue about what is required, including what triggers your own attraction responses.

Game for Christian men is about throwing off the shackles of disabling lies promulgated by feminized churchianity and, ultimately, by the devil himself.

Disillusioned said...

Desert Cat: you are failing to distinguish between comfort and attraction

I recall Athol Kay's discussion regarding the balance between Alpha and Beta qualities. Athol does encourage men to master both. I recall some tips to build discomfort (though can't remember which Game writer suggested), such as - leave the room when she enters, don't answer her questions, etc.

Are you suggesting a man shouldn't care well for his children because it will build too much comfort? Maybe I'm misreading SD and you, but what's wrong (disgusting, according to SD) with finding my husband attractive when he cares well for the children?

Desert Cat said...

Yes, you're misreading. And still misunderstanding. What you are feeling when you see your husband's care for his children is in the "comfort" category. I seriously doubt it "wets your panties", which (I believe) is SD's point. More like "warms your heart", no?

Nothing at all wrong with that, per se. But if a man does "heart-warming", and rarely if ever "panty-wetting" the sex will be bland at best, (before it tapers off to nothing, she discovers she's not "haaaaaappy", divorces him, and wanders off in search of fulfillment at the hands of an Alpha badboy. *cough*).

Disillusioned said...

Desert Cat: Game for Christian men is about throwing off the shackles of disabling lies promulgated by feminized churchianity and, ultimately, by the devil himself.

I agree and well-said. I wasn't party to these discussions when I went to church.

What specifically about my posts lead you to conclude I don't have much clue about what triggers my own attraction responses?

Over time, I have been reluctant to conclude that apart from sex, most men wouldn't want to be around most women. I believed too many feminist lies in my younger years and was too enthralled with what I thought was special about me, which was/is nothing. I rejected man as protector/provider in my younger years too. When I married my husband, we each made the same paltry sum. I liked his truck and thought he was sexy, so I wasn't too cerebral about it. I had no idea he would become such a fabulous provider. I don't think he did either.

As I continue to throw off the shackles of the feminist lies I believed, it bothers me less - to not at all - that women's greatest value to men and society is as a sex partner, parent, homemaker. In fact, that's the role I embraced, in spite of myself.

I think what had me so disillusioned yesterday was a sense that Game = women as inter-changable vaginas. Maybe I got that wrong. Maybe it was just the seeming incompatibility of Game with Christianity. As I said, I'm struggling with Christianity - maybe more with churchianty (though I don't attend).

I really am interested in how a committed Christian male endeavors to deal with sex before marriage.

Disillusioned said...

Desert Cat: Nothing at all wrong with that, per se. But if a man does "heart-warming", and rarely if ever "panty-wetting" the sex will be bland at best . .

No disagreement there. I wasn't suggesting a man do a woman's work. I was saying when a man sincerely spends time with his kids, balancing what his wife brings with his own strength, stability, and sense of humor, fun, adventure - that is sexy.

Desert Cat said...

"What specifically about my posts lead you to conclude I don't have much clue about what triggers my own attraction responses?"

Missing the distinction between comfort and attraction, even though you've been exposed to it previously at MMSL, might be a start, illustrated by your missive at: February 25, 2013 at 3:37 PM and follow-ups.

Perhaps clueless sounds too harsh, but it is the learned reality that blue-pill women simply do not understand how their own hindbrains work. Your (future) husband had a truck you liked and he was sexy. That's all you needed to know. Your hindbrain took care of all the processing that led you to that conclusion. Not cerebral, indeed! It is meant to work this way, but it leaves women at a severe disadvantage when attempting to dish out advice to men on this topic.

Thing is, we've heard a version of your missive countless times by countless women, and countless field tests have rendered the verdict: it's bunk.

As for how a committed Christian male endeavors to deal with sex before marriage? The same as a committed Christian female should. You endeavor to chastity until you have found and married a suitable life-mate. No one said the Christian walk was easy, but then we are not called to perfection but to repentance and submission before the Lord.

If Game represents truth (and I believe it does), then it behooves one to utilize the truth in pursuit of one's worthy goals, rather than allow one to become ensnared in those "pretty little lies".

Res Ipsa said...

Disillusioned

"don’t assume what makes her want to have sex is the same as what makes you want to have sex."

I don't. That’s the point.

The problem with your “be a nice guy” approach to marriage is that you think that’s what you want, but that’s not what gives him what he NEEDS. If it did, Vox would have a web site dedicated to mopping floors and childcare.

Imagine, one night your husband sees you are a little stressed. You catch a little TV time. He picks up the dishes, cleans the kitchen and handles those little chores that we all have to do. An hour latter you come in the kitchen and see what he’s done.

Do you:

1. Throw the kids outside, lock the door, rip your cloths off, shove your husband against the counter, yank his pants down and give him a great cum guzzling blow job,

OR

2. Bitch that he didn’t put some knick knack back in the right place.

Men need #1, we get #2.

If being a domestic servant got us #1, men would do all the crap you think you want. It doesn’t so we do the stuff that does.

Retrenched said...

@ Res Ipsa

Yeah that's basically it.

Yeah that's basically it.

If a man wants a woman to be his girlfriend or wife, it won't be enough for him to be nice, or intelligent, or considerate, or compassionate, or helpful, or to have interests in common with her. He'll need that "something else", or else she won't choose him; she will choose another man who has that "something else", instead of him.

Game is the study of that "something else", and how men can develop it, become it, and apply it to their love lives.

Res Ipsa said...


Disillusioned,

Here's another thing I'm wondering: is there a Biblical mandate (or even direction) about not having sex prior to marriage? YES

Does an unmarried committed Christian male strive for virginity/abstinence? YES

“ I’m married. No, I wasn’t a virgin. Not sure the connection between my comments and why no man should take seriously anything I say about sexual satisfaction; in fact, what did I say about sexual satisfaction?”

The connection has to do with sexual bonding. For the male, sexual satisfaction comes before emotional fulfillment and bonding. For the female, emotional bonding is a prerequisite for sexual fulfillment.

A female virgin is more readily cognizant/adaptable to her mate’s needs, desires and satisfaction. By pleasuring her man, she changes his brain chemistry. The more she fulfills him sexually, the more his brain chemistry is altered and the greater his emotional bonding. Great sex is literally an addicting experience for the male.

The biblical model for marriage one man one women, coupled together, is about more than your first time. It’s about maximizing a lifelong sexual unity/intimacy. Two people who follow the model in its entirety will enjoy a life time of relational, familial and sexual fulfillment on the highest order.

The reason I asked about your personal situation was your post revealed that you don’t really have a good understanding of men.

Retrenched said...

Ah crap, just ignore the double posting of the first sentence please..

Must... use... preview... next time..

Dystopia Max said...

Funny thing, looking at this comic, made back when Roissy wasn't that popular and MRA and PUAs were just an occasional nuisance, it seems like he was just using his top-of-the-world ALPHA NERD status to mock losing men, as is the recurrent temptation for anyone receiving good things at any point in his life. Basically, it's a way to say:

ALL OF MY SUCCESS WAS BY MY OWN HAND, NEITHER GOD, NOR NATURE, NOR HISTORY, HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT, AND I SHALL MOCK ALL THOSE WHO TRY AND FAIL BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T LEARN MY SECRETS, DIDN'T HAVE MY EXPERIENCES, AND WEREN'T BORN IN MY TIME!

Roissy, while given to vain preening, openly acknowledges it as vain and openly frames it as an invitation to learn greater truths about the world. That's why he has continued success with his audience and Randall Munroe is sounding sour and unfunny notes while alienating his readership. If your first love isn't the Truth, you're going to be corrupted by women or the world, sooner or later.

Disillusioned said...

Res Ipsa: The reason I asked about your personal situation was your post revealed that you don’t really have a good understanding of men.

Probably so, but I'm trying to gain understanding/acceptance, which is why I read this blog and offer up my opinion at the risk of exposing my wrong thinking or misinterpretation of game.

If I think it's worth having my chores done for me - and if it happens - I will reward with the highly coveted cum-guzzling blow job; your image was well-written. I suspect I'll be thinking of it next time my husband is in the kitchen.

Retrenched: I agree being nice guy doesn't pay/isn't smart. I didn't mean to suggest men be providers/protectors = men as doormats.

Desert Cat: Thing is, we've heard a version of your missive countless times by countless women, and countless field tests have rendered the verdict: it's bunk.

Again, I'm not aware of what missive or bunk I spewed that has been heard countless times, so my apologies that I'm not up to speed on that. If what I communicated was be a nice door mat, give up everything for her while she doesn't give you anything, then I was a very bad writer, because that's not what I believe. Perhaps I should have added, as the leader, don't put up with her shit.

If game includes men don't put up with feminist nonsense, then the result should be good. I was advocating don't view women as primarily a means to sex and the long-term result might be better. But, if the primary aim is sex, then game away and hope it works well.

Res Ipsa said...

“I'm not up to speed on that.”

An honest attempt at learning is nothing to be ashamed of.

Maybe we didn’t quite get what you were getting at. That’s OK too. Blogging can help sharpen writing skills.

“I suspect I'll be thinking of it next time my husband is in the kitchen.”

Don’t just think about it. Unzip his pants, stick you hand in and stroke his penis, rub yourself against his body and say in your sexist voice, “I just LOOOVE it when you do..(insert chore you never want to do again) it makes me want you SOOO badly when you take care of it.”

As men we pay very close attention to what you tell us when you have a sudden case of unexpected hot pants. If he takes care of the chore, even if he doesn’t do it 100% the way you would, praise him and give him red hot Horney sex. Repeat every time he does the chore. After a couple of months you and he will both have it made.

Submit yourself to your husband in real tangible ways and you’ll genuinely enjoy marriage and he’ll believe himself to be the luckiest man in the world. After a bit, serving him will be a pleasure for you, and he will think nothing of the sacrifices he makes for you.

Res Ipsa said...

Disillusioned,

I almost forgot. One day your boobs will hang lower, your belly won’t be as flat, parts of your butt will resemble cottage cheese. You will have gray hair and maybe some of the other unsightly things that come with old age. If you follow my advice, it will be impossible for your husband to see those flaws the way you do. All he’ll see is the smoking hot babe he married as a young man and in his heart the sex will still be as hot as ever.

SarahsDaughter said...

I’m saying it’s the ongoing sense of security and admiration a women feels as she experiences her husband’s love, care, and devotion to his family that makes her more interested in having sex with him. Would you agree? I don't think a woman has to have her panties wet/be highly aroused to have enjoyable sex with her husband. Basically, I'm saying it helps a women be interested (and much of the writing on Game seems to be trying to figure out how to have sex with women) but regardless of level of interest/arousal, I think a woman should have sex with her husband. - disillusioned

Like Desert Cat said, the love, care and devotion of a husband are comfort traits. If not coupled with attraction traits, admiration, respect, and security are compromised for us women.

Yes, a woman should have sex with her husband regardless. They're not. Very few women will honor 1 Corinthians 7:5.

Convince her you can be trusted to take care of her, be the leader in sexual restraint and after marriage in finding out what it takes to have great sex with your wife, care about your children as much as your sex drive, don't be a stupid noob for pussy

Men marry so they'll have unlimited access to sex.

Men have heard enough of this type of shaming language you've used. Some BETAs even listened and breathed a sigh of relief that they'll not have to do the uncomfortable and up their game in order to keep having unlimited access to sex from his wife. Except for the fact that she got unhaaapy, divorced him and left with cash and prizes.

Game for Christian married men is learning the difference between a man who has unlimited access to sex with his wife and what the BETA has been doing wrong/not doing. Men are tired of having sexless marriages. Especially knowing there are men that don't have sexless marriages.

My husband is a stupid noob for pussy. He can't get enough of it. He gladly accepts it from me alone because 1)He vowed to God he would and 2)It's always available. The reason why it's always available and initiated is because of all the crazy things he does (the things that BETAS would never do or are too scared to try.)

Loving on and caring for the kids is not part of that.

Disillusioned said...

Res Ipsa,

Thanks for taking the time to provide such well-described and graphic advice. I've been married 23 years, so I'm in the old woman category but probably in better physical condition now than then; yet, some parts do wear out. I appreciate your optimistic long-view of marriage.

Disillusioned said...

Hi Sarah's Daughter. I ramble on and tried to address some of these points already; will try not to repeat too much.

I didn't realize I was trotting out or alluding to the same old lies men - Christian/churched in particular - have been told about the "sacrificial leader" thing, i.e., Christian men - do everything, do without, fall all over your wife in gratitude if she grants you the great favor of sex once in a while, and the smile meekly as you're being financially raped and stripped of your children. I didn't explicitly equate provision/protection with wimpery or heart-warming comfort, but apparently, those words stirred up a hornet's nest. Frankly, I believe marriage is fundamentally a contract of sex for provision.

Re: that comfort and attraction thing . . .
Not advocating door mattery. I do think seeing my husband interact in a meaningful way with our son is attractive, not heart-warming or comforting.

Stupid noob for pussy . . .

Married men and women loving sex together is not what I meant by "stupid noob for pussy." I get the point of men breaking chains, winning games, reclaiming Western Civilization. What I don't get is how that's accomplished by gaming a strange vagina for the sake of sticking a penis in it. Perhaps I mistook that to be at least a minor tangential goal of Game Theory and misapplied that misinterpretation to Alpha Game.

Desert Cat said...

"Again, I'm not aware of what missive or bunk I spewed that has been heard countless times"

Ugh. Do I have to do this? (No, no I don't, but I'm going to...)

Advocating men to develop strategies to con women into sex is not a Christian precept. (Translation: Christian men ought to be testicle-free Gammas) Encourage men to be protectors and providers. (Translation: Be a BETA) If the the primary aim of Game is sex, you deserve whatever stupid shit you get,(Translation: don't be Alpha) so stop whining about women's poor character and own your own.(It's not our fault! What about yoo?!  NAWALT!!) Women aren't hanging around waiting to be gamed for sex; (talk to your hindbrain about this one) we like to feel desired,(Translation: We like a little bit of Alpha, but shh, don't call us on this one.) but we like equally/better having our children taken care of (Translation: be a BETA) (ask any wife what turns her on about her husband and it will be hugely related to the way he shows love and care for his children). (Solipsism in action) Convince her you can be trusted to take care of her, (Translation be a BETA) be the leader in sexual restraint (Translation: be the Alpha of BETA-tude) and after marriage in finding out what it takes to have great sex with your wife, (lots of muff-diving, supplication and laundry, no doubt) care about your children as much as your sex drive (Translation: be a BETA), don't be a stupid noob for pussy (just whack off, really, please).(Translation: Be a Gamma--better than BETA) Accept that she doesn't have testosterone; you don't have estrogen/progesterone fluctuations.(Translation: Be a Gamma--even mo bettah than BETA) You are different and have different needs. (no shit, Sherlock) It's astonishing to me the energy put it to trying to figure out how to fuck a woman.("Just be yourself, rabbit") Whack off or get a robot; really.(Translation: While you're at it go full-tilt Omega!) Please. (FFS!!) Using flesh and blood women doesn't make sense.(Latex sleeves and ample KY are better suited to the Omega Lifestyle) Clearly, it's more about the game and conquest than the flesh and blood person, maybe even the the sex.(Whatever you do, for God's sake don't display any Alpha traits whatsoever!!!11!)

Oy...

SarahsDaughter said...

I do think seeing my husband interact in a meaningful way with our son is attractive, not heart-warming or comforting. Disillusioned

Heart-warming or comforting give us an awww feeling.

Attraction results in physiological changes - increased heart rate, dilated pupils, flushed cheeks, vagina preparing for sex.

You are saying that watching your husband interact with your son gives you this physiological reaction?

Disillusioned said...

Desert Cat,

Provide/protect is church-speak for castration. Got it.

If my hindbrain is waiting around to be gamed for sex, I appreciate the effort of Game to address its needs.

Point taken on the "ask any" = solipsism. I find my husband attractive when he's caring and loving his child (which rarely includes doing child care chores). My five female friends have said they find this attractive in their husbands also.

re: muff diving, supplication, and laundry = find out what it takes to have great sex with your wife. Hmm, interesting; not what I meant, but interesting. (I'm picturing sex in the laundry room, without the muff-diving.) I meant more about what works in your particular situation to get what you desire, not pleasuring her at the expense of your pleasure.

A question that went unanswered yesterday about "female imperative" re: VD statement, "You're just frightened because more and more men are rejecting the female imperative." 1) Not sure what "female imperative" means; 2) how are more and more men rejecting it? 3) how is this frightening to me in particular?

Thanks.

Desert Cat said...

SD, I'm going to go out on a limb and do some long-distance socio-sexual-psychological analysis--always fraught with peril, but here goes:

I suspect that DI's husband displayed plenty of Alpha traits to start out with. He had a shitty job and a pickup truck, but she "non- cerebrally" found him to be plenty sexy nonetheless. So, Alpha traits, check. Don't know about the BETA traits at this point, but given her emphasis on the "attractiveness" of his increasing earning power and his proclivities toward his progeny, I *suspect* they were low to start with and she has been pleasantly surprised as his BETA traits caught up with his ALPHA.

Therefore the *perception* is that it is the increasing BETA traits that are responsible for her increasing attraction. Much more likely however, it is the effect of BETA coming into that all-important balance (balance, people!) with already pre-existing high ALPHA traits.

The mistake that she and many women with relatively Alpha mates make, is that they cannot possibly imagine themselves in a relationship with a man with high BETA traits but low ALPHA traits. The possibility that such men could improve their relationships or their relationship chances by learning to turn up the volume on their ALPHA traits, simply does not compute.

More than "does not compute", it hits a visceral, subconscious (and I emphasize subconscious) nerve that such men should even be ALLOWED the possibility of changing their low status rank (by "con games", "trickery" "HSSS!!") into a more desirable specimen of masculinity. Why that cuts right across one hundred thousand years of finely tuned mate-selection strategies! How DARE they?!

Desert Cat said...

Provide/protect is church-speak for castration. Got it.

No, not quite. Provide/protect is but one-half of the equation. The mistake is in believing it is the only half that matters. And yes, it is often used as a cudgel within the church in the absence of the full equation.

Point taken on the "ask any" = solipsism. I find my husband attractive when he's caring and loving his child (which rarely includes doing child care chores). My five female friends have said they find this attractive in their husbands also.

*sigh* ok, I guess we are not going to get anywhere regarding the distinctions under discussion.

My wife would answer in a very different way, BTW.

Desert Cat said...

RE: "female imperative", HERE. Also read the original article that is linked within this article.

tz said...

Res Ipsa said...

TZ:

“What is wrong, evil, corrupt, is to treat another human being with a soul as an object for your pleasure.”

What metric do you use to make this assumption?


The golden rule. Do you enjoy being used and discarded? Assuming you are not some form of masochist? Would you recommend using, harming, and discarding others as something other human beings ought to accept being done TO them?

Find someone who desires your death for his/her pleasure.

Jack Amok said...

Well, Whatever, if 5 out of 6 people in any generation have themselves together enough to live their life without a major fuckup, that's probably about as good as you'll ever get with the imperfect clay of human beings.

The divorce statistics are 1 out of 2, not 5 out of 6, and that applies to Christians and Catholics (who hold marriage as normally indissoluble). Half or less is a tragedy, nor was it always thus, either in Christendom or elsewhere.

To return to the general issue...

The clearest indication is the proposal, "Will you marry me".

In the case of "Game", it means "Will you promise sexual exclusivity (as long as I contracept)", and is properly asked by the woman.

Originally it meant "Will you be willing to be motheral to any Children God would bless us with". That is something a Man can properly ask for on bended knee.

The current hybrid "Will you be my exclusive sex partner unless we grow emotionally apart, and if we don't we might have, if circumstances permit, two children" is neither tenable nor honest.

If you don't get the teleology of marriage, nothing will make sense.

tz said...

I cannot edit, so please accept the alterations:

1. "promise sexual exclusivity as long as I contracept and don't want a no-fault divorce".

2. Will you be willing to be mother to my children...

Disillusioned said...

SD: Attraction results in physiological changes - increased heart rate, dilated pupils, flushed cheeks, vagina preparing for sex.

Accepting what you mean by "attraction," no, I don't get aroused for sex by watching my husband interact with my son. I do find my attraction to him increased by said activity, which does make arousal and response to his advances more ready.

Desert Cat said...

More on the feminine imperative or the female imperative HERE, and HERE.

SarahsDaughter said...

Disillusioned, you have a lot of reading to do and Desert Cat has given you great places to start.

You have proved VD's oft stated point that women do not know themselves well (or are simply not honest) or for that matter what is sexually attractive to them. The problem is, our society has entertained women's blather as truth which has resulted in very confused men and women.

Disillusioned said...

Desert Cat,

The full equation being the marriage contract = sex for provision? So men in church get beat into them they should protect/provide but no similar admonishment is given to wives to be sexually available (and interested and proactive) on a steady, regular basis. Gotcha.

*sigh* ok, I guess we are not going to get anywhere regarding the distinctions under discussion.

Thought I offered response to those presented, some specifically, like, I understand that "ask any" is an example of solipsism. It's not that I don't get I extrapolated my experience to "any/all" women. (The whole post was my opinion/observation.) Given your observation of my solipsism, I rewrote that sentence to clarify it as my experience (and the information of a 5 other women). I realize "any/all" women have other experiences, so I took your point, made a revision.

The majority of your other comments fall under the category of me castigating Alpha behavior. I don't see provide/protect and find out what works for you and your wife to get what you want (husband) as Beta behavior, so saw no need to address each point. As for the Gamma/Omega implications . . . whacking off and robots. These activities have their place and can be definite advantage to men rather than having to deal with undesirable painful behavior of women.

Thanks for link re: "female imperative." Reading it next.

Disillusioned said...

SD. I agree men and women have been indoctrinated with really bad information and it has done harm. How have I clearly demonstrated I don't know myself well (like most women) or am dishonest about it? I clarified several points in question:

"Protect/provide" has charged meaning to some of you that it didn't to me. I meant it to mean what strong men do well; I didn't mean it as castration or subjugation to the female.

Narrowed in on what was meant by "attraction," versus "comfort," and "attraction" in relation to "arousal." Loving and caring for child does not mean doing women's chores.

I explained "find out what it means to have great sex with your wife," didn't mean pleasure her, screw you; it meant, learn what works in your home with your wife for you. Men and women's sex needs work differently, blah, blah, blah, to which I received a "no shit, Sherlock" from Desert Cat. I didn't mean this as an insult, but if it's so obvious, why is the topic of game - in or out of marriage - of interest?

SarahsDaughter said...

How have I clearly demonstrated I don't know myself well

"ask any wife what turns her on about her husband and it will be hugely related to the way he shows love and care for his children"

"I’m not suggesting that watching one’s husband care for his children gets his wife's panties wet, although, hey, it might and what’s disgusting about that?"

"I do think seeing my husband interact in a meaningful way with our son is attractive, not heart-warming or comforting."

"I find my husband attractive when he's caring and loving his child (which rarely includes doing child care chores). My five female friends have said they find this attractive in their husbands also."

"Accepting what you mean by "attraction," no, I don't get aroused for sex by watching my husband interact with my son. I do find my attraction to him increased by said activity, which does make arousal and response to his advances more ready."

All in one thread, dear.

Disillusioned said...

SD @ 2/26, 6:43 PM All in one thread, dear. Condescension noted.

In this post, you offer my comments re: watching my husband interact with my son as a “turn on” as evidence that I demonstrate VD’s claim that most women do not know themselves well. I state: "ask any wife what turns her on about her husband and it will be hugely related to the way he shows love and care for his children." (Desert Cat pointed out my use of “ask any” was solipsism; I conceded, and reworded to reflect that it is my experience – and that of a few friends). I’ll also concede now that “hugely related” was exaggeration. It is related for me, but as a part of the bigger picture. I was willing to take correction and explain the meaning or revise language. So, if being wiling to be corrected and clarify language demonstrates I don’t know myself well, okay.

You interpreted my "turn on" statement literally and informed me what constitutes physical arousal and told me it was disgusting to become physically aroused in such a situation: "but perhaps you might want to stop and think how digusting it is that your panties get wet when your husband is loving on and caring for your kids.

You did know that wet panties is what happens when a woman is turned on, right?" (Martel congratulated you on your awesome comeback, which included saying I was lying – about something.)

I replied I wasn’t being literal, but if I had been, why is it a problem to become physically aroused watching my husband do something? Apparently, Res Ipsa wouldn’t find this problematic; he suggested a way to thank my husband if he does a few chores for me: "Throw the kids outside, lock the door, rip your cloths off, shove your husband against the counter, yank his pants down and give him a great cum guzzling blow job."

I was warned by several I was advocating the same old bad advice of subjugating a husband to beta-tude. There was discussion of the dangers of comfort/heart-warming versus attraction and how comfort kills a wife’s sex interest. I got it and stated so much. Desert Cat brought me up to speed on the background of how the advice I seemed to give (provide/protect; show care for children; find out how to have great sex with wife) is tantamount to castration. Again, noted.

I am reading posts on Female Imperative at links provided by Desert Cat and Martel, despite Martel being pretty certain I never would.

As to the original statement re: watching my husband interact with child as turn on. I was saying that some behaviors between a married couple increase affection and attraction to one another, which facilitates arousal and sex. I never said he should give all and get no sex.

My original posts expressed my frustration/confusion (panties in a knot, not wet) at how one of the stated goals of Alpha Game (saving Western Civilization) is accomplished through PUArtistry, or how it squares with Christianity. I wasn’t happy that PUArtistry relegates women to interchangeable vaginas status (that darned snowflake showing). Others provided insight as to how using Game helps gauge a women’s character, regardless of coital outcome. Okay, got it.

As for VD saying I am fearful of losing my Female Imperative because of game (still reading FI posts), I see that, definitely. When young, fully feminized and full of me, I didn’t recognize the benefit I had by being female, afforded by men. Hence, I recognize I did and most likely still take it for granted. I will be more mindful, appreciative, and prepared to lose it, as best I can. I know I can’t compete with men and would be “put in my place” at any moment a male chose to do so. I absolutely agree family and societies are better off with male leadership. I grew up in a traditional home and saw the division of labor and exchange of goods. My parents understood their agreement. (Owing much to feminism and selfishness, my husband and I struggle with ours.) If Game restores that order, excellent.

SarahsDaughter said...

It is fantastic that you are understanding things. You are not alone in this. I go through the same mental processes. Because I have to thoroughly think through these things, I've come to understand that my first response is often times 1)emotional and irrational 2)based in fear (not truth) 3)not the same response I might have later after processing information 4)should not be verbalized until said processing of information is done.

We, as women understand and find no issue with the fact that we need to go through these processes in order to figure out what is true - even when it comes to our feelings. We want to talk it through. And then, we have a tendency to arrive at new conclusions without going back and apologizing for emotional outbursts that were based on wrong conclusions.

This is one thing game teaches men (and women) that haven't been privy to understanding women's nature prior. Ignore what women say, and observe what they do. They are not logical nor rational in their first responses to stimuli or information. And they are not prone to taking responsibility for wrong behavior.

Your question: "why is it a problem to become physically aroused watching my husband do something?" has changed over the course of this thread. This is called moving the goal posts. It is not a problem to become physically aroused watching your husband do something. Do you see how different that is than your first assertion: "ask any wife what turns her on about her husband and it will be hugely related to the way he shows love and care for his children."

I am a wife and have never gotten physically aroused (attracted) observing my husband's love and care for his children. Now, if he and my son are doing construction on the house...different story, but the arousal doesn't have a thing to do with his interaction with my son.

There may be an outlier that is physically aroused watching her husband read a book with his child or giving a child a hug but you can see, this is clearly not "any woman." - However, as women do, you emphatically stated something that is 1) not true and 2)not applicable to you. So, now it has become a strawman and you are defending it saying "what would be wrong with it if this not true statement did apply to someone somewhere?"

Keep reading. You'll learn a lot. VD's post about rhetoric vs. dialectic should also be of interest to you.

Trust said...

"Ask" any woman what turns them on, and you'll hear about roses and chivalry and sugar and spice. Everything nice.

"Observe" what turns any woman on, and you get something entirely different.

When words and behavior don't match, watch behavior because it reveals truth. That is what game is. It is not a manipulation of women, it is a plan based on what women respond to.

Disillusioned said...

Hi SD. Thanks for taking the time to explain and enlighten.

I used a term imprecisely (turn on). Once you stated that my use of “turn on” meant physical/sexual arousal (and further proceeded to say that was disgusting), I clarified, several times, that is not what I meant by it. I wasn’t debating whether or not it is okay to be physically aroused by watching my son and husband (since that’s not what I said; you deemed it disgusting), I was responding to your interpretation of my meaning by rewording to more precise language, not moving the goalpost.

Are you stating this now: “It is not a problem to become physically aroused watching your husband do something.” That seems in contradiction to your first assertion that it was disgusting to be turned on/sexually aroused by watching my husband and son interact (which, again, I didn't mean and clarified as such).

Please recall, I was not talking about sexual arousal, so none of that conversation is relevant. But if you insist me clarifying as not knowing myself well and moving goalposts, I can only say we disagree and I'll keep trying to learn.

SarahsDaughter said...

Well now I just believe you're a troll because that ^^^ is all sorts of messed up.

Desert Cat said...

Semantics. Let's not wallow in it.

There is some imprecision in our language. Clearly "attraction" as commonly used, can refer to emotional attraction, intellectual attraction, as well as physical attraction (arousal). The PUA community has something specific in mind when they refer to "attraction" and "comfort building" and the red pill savvy generally associate these with "alpha traits" and "beta traits". Not necessarily so those not familiar with the details.

"Turn on" is imprecise, yes. Usually associated with physical arousal, it could be stretched to include "emotional turn on", but the context would have to be correct. Since the topic of the post in question was definitely about sex, the context of the original post did not support it.

Anyway, this horse is dead. Leave it to the blowflies.

Desert Cat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trust said...

I think dissolutioned is a good example of the whiplash many men get in their marriages.

"A man doing the dishes turns me on" is a common carrot to dangle. But men who fall for it are celibate. If at any point he says that he's done dishes 200 times since the last time they had sex, the goal post is moved that "it loses its appeal if wanting sex is the only reason you do it."

Funny thing is that men who are neglected by their wives usually never had to go more than a week without sex and blow jobs before the domestication that is supposedly such a turn on. But what is really motivates women is the when a man can dump her and she can't punish him for it.

Desert Cat said...

(I'm picturing sex in the laundry room, without the muff-diving.)

On the washer, final spin cycle, large blanket in the machine off-center.

You're welcome.

VD said...

What I don't get is how that's accomplished by gaming a strange vagina for the sake of sticking a penis in it. Perhaps I mistook that to be at least a minor tangential goal of Game Theory and misapplied that misinterpretation to Alpha Game.

Theory of Game, (which is not Game Theory), has no goals. You've committed a basic category error here akin to claiming the goal of gravity is to crash airplanes.

Game is. It can be used to penetrate strange vaginas. It can be used to prevent divorce. Being neither animate nor aware, it no more has goals than gravity or thermodynamics.

Disillusioned said...

VD . . . Thank you for the clarifications, and thank you all who took the time to respond to my impassioned rant in the last few days. I do apologize. I generally do think before I hit "send."

To see that I'm following, proper term is Theory of Game and it is inanimate so has no goals, but like gravity, has observable effects, i.e., penetration of strange vagina, prevent divorce. Also, I did read more on Female Imperative and yes, it is grim to think of life without it. As I've aged, it has become more apparent that less breaks are given me; as a result, I've learned to take less for granted and to show my appreciation more. That interchangeable vagina thing was probably my point of hysteria. Truth hurts, especially when you're obsolete.

Trust . . . Broader point taken. Specifically, I don't expect or ask my husband to do any of my chores, nor does he except when it suits him. I still have Res Ispa's image in my mind of how to appropriately thank him.

SD, this is not personal or to beat to a dead horse, but just curious, men - if your wife was sexually aroused (and showed you in no uncertain terms), and you asked her later what that was all about and she said, "You become very attractive to me when I see you lovingly interact with the children," would this disgust you?

Also SD, I did just choose the "Disillusioned" moniker for that day/moment and hissy fit, now I have to live with it, but best of luck changing your diet. I've been working on that for 2-3 years now and it is well-worth it. Once you start eating cleaner, you really notice when you don't. I had a LOT more sugar than normal this past week, so maybe . . . (rationalizing; dammit. I'm still a f-ing female).

Thanks again all.

Res Ipsa said...

Disillusioned,

sorry to not get back to you. I lost interest in the thread and only checked back on a whim.

"would this disgust you?"

Short answer: No.

But it has never happened. She's told me several times that she likes it when I do stuff with the kids but that has never been "shown" in a meaningful way. I'll admit this is possible for some women, maybe. If it was to happen, my guess would be that she was in the middle of the grip of "have another baby" hormones, and that its not a frequent event in most households.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.