Tuesday, March 19, 2013

The hunt for weakness

Sassy, a commenter at Susan's place, makes an important observation while discussing HUS's favorite television show:
One thing of female nature that I have noticed is that when we identify a form of weakness in a man, we keep our eyes out for further clues/confirmations of that weakness. Once ShoSho learned about his rather pathetic lifestyle, she continued to identify and mull over new clues. She could no longer see him as the man she fell for initially. He became a loser in her eyes, and her attraction to him began to wane. This culminated in her cheating on him.
This is true.  I have observed similar tendencies in women myself.  So, how can a man deal with this female tendency to hunt for his weaknesses?  The beta way, of course, would be to grandly reveal them all to her at once, complete with a romantic declaration of how she helps him want to be a better man and so forth.

Likely reaction: sneering contempt and reduced sexual atttraction.

What does Game theory suggest?  Game is rather like jujitsu, as it involves utilizing a woman's instinctive tendencies to serve a man's purposes rather than her own.  Consider the neg, which causes a woman to doubt her instinctive assumption of superiority vis-a-vis a man.  In like manner,  the obvious solution to the female tendency to hunt for weaknesses once identified is to make the woman doubt her ability to correctly identify weaknesses.

How can this be done?  Easily, by presenting false weaknesses to keep her instincts occupied. Not only will she miss genuine weaknesses by looking in the wrong direction for further confirmations of something that doesn't exist, but once she has traveled down the wrong path two or three times, she will be much less sure of herself if she does happen to latch onto a genuine weakness and therefore more inclined to simply let it go without disrupting the relationship.

No doubt most men will dislike the need to anticipate, misdirect, and obfuscate when they would like nothing better than to bare their souls and be accepted for whom they truly are, warts and all.  But the paradox of intersexual relations is that in order to be truly accepted, loved, and desired by a woman, a man must always keep a part of himself hidden well away from her.

103 comments:

herenvardo said...

That last sentence was one of the most painful lessons I ever learned, before I ever encountered the Gameosphere. All on my own, I learned that woman doesn't know what she wants, that she *will* home in on your weaknesses, that she loathes your being a Nice Guy. Once I decided that I was Il Capo in my own little Family, I had a marriage again.

Nothing exposes BS like experience. Whenever I read some fembot squawking about how men should do this or that w.r.t. their 'partner', I get an urge to take a slash on them.

Whatever else, husbands and wives are never 'partners'.

realmatt said...

Dear Men,

Only your mothers love you. If you're lucky. Get over it.

The End.

taterearl said...

"No doubt most men will dislike the need to anticipate, misdirect, and obfuscate when they would like nothing better than to bare their souls and be accepted for whom they truly are, warts and all."

There is a place to do that without reproach from women...confession.

retrophoebia said...

Thus the necessity for other interests--a career, friends, activities--where a man can let his guard down a bit, or at least get distraction from having to (at some level) be on his toes to parry the constant shit tests headed his way. Because they're cumulative, they never stop, and so respite allows an opportunity to recharge and maintain frame.

The Chateau had a great post on the frequency and type of relationship timeline which this would play nicely to, but can't find it at the moment.

691 said...

"No doubt most men will dislike the need to anticipate, misdirect, and obfuscate when they would like nothing better than to bare their souls and be accepted for whom they truly are, warts and all."

I'm not so much interested in baring my soul as I am in maintaining a coldly rational self-awareness of my strengths and weaknesses. I try to be radically honest with myself about my faults; I have enough talents, strengths and confidence to survive facing those faults. And if I don't constantly remind myself of my boundaries, my irrational self-confidence takes over and I can shoot myself in the foot.

Put a different way, how do you balance a healthy humility with the need to project strength?

Doom said...

It's a classic skill with regards to warfare, down to hand-to-hand combat, too.

I think the reason most men aren't good lovers and, men generally either, these days is because they don't know how to fight. Not that being superior at one automatically makes one good at the other. But when the... notion that idea crossover is extremely accurate as to an analog of each other, if the actual functions and actions are usually different, then if one is good at one of those then the chances of becoming good at the other has just increased significantly.

If bluff fails to work, and feint fails to call a retreat, and no retreat is allowed (or wanted), then go for it, boys. Women merely fight with their sex, mind, and emotion, and they have no problem fighting dirty. But losing is losing. Pick your fights and win.

Love is war, though eros seems closer than the other forms?

Meh said...

"How can this be done? Easily, by presenting false weaknesses to keep her instincts occupied."

This is too much work. It's a lot easier just to get a woman who isn't preoccupied with hunting down and exploiting weaknesses. They do exist; I married one.

Will Best said...

Typically, some with more Christian religion leanings. Even if the church is feminized they seem to at least understand the imperfection of man is the default.

Even given this they would prefer to ignore such imperfections instead of having to confront them regularly.

Stickwick said...

It's a lot easier just to get a woman who isn't preoccupied with hunting down and exploiting weaknesses.

I don't think women are interested in exploiting their mates' weaknesses. That's more of a male way of thinking. Rather, women use weaknesses to disqualify a man. Remember, women are primarily motivated -- on an animal level -- by fear. A woman wants to believe that her man is strong and capable so that she feels safe.

Doom said...

Meh,

But it is about picking your woman, not taking whatever dead fish floats your way. And that means taking what is there and working with it after all else has been evaluated. This is just one possibility, and a common problem with women worth their salt.

Stickwick said...

Typically, some with more Christian religion leanings. Even if the church is feminized they seem to at least understand the imperfection of man is the default.

It's not so much about forgiving imperfection, but that a godly woman is not as governed by fear as an ungodly woman.

Crispy said...

Easily, by presenting false weaknesses to keep her instincts occupied.
Sorta like the classic interview question: "what are your weaknesses", to which one can be honest, or reply along the lines of "Oh, I sometimes make people feel bad because I am so productive"...

Meh said...

I don't think women are interested in exploiting their mates' weaknesses.

I have known women who want to exploit weaknesses in order to gain the upper hand in the relationship. And once they have the upper hand, they don't always "disqualify" the man. I know a couple who have been married 20 years and she has ALWAYS had the upper hand.

Koanic said...

Absolutely. Misdirection is a crucial part of giving direction.

Jimmy said...

"A woman wants to believe that her man is strong and capable so that she feels safe."

Are you sure about that? She can't desire safety if she can't stand boredom with a pathetically weak guy. Maybe she wants to feel superiority or excitement instead. A high status guy can provide these things.

A guy can't overcome fundamental weaknesses in his status or character. He can only distract her from them so she wouldn't worry her little head. Giving her "false weaknesses" is the wrong approach. She will still look at you as weak. Give her false strength.

Retrenched said...

Related, but from the MGTOW point of view...

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2002/02/zenpriest-59-most-important-lesson-man.html

Daniel said...

Meh
It's a lot easier just to get a woman who isn't preoccupied with hunting down and exploiting weaknesses.

Stickwick
I don't think women are interested in exploiting their mates' weaknesses. That's more of a male way of thinking. Rather, women use weaknesses to disqualify a man. Remember, women are primarily motivated -- on an animal level -- by fear. A woman wants to believe that her man is strong and capable so that she feels safe.

OP is dead on, but does skip over an important point highlighted in the above responses: the misdirection can be a) as delightful for the man as it is b) assuring for the woman.

Once a man views his relationship with a woman as a war she welcomes, as foolish and tiring as that may sound, it is actually quite a bit of fun to enjoy the fruits of showing weakness where there is strength.

Regarding "honesty": It sure as heck beats showing weakness where there is weakness!

Daniel said...

Put a different way, how do you balance a healthy humility with the need to project strength?

You've got it backwards. Project weakness in areas of strength, do not extend strength to paper over areas of weakness. In your areas of weakness, allow strength to be assumed by misdirection - do not "project" strength in some sort of demonstration.

Don't say you are good bowler if you suck, for example. If you are physically strong, downplay it with the truth by saying things like "I'm not the strongest man on the planet." It is technically true (honest) but will give her the impression that you are physically weak. When you then easily lift a tractor that falls on a puppy (or whatever), her fear that you had a weakness she identified evaporates, and she is more likely to wonder what other surprising strengths you may have under wraps.

Misdirection is not lying. It is a pleasant way to array your strengths without having to constantly exercise them, to shield your weaknesses without having to constantly defend them, and to reassure your wife through a sort of zen passivity, as opposed the active scalzied fevers that the "where's wifey?" set are constantly coming down with.

Daniel said...

Jimmy
She can't desire safety if she can't stand boredom with a pathetically weak guy.

Did you mean this sentence? Because as I read it, it is contradictory. A pathetically weak guy would obviously cause both boredom and fear.

You are dead wrong on the part that is clearer - false strength is easily exposed and strategically stupid.

"Honey, I'm a great bowler."

"Okay, let's go bowling."

Bob Wallace said...

"Misdirection is a crucial part of giving direction."

Misdirection is the basis of magic, you know.

TheScoldsBridle said...

Woman turning the screws against a man's weakness = "making him a better man".

Man doing the same to a woman = "why are you being so mean and judgmental?"

Nate said...

"It's a lot easier just to get a woman who isn't preoccupied with hunting down and exploiting weaknesses."

There is no such thing. Women test for weakness because it is their nature. You are their protector... if you can't protect them... they will damned sure find someone who will.

Ioweenie said...

Since some men are more strategic/cerebral that others, putting so much energy into misdirection might not be possible. Just try to project strength in your "weakness," or insist - calmly - that you don't accept her version of you (even if you opened the door by revealing a "weakness").

As noted, women are fear-driven. Nothing takes the winds out of our fault-finding sails like you insisting that what might be seen as weakness isn't, or isn't such a big deal (we love our histrionics). Don't get dragged into a verbal squabble over it, which would convey you care too much about her opinion of you. You don't need to.

It's an important lesson in humility whether you're a male or female. Owning your weakness is strength. Don't wallow in it or let her make a bigger deal of it than it is. In that, she will eventually come to appreciate that your strength is big enough to cover for her too. Be honest about who you are, make yourself the best you can be, then recognize women are weak and looking for you to be strong, solid, and reliable.

For years, I was frustrated by the fact that my husband wouldn't accept my assessment of his faults. I chalked it up to his lack of self-awareness. I might be right, but big deal. 24 years later, I see most of his "faults" as strengths, especially how he's never let his "weakness" derail him in what mattered to him and he didn't give a shit what I thought. "Damn bastard" (lovingly said with a smirk and head shake)

Stickwick said...

I have known women who want to exploit weaknesses in order to gain the upper hand in the relationship. And once they have the upper hand, they don't always "disqualify" the man. I know a couple who have been married 20 years and she has ALWAYS had the upper hand.

I know women like that, too; doesn't mean they are the norm, doesn't mean they find their exploited husbands attractive. Most women, on a primordial biological level, want their husbands to be in the dominant role.

Are you sure about that? She can't desire safety if she can't stand boredom with a pathetically weak guy.

If you don't think women are primarily motivated by fear and the desire for safety, then you'll be hard-pressed to explain why women -- especially single women -- tend to vote Democrat/socialist. A woman wants safety from outside dangers. If a man projects pathetic weakness, she believes he's not going to be able to protect her from threats to her safety.

As for boredom, given that a woman is primarily motivated by fear, doesn't it stand to reason that it's through fear that she can also be titillated?

SarahsDaughter said...

a war she welcomes

This.

Josh said...

Dear Men,
Only your mothers love you. If you're lucky. Get over it.
The End.


Thus spake omega

Josh said...

I don't understand the appeal of this girls show, but I suppose I'm just not the target audience.

Beefy Levinson said...

The only women who know you and love you unconditionally are your mother and those who are saints in heaven.

Jimmy said...

"If you don't think women are primarily motivated by fear and the desire for safety, then you'll be hard-pressed to explain why women -- especially single women -- tend to vote Democrat/socialist. A woman wants safety from outside dangers. If a man projects pathetic weakness, she believes he's not going to be able to protect her from threats to her safety."

Women assume the state will protect them. That's why they go for guys that won't necessarily protect them. Then again, this protection racket goes against her instincts when she picks a man so dangerous that she needs to buy a gun or get a restraining order.

She is getting the best of both worlds.

"As for boredom, given that a woman is primarily motivated by fear, doesn't it stand to reason that it's through fear that she can also be titillated?"

Yes, women don't want to be bored. She gets off from fear and danger. The bad boys rule. Bad boys' weaknesses are their strengths. Spontaneous behavior. Non planning. The living of day to day. A woman gets off on this. She loves a project as well. It is a plus until she tires of it. Then it becomes something else.

Jimmy said...

@Daniel: "Did you mean this sentence? Because as I read it, it is contradictory. A pathetically weak guy would obviously cause both boredom and fear."

Why would you think a weak guy causes fear? He is not the cause of fear. The fear of uncertainty comes from the woman.

"You are dead wrong on the part that is clearer - false strength is easily exposed and strategically stupid."

Fake strength is the whole PUA facade. You present fake status and personality. It's like a woman who puts on some makeup.

A guy a certainly fake some expertise with coaching. He will be further along than a woman in most cases. Maybe he shouldn't go bowling if he can't, but he should be able to do something better with modicum training.

Anonymous said...

This post is off. Once a woman has committed to a man, she will do mental backflips to believe in him.

SarahsDaughter said...

The fear of uncertainty comes from the woman.

Uncertainty causes a woman to fear.


This post is off. Once a woman has committed to a man, she will do mental backflips to believe in him.

Thread winner for most ass backwards comment.

Stickwick said...

Once a woman has committed to a man, she will do mental backflips to believe in him.

Uh huh. And the reason women initiate two-thirds of all divorces is? Wait, wait, don't tell me! It's because ... he FAILED her, despite her best efforts to believe in him.

SarahsDaughter said...

I'll try to help:

A woman will do mental back flips to believe in a man (she's attracted to) until she gets his commitment...

taterearl said...

"Misdirection is a crucial part of giving direction."

Let's see if this is an example. I was "talked to" by an older woman about my dancing and how I can be a little too "aggressive" because of my physical strength. Rather than beg for forgiveness during this fitness test I told her...

"Sometimes I am unaware of how strong I am."

In reality I'm fully aware, I can tell you the specifics on how much I can lift...but I figured in this situation it would be better to misdirect it to her.

Badger said...

Two relevant kernels of Manosphere wisdom:
-She (as an organism, not necessarily as a person) is always looking for a reason to reject you; the male organism is looking for a reason to say yes
-Relationships are more secure when the woman is mildly chasing the man (http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/deti-on-the-cliff/)

Susan's infamous "Why We Shit Test" post in which she dumped a young lad for crying at his father's funeral shows that even justifiable outpourings of male emotional weakness can turn the tingle off for good.

Interesting to hear this from Sassy, whose very interesting and seemingly-discordant taste in men was a discussion item from her first appearance at HUS - respectfully, she's been open about her desire for emotive hipster men in the same package as a tough, buff, gruff beefcake with a voracious sexual appetite.

One of the core frames of game that you can't teach or train with behavioral adjustments is to give up the need/desire for female emotional validation - her trust, comfort and approval with you. I forget when I was able to do that, but it's no surprise that my game took off once I did. I replaced it with a validation index that measured a woman's desire and respect for me (all the things the feminist establishment told me NOT to measure myself by with women). Those factors show that I'm showing male attraction and leadership.

"But the paradox of intersexual relations is that in order to be truly accepted, loved, and desired by a woman, a man must always keep a part of himself hidden well away from her."

I think there was a HUS post a while back titled "Will he ever open up and let me in?" The answer is, not if he's smart...men are learning not to give 100% if they want to keep the flame alive; the ones who never had to learn it are some of those naturals we've always marveled at. Do it right, and she'll be forever unsatisfied - but always chasing, and thus invested in the relationship.

A final point: there's a lot of concern over in the "equalist relationship" community about accounting for equal exchange in a relationship - equal money, equal time, equal emotional output, etc. The key really is not to give the same, but to give what's necessary to keep the relationship secure and happy; if she comes to your house twice as much as you go to hers, or you pay for twice as many dates as she does, but everybody's happy and giving each other what they want and need out of the relationship itself, then call it a functional relationship and keep doing what you are doing. Another piece of Manosphere wisdom is that logistical/administrative concerns only become an overt concern if the romantic/attraction part of the LTR starts to suffer - as Athol Kay put it, "the dishes are dirty and my vagina is angry with you!"

Meh said...

There is no such thing. Women test for weakness because it is their nature. You are their protector... if you can't protect them... they will damned sure find someone who will.

I already said there is such a thing, because I married one. That, or I passed the test so effortlessly that I didn't even notice I was taking it.

If you don't think women are primarily motivated by fear and the desire for safety, then you'll be hard-pressed to explain why women -- especially single women -- tend to vote Democrat/socialist.

Their motives could easily be the same as the motives of men who vote Democrat -- sloth, greed and envy.

Anonymous said...

As a woman who reads this blog, I think a big part of the problem is that men think they need to "game" women.
If you think you need to "game" women, you will get "gamey" women. You will get the roadkill. You will get the ones who have been played so much, so hard, so well, that they know all the rules... They will be just as bitter as you are.
OR...
You can be honest, respectful of women, and STILL be an alpha. You can STILL be the head of the household. You can STILL apologize when you say something hurtful to your partner. You can STILL be the lead in the dance.
But you commit to HONESTY, to OPENNESS. It may amaze you what TRUE women you will find when you stop playing games, start weeding through the women who want to play games early, let them go early (instead of playing them harder) and stick with the women who will NOT play games.
We DO exist. We don't mind Alphas.
We just don't want gamers.
Food for thought...
I have found that contempt is not built when finding weakness in a man, rather when a man hides the weakness, refuses to apologize when he does something hurtful and wrong, or manipulates/games it back at me in some way. THAT is what creates contempt...

Badger said...

"Put a different way, how do you balance a healthy humility with the need to project strength? "

Easy. Keep the humility to yourself, and take on an affectation of irrational self-confidence. Say this to your woman: "I'm the Man." Take her to an event and ask "how does it feel to be on the arm of the hottest guy in the room?" When she compliments you, act like it was obvious.

Educated Gen-X/millenial guys were trained to be this very squishy, compliant, happy-go-lucky kind of character. Ian Ironwood has a bunch of posts about this, and they resonate deeply with me. It's a big fail with women.

STEM guys especially tend to have a very rational view of themselves, the idea of putting on an air of being The Man rubs them wrong internally.

That itself is one of the disappointments of learning game to a plugged-in beta guy - realizing that the guys who have been getting all the chicks have basically been faking it as a strategy for years (save for those guys who were really good athletes and thus displaying true physical dominance), and that your self-conscious efforts to be "rationally self-confident" were really just unilateral disarmament.

Anonymous said...

*Let me say that **some** men*
I don't want to generalize and say that ALL men are bitter, or ALL men are gamers...
I didn't want to come across that way...
Just as *all* women aren't feminist, or users, or b&8tches...

VD said...

As a woman who reads this blog, I think a big part of the problem is that men think they need to "game" women.

If you think you need to "game" women, you will get "gamey" women.

You will get the roadkill. You will get the ones who have been played so much, so hard, so well, that they know all the rules... They will be just as bitter as you are.
OR...
You can be honest, respectful of women, and STILL be an alpha. You can STILL be the head of the household. You can STILL apologize when you say something hurtful to your partner. You can STILL be the lead in the dance.


This is an object lesson in the importance of NEVER listening to advice from a woman on romance or relationships.

My dear Anonymous, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Which is always the case when women instruct men concerning how best to handle them. If you want to know how to hunt deer, you OBSERVE the deer and you ASK the hunter.

Stickwick said...

Their motives could easily be the same as the motives of men who vote Democrat -- sloth, greed and envy.

The primary reason men vote Democrat/socialist is that they have the Hobbesian view that people can't be trusted to make their own decisions and must therefore be constrained by government. A lot of it is fear-driven. There's a reason rabbity men like Scalzi tend to be leftist in their politics, and men like Vox and Roissy are not.

Women are the security-seekers. That's why they're not risk-takers, that's why they seek the security of a group, that's why vote for big government, and that's why they want to ban guns and everything else that scares them. Notice that women do occasionally switch from Democrat to Republican, and the reason is almost always concern for safety and that the incumbent Democrat is perceived as weak during a crisis (see: Carter/Reagan).

taterearl said...

"But you commit to HONESTY, to OPENNESS."

Honesty, yes. Openness, no.

Let your yes mean yes and no mean no...anything more is from the evil one.

Daniel said...

Meh
I already said there is such a thing, because I married one.

Can you protect your wife? If so, then you took her test and passed. If you can't protect your wife, she's not just an outlier to the model, she is crazy.

I suspect very much that you meet her threshold of testing, not that she doesn't have standards.

Daniel said...

Jimmy, you are creating a false duality.

The choice isn't between false strength and false weakness. There is a third way: minimize strengths to draw successful tests (the tests are coming one way or another) and also to create an inability to exploit weaknesses.

PUA is not relevant to the principle of relational strategy.

Josh said...

We DO exist. We don't mind Alphas.We just don't want gamers.

Since game is just the emulation of alpha behavior, how are you able to differentiate between an "alpha"and a "gamer?"

Retrenched said...

"We don't mind Alphas.We just don't want gamers."

We don't mind slender girls. We just don't want girls who watch what they eat and exercise.

Daniel said...

Also, some are confusing real honesty for "Garden State" honesty. I don't recommend the movie, as I fallen asleep during it twice trying to figure out why a relative of mine liked it so much, so here's a synopsis: narcissistic dull as hell mope with no valid interests is "liberated" by a fluttering nut whose only purpose in life is to free him with her whacky antics.

He's very honest about what a crushingling dull and useless person he is...and fluttering nut [Queen Amidala I think] just loves him for it.

That's the movies. In real life, fluttering nut turns out to be the only one who can stand the putz because she's a mentally ill stalker, and she liberates him from his spinal column for all his honesty. Probably licks the platter clean.

And she should. Yes, he's that honest...and yes, he's that worthy of contempt.

In the movies, love means never having to say you're sorry and honesty means never having to strive for anything better.

In a real long term relationship, love means learning to love your enemy and honesty means knowing when to keep your mouth shut tight.

taterearl said...

"We don't mind Alphas. We just don't want gamers."

We don't mind feminine women for our commitment. We just don't want manipulators when they get married.

Josh said...

He's very honest about what a crushingling dull and useless person he is...and fluttering nut [Queen Amidala I think] just loves him for it.

Does he just not give a shit about being dull and useless? Because I could see how that might get her hamster going. But if he's always apologizing for being dull and useless, obviously the tingles go away.

Anonymous said...

Samson and Delilah.

When he kept her guessing by lying to her, she would go crazy and throw a fit, and would cry to get him to yield.

and when he did tell her, she turned on him, betrayed him, and the rest is history.

frenchy

Meh said...

The primary reason men vote Democrat/socialist is that they have the Hobbesian view that people can't be trusted to make their own decisions and must therefore be constrained by government.

Disagree. The primary reason men vote Democrat/socialist is they want things other people have without having to work for them. Like I said, sloth, greed, and envy.

Can you protect your wife? If so, then you took her test and passed. If you can't protect your wife, she's not just an outlier to the model, she is crazy.

It is a given that I can protect any woman I am with. It is not a given that any woman I am with will not probe for weakness and try to get the upper hand. Therefore, merely "feeling protected" is not enough to placate the type of woman who wants to hunt for weaknesses.

Daniel said...

But if he's always apologizing for being dull and useless, obviously the tingles go away.

Like I said, I've fallen asleep twice, so I could have missed something. What I saw, however, was a character who couldn't give a fertile drunk nymphomaniac nun on Catholic rumspringa half a tingle with an industrial vibrator and naked photos of Tim Tebow.

Daniel said...

Meh
Therefore, merely "feeling protected" is not enough to placate the type of woman who wants to hunt for weaknesses.

There's the gap in you logic. You are assuming that because you placated your wife's testing rather naturally, that anyone who would do more testing than your wife is a certain type.

The fact is, both your wife and the sort of woman you don't like do the same thing: they test. It isn't the testing you have a problem with, but the fact that you fail certain type of women, and avoid them.

I'm not saying that's a bad strategy: it's not. Obviously it smart to pick the sort of women whose tests you feel confident you can pass. But that doesn't mean that the testing is somehow not inherent in nearly all women.

Stickwick said...

Disagree. The primary reason men vote Democrat/socialist is they want things other people have without having to work for them. Like I said, sloth, greed, and envy.

Laziness is a secondary factor. Greed/envy is certainly an important part of big government, especially with politicians and those whom they directly serve (e.g. the banksters). But look at all the new legislation -- gun control, soda control, massive regulation -- it shows a profound lack of trust in people to do the right thing. It betrays the mistrust of people on the left. It’s Hobbes’ war of everyone against everyone.

So, which is more important, greed or fear? If you remove fear, big government would fall apart completely. If you take greed/envy out, you still have the mistake of big government, just not with greedy people. It takes fearful people to fall for big government and sustain it. That’s why politics always lurches to the left once there’s universal suffrage.

facepalm said...

You know, in the past none of this was a problem, because men slapped the stupid out of their wives when it got annoying and slept with other women when they felt like it. That's what women really want, even the idiot "Christians". Game is a psychological labrynth the sackless pussies of this generation have constructed because while they feel they must live on women's terms, they find they can't get laid doing it. There's a reason game was never codified before, and that's because before it ever got to the point of having to twist your mind into the ridiculous contortions it takes to figure out how to successfully manupulate a women to her satisfaction you just slapped the shit out of her. And it achieved the same result.

Daniel said...

...except Game has been remarkably consistent and codified in history farther back than Herodotus and poof goes your entire thesis...

Jimmy said...

@Daniel: "The choice isn't between false strength and false weakness. There is a third way: minimize strengths to draw successful tests (the tests are coming one way or another) and also to create an inability to exploit weaknesses."

Not sure I was doing that. Every person should try out what works for them.

Since you mention the third way, it is very hard to win a fight with a woman. So you minimize a strength and then you come after a woman who didn't know you're so competent. Go ahead. WOW her with such an approach. What else have you been hiding?

"PUA is not relevant to the principle of relational strategy."

It is not, but minimizing strength assumes you already have her, and thus game.

@SarahsDaughter

"Uncertainty causes a woman to fear."

We always know it's the man's fault no matter what.



Daniel said...

Jeez Jimmy, women are fearful creatures. How is anyone suggesting it is the fault of the man?

As far as strategically wowing women and people in general with the strategy of underselling strengths and misdirecting from weakness...I do it all the time. It works out extremely well.

If you haven't figured out how to drop a jaw or two by now, it might be because you haven't been employing this very long-standing and time tested strategy. I highly recommend it.

Anonymous said...

Facepalm -- Really?
Women want to be slapped??
Women want to be cheated on??
What planet do you live on???
I think you watch too much S&M pron...

As an honest woman who is fine with being submissive, but WILL WALK AWAY from a man who lays a hand on me.
WILL WALK away from a man who cheats on me.
WILL WALK away from a man who lies, treats me like sh&#, or wants to game me, I will say that even in the wild, Alpha dogs lead the pack when they PROTECT their females.
When they ATTACK their females, even their females abandon them.
I give everything to my guy, and am happy that he protects me. But if he gamed me, cheated on me, lied to me...
No, I would NOT beg for him to give ME another chance...
I would walk away and feel sorry that he didn't take the advice from the right person...

SarahsDaughter said...

As an honest woman who is fine with being submissive

So, he gets to choose the restaurant every once in a while?

Cool.

tz said...

There are such things as flaws - including character flaws.

It is one thing to be properly ashamed of a "weakness" that you are fighting, working on improving. It is another to be abandoned or worse, proud of a weakness or sinful tendency.

Weakness + attempts and actual increases in fortitude and the other virtues to defeat it is a virtue. The declaration that "I won't be X in a few months!" is likely to negate the effect of the probe. Especially if put into the context "I'll fix X before you fix Y".

I go into this because of the destructiveness of things like political campaigns. Romney? Flawless? Really? He's not going to legalize whatever you are using. Weaknesses are part of the human condition. Ignoring them or trying to portray them as something other than weaknesses just destroys your own credibility. Hypocrisy may be the compliment vice pays to virtue, but there is no need to do even that. Just admit you are fallen as every human (with perhaps two exceptions) since Adam and Eve.

In marriage, one of the specific duties of each spouse is to get the OTHER to heaven, and to the highest point, to turn them into the greatest saint, that you can accomplish. You are their sculptor and might need to use hammer and chisel.

"I love being Gamma Rabbit" is perhaps incurable. But "OK, I should spend more time with the kids than the X-box" or "OK, I need to turn off Dr. Phil" is a small act of contrition which will have heaven rejoicing.

Jimmy said...

@Daniel "Jeez Jimmy, women are fearful creatures. How is anyone suggesting it is the fault of the man?"

Follow along.

You said "Did you mean this sentence? Because as I read it, it is contradictory. A pathetically weak guy would obviously cause both boredom and fear."

I said "Why would you think a weak guy causes fear? He is not the cause of fear. The fear of uncertainty comes from the woman."

SD said "Uncertainty causes a woman to fear."

Since SD is a woman, she confirmed a man has caused her to fear, thus it is always the man's fault. I wasn't originally making the argument about fear. I was questioning why she would make safety an issue with a pathetically weak guy.

Perhaps the lack of protective attitude or the creation of uncertainty causes the fear, but just being passive does not create fear in itself, but it is the woman who feels this. It is all in her head. Thus, if she breaks up with the man, it is all his fault.

taterearl said...

"Alpha dogs lead the pack when they PROTECT their females. When they ATTACK their females, even their females abandon them."

You're average modern female doesn't know the difference between being protected and being attacked. Rebuke of her nature is seen as an attack...when really a man is protecting her from herself.

I'm here to tell you there is a very thin line when it comes to testosterone leading to a man's greatness or destruction...and a lot of what determines it is a female's ability to submit.

VD said...

As an honest woman who is fine with being submissive, but WILL WALK AWAY from a man who lays a hand on me.
WILL WALK away from a man who cheats on me.
WILL WALK away from a man who lies, treats me like sh&#, or wants to game me, I will say that even in the wild, Alpha dogs lead the pack when they PROTECT their females.


Are you saying you have never lied or hit a man? Not even in a cute and funny way?

realmatt said...

Asking a woman how to get a woman is akin to a lion asking a buffalo how he'd like to be ambushed.

SarahsDaughter said...

Jimmy,
Uncertainty just is.

Women are fearful.

Decisive men alleviate women's fear.

What the OP is suggesting is like these examples of what my husband has said and the results:
"I never was much of a salesman." -> Lands a huge contract and makes in a month what he'd previously made in a year.
"I haven't shot a weapon in ages" -> Achieves sharp shooter status on first try
"I can't stand college, it's been 20 years since I've taken a physics course." -> Makes the dean's list as a 40 year old non trad, finishes his physics degree barely cracking a book.

"I've been recommended for medical board and will likely be deemed unfit for duty" -> There is no fear for our future. (I'm not saying this is where he might have weakness, I wouldn't know. All I know is there is no fear).

taterearl said...

The buffalo will let the lion know when it is ready to be eaten. The lion would score brownie points if it takes the buffalo out on an expensive date...and opens up to the buffalo about his hunger needs.

Daniel said...

Follow your own train, Jimmy. You've jumped to the wrong conclusion:

Since SD is a woman, she confirmed a man has caused her to fear, thus it is always the man's fault.

SD confirmed that uncertainty causes fear. You ascribed that uncertainty to a "man's fault."

Whether or not you choose to acknowledge the obvious, which is that no one in the thread suggested that men cause the uncertainty or fear and are therefore "to blame" makes no difference to me.

The fact that women are naturally fearful creatures isn't the fault of anyone at all. They can no more deny their fearful tendency than they can their womanhood. It is what they do with that (or what they are led to do with that) that matters.

Jimmy said...

@SD "Decisive men alleviate women's fear."

So you still required him to do something.

@David "Whether or not you choose to acknowledge the obvious, which is that no one in the thread suggested that men cause the uncertainty or fear and are therefore "to blame" makes no difference to me."

The obvious is I quite obviously stated it is in the woman's head. SD also said this. Despite this, the irrationality has its outcome.

It is not the man's fault. Surely we can all see this, but the man is still required to do something to fix it and his cupability is in his personality, that he didn't so anything or enough to reassure the fear.

The obviousness hasn't rubbed off on you. He is still to blame.

Anonymous said...

No, VD, I have never hit a man, not even in a cute or funny way.
Never. Ever.
If I lie, I expect a man to walk away from me. I have lied on rare occasion, and have made penance for whatever that lie may have been...(Never related to faithfulness, but I am not going to say "I have never ever lied!!")
I have been 100% faithful to my man. Supportive, giving, in every way...
I have been hit by a man once, and I have walked away from that "man." I did not hit back. I did not look back. I did not beg him to come back.

...My man picks the restaurants. Sometimes he asks me to pick. If he asks, I try to pick, or at least to give him a few of my favorites so he can pick from a sub-selection. He likes to be the alpha. I expect him to take care of me. He expects me to take care of him. I do my best to take care of him. He does his best to take care of me.

While I may present some pretty fiesty arguments on this string, I am still only meaning to provoke those that are the extremist "gamers."
Those that intend to play the decisive, provider, alpha-male role in post-feminist society are the reason I read this blog in the first place.
But it is the occasional "club-wielder, wife-beater" that gets my goat... And then my submissive nature doesn't sit so pretty...

Loki of Asgard said...

There's a reason game was never codified before, and that's because before it ever got to the point of having to twist your mind into the ridiculous contortions it takes to figure out how to successfully manupulate a women to her satisfaction you just slapped the shit out of her.

If you listen closely enough, you can always tell what a man intends doing.

Daniel said...

Jimmy, you did it again. What is the point of getting upset over what women feel?

facepalm said...

Daniel:

...except Game has been remarkably consistent and codified in history farther back than Herodotus and poof goes your entire thesis...

Lol. The wishful thinking of a fool who desperately hopes that everything he really needs to know about life is in the Bible. Game is to what you're talking about as the scientific method is to trial and error. Try again.

facepalm said...


I give everything to my guy, and am happy that he protects me. But if he gamed me, cheated on me, lied to me...
No, I would NOT beg for him to give ME another chance...
I would walk away and feel sorry that he didn't take the advice from the right person...


No you wouldn't, you would fight to gain the upper hand and delight if you couldn't. And you would love the fight.

Dylan said...

Approaching the battle of the sexes from a different angle: Since women have at least a modicum of rationality, is there a female analogue to Game? What is it that builds attraction in men, other than a classic figure and pretty face? I'd guess submissiveness, but I sort of think that men desire a submissive woman like women desire a humble, emotionally honest man.

Z-d said...

Dylan:

I've seen references on here and other manosphere sites to "girl game". I'm sure they wouldn't be hard to find.

Nate said...

"WILL WALK away from a man who cheats on me.
WILL WALK away from a man who lies, treats me like sh&#, or wants to game me, I will say that even in the wild, Alpha dogs lead the pack when they PROTECT their females.
When they ATTACK their females, even their females abandon them."

This has to be among the most delusional things I've ever seen a woman write. And that's saying something.

Try going to family court sweetheart. The most loyal wife in the world.. is the wife sitting on the stand with two black eyes.

Yes. Its sick. And yes... its true.

Stickwick said...

Dylan, Girl Game is what used to be called 'feminine wiles.' Dr. Laura's book, The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, is a good modern guide to GG.

Men prefer women who are sweet and submissive. Note that submissive doesn't mean doormat. For marriage, Athol at MMSL uses the metaphor of a captain and his first officer, where the wife is the FO.

Anonymous said...

Stickwick, I like your analogy (Or Athol's) about Captain and FO.
Submissive does NOT mean doormat...
Girl gamers make me just as sick as guy gamers...
It is the society that is spiraling down together, unfortunately.
But I do know that there are good men that take care of their wives, and good wives out there just the same.
Sorry, Nate. It is true for at least this woman. Maybe some abusive men get "lucky" enough to beat their women down emotionally enough to believe they don't DESERVE to leave... That is usually the case with physical abuse. Thankfully I am submissive but I am strong emotionally and would NOT take any kind of physical abuse from a "man" trying to overpower me in that way. A man's strength is to be used to protect, not to overpower.
Yes, I DO know the difference...
I agree with SW - I believe most men prefer women who are sweet and submissive. But real men are turned off by doormats. Players take advantage of doormats, and will use them to the fullest. But real men are turned off by them...
IMHO...

Cail Corishev said...

She can't desire safety if she can't stand boredom with a pathetically weak guy.

The paradox is that boredom -- even the kind of boredom that comes from being given a comfortable life in a beautiful home with a white picket fence in a lovely neighborhood and all the shiniest appliances to make her life easy -- makes a woman feel unsafe, if her husband isn't also doing things to demonstrate alpha qualities. No, it doesn't make sense, but there it is.

I used to do what Sassy's talking about here, in spades. I'd meet a girl and we'd have a date or spend an evening together, and things would just click. She'd start pouring her heart out to me, telling me her life story, including her deepest darkest secrets that even her girlfriends didn't know (supposedly). I'd take that as a cue to do the same, and by the time the sun came up it would feel like we'd known each other forever and we'd be making plans for the next day and the next month.

Then when I called her the next day, she'd be evasive and we'd never have a second date. Every. Single. Time. No, it wasn't a matter of picking the wrong girls. That level of openness, especially right off the bat, would have turned off ANY woman, once she got over the initial spark -- and it helps quench that spark. It just took me a decade or so to figure that out, and I still have to resist the impulse to try to match personal anecdotes with a woman when she goes that direction.

SarahsDaughter said...

@SD "Decisive men alleviate women's fear."

So you still required him to do something.


Required? No. Most women are not aware of their own natures. They are not cognitively aware that a decisive man alleviates their irrational fear. Most women live their lives with their irrational fears and unsettled hearts actually believing they are logical creatures. Most women are unaware of why they lose attraction to indecisive/weak men. They attribute the loss of attraction or the nonexistent attraction to something else - he's just not my type/I fell out of love with him.

Successful marriages/relationships (successful meaning no loss of attraction) occur when men are decisive and women's fears are alleviated. She may never understand, cognitively, why he continues to turn her on.

As Cail mentioned above. A woman who tells a guy all of her life's tragedies (the "we stayed up all night talking" date) is not looking for a man to share his anecdotes of similar circumstances. She's looking for his ability to convey that none of the past matters, you're with me now, you will be safe. When she hears of his vulnerability and negative experiences that are similar to her own, even if she doesn't realize it, she will not see a benefit to continue the relationship, he can not protect her - he couldn't protect himself. Within a day (like Cail said) she will have lost attraction to him, no matter the rest of his attraction features.

You can, Jimmy, if you'd like, continue through life seeing this as "it's always a man's fault" or you can come to understand a woman's nature and dance with it. Much like gravity. You can hate it all you want or you can understand it and work within the confines of it.

taterearl said...

I don't mind talking about my wacky adventures to women...but none of them involve me talking about my self-doubts, indecisiveness, or how I was saved by some chick gracing her appearance.

Plus I keep most of my talk honest...nothing offends yet attracts women to men like the truth. I do this by either speaking the truth...or teasing her when I know she's basically spitting out what the hamster is telling her.

Cail Corishev said...

Some guys overreact by thinking this means you have to lie to women constantly, never open up to them, spend energy concocting elaborate guessing games for her to play, etc. That's a straw man. It's more of a cautionary point -- here's what not to do. Don't mirror her openness, assuming that reciprocation will build long-term rapport. As Sarah's Daughter confirmed, it doesn't. Don't tell her everything about yourself; hold back a little so there's some mystery for her imagination to play with. Imply that some stories have additional chapters that you don't tell just anyone. Let her tell 2-3 stories before you offer another about yourself.

It actually means less work than fully pouring your heart out does. You can even include quite a bit of truth -- just mix it with jokes, teasing, and reticence, so she doesn't feel like you're an open book and there's nothing left to learn about you the next day.

As always, how you say it is more important than what you say. A girl asks how old you are (you're quite a bit older). Bad response: "40, and you?" Good responses:

Old enough to be your grandpa.
Old enough to know better.
Twenty-five, but booze and hookers really take their toll on a guy.
Forty. Is your mom single?
Forty. Do your parents know you're out this late?

As the last ones show, you can tell the truth as long as you have fun with it.

SarahsDaughter said...

Women want to be slapped??

Usually unbeknownst to her, a woman is most attracted to a man who conveys he possesses the authority to slap her when she is out of line - though even more attractive is the man who doesn't have to, a look is sufficient.

Women want to be cheated on??

Usually unbeknownst to her, a woman is most attracted to a man who has the option to cheat because other women find him attractive.

Wendy said...

Women want to be slapped??

In "Too Bad She's Bad" Sophia Loren tells her man to slap her at the end.

Jimmy said...

@SD "You can, Jimmy, if you'd like, continue through life seeing this as "it's always a man's fault" or you can come to understand a woman's nature and dance with it. Much like gravity. You can hate it all you want or you can understand it and work within the confines of it."

What's wrong with seeing it as "it's always a man's fault" since your advice that follows is along the same lines. It's creating an offense from an otherwise defensive position.

What I hate is the female advantage. As I understand it perfectly well, you don't want to accept the fact that to take it a step further by admitting that men are considered "at fault", even when its the woman's problem, he is better positioned to solve the problem.

Accept the reality.

Loki of Asgard said...

Jeffrey Dahmer received thousands of marriage offers after his conviction. If that were not enough, Edward Cullen is viewed as sexually desirable.

Therefore, all women are vorarephiles, and this is normal, natural, and healthy. Take a bite out of your woman today!

SarahsDaughter said...

It's not logical, Jimmy. When a baby is hungry, the only person who can alleviate that hunger is his caregiver. Is it the caregiver's fault that the baby is hungry?

There is another way for a woman to no longer be fearful regardless of a man's ability to alleviate her fear, but that is a religious conversation.

Jimmy said...

@SD "Is it the caregiver's fault that the baby is hungry?"

No, but it's the caregiver's fault if the baby remains hungry. You have to FEED the baby. A woman in this situation was never actually hungry. She imagined being hungry and she wanted her man to fix it.

If the woman is fearful, it is her fault. If she remains fearful, it is the man's fault. See. It's so easy.

Josh said...

Jimmy, you can either accept that men and women are different, or keep doing what you're doing and eternally whine about how women aren't like men. You still have the feminist frame, that women and men are equal and the same. And that's why you're angry. Little boys whine about how "life's not fair." Men understand reality and use it to their advantage.

Jimmy said...

Josh: What's make you think I haven't accepted that women and men are different? And I'm not whining. I'm giving my version of the reality. It is the reality.

.facepalm.

SarahsDaughter said...

"What I hate is the female advantage..."

Might have had something to do with why we ALL think you are angry, whining, and not accepting of the differences between men and women.

Daniel said...

Jimmy, if you honestly think it is advantageous for a woman to be fearful and in need of protection, the solution is simple: be fearful and needy yourself.

There you go. You've eliminated her dominance over you, at least by your convoluted metric.

Why are you so jealous of another person's natural instinct to cower? It really is strange, unless you'd rather have the excuse of blaming women for making it your fault that they are fearful.

Sounds like the course of a defeatist and a fantasist to me, but perhaps that is your ambition.

Josh said...

What's make you think I haven't accepted that women and men are different?

See what Sarah's daughter said.

You keep mentioning that you hate the "female advantage". So obviously something about the nature of women bothers you. You haven't accepted it because you're still getting angry about it. You're made because there is a part of you that says, "it shouldn't be like this." Well, it is. It just is.

This is exactly like Ted D whining about how women can't communicate as directly as men do.

Josh said...

Jimmy, do make a habit of going up to people in wheelchairs and berating them for not being able to walk? Or do you yell at the blind for not being able to see? Do you consider it "advantageous" that someone who is crippled needs a caregiver?

TheoConfidor said...

This question is primarily directed at Vox Day and Koanic Soul.

Must a man always keep a part of himself hidden well away from a woman for all phenotypes? For example, would this be necessary for a TT man - TT woman monogamous match where the woman respects and trusts the man's strength? Or is this just a general principle that applies to most matches and in most situations?

Jimmy said...

@Daniel "Jimmy, if you honestly think it is advantageous for a woman to be fearful and in need of protection, the solution is simple: be fearful and needy yourself.

There you go. You've eliminated her dominance over you, at least by your convoluted metric."

Ha!!! That doesn't work for obvious reasons. Do I need to spell it out? facepalm.

The one possible option to deal with such a situation was already ruled out and that is being passive and not let it bother you for the woman has no basis for being so fearful. No wonder I have trouble discussing an irrational issue here. There are no rational people here.

"Why are you so jealous of another person's natural instinct to cower? It really is strange, unless you'd rather have the excuse of blaming women for making it your fault that they are fearful.

Sounds like the course of a defeatist and a fantasist to me, but perhaps that is your ambition."

Jealous is not the descriptive word to describe me, but go ahead and keep believing it.

Since I am in a relationship, I will say outright that I haven't caused her to remain in fear. She certainly does feel fear, but I gladly alleviate it. Nonetheless, the whole topic of this post was a woman decided a man was "pathetic" from her own evaluation. Then she went and cheated, and didn't even know she created an unstable relationship that can very well breakup. She created her own fearful event out of fear. This is an example where nothing makes sense. It doesn't mean it will happen to many people, but once a relationship sours, it is clear who is the one to blame regardless of the actual situation. Am I sad about breakups? Certainly. Who hasn't experienced such things? How about angry? It depends. Who wouldn't be a combination of both? However, we are only talking about a breakup and we know how rare ;) such things are so Daniel, SD, and Josh are immume from being whiny angry people.

A case could be made that I'm jealous of Daniel, SD, and Josh. So content with life.

@SD "Might have had something to do with why we ALL think you are angry, whining, and not accepting of the differences between men and women."

Hating something is not the equivalent of not accepting it. However, it can wear you down if you have too much of it. How sad would it to be with a constantly fearful woman. You described it yourself as a woman who doesn't even know herself. There are certain degrees of female obsessive behaviors that run counter to a heathly relationship. Vox explicitly counsels that such things can be dealt with.

I don't know why you're ALL in agreement, but each time I respond, you haven't rebutted it successfully and only keep making personal attacks. Very strange.

SarahsDaughter said...

Scalzied.

Doorstop said...

The pissing match on this post aside, let me say that you, SarahsDaughter (and by extension, RLB) have taught me more about female psychology than anyone else (besides Vox, of course) who regularly comments on these blogs. Everyone else is small potatoes...and I read "The Game" 6 years ago...it was great for learning the short game, but how much satisfaction (or validation) does that really bring? Keep it up!

SarahsDaughter said...

Thank you, Doorstop, that is great to hear. I've said the same of Vox, Spacebunny and many of the VP ilk. RLB came across our mohawk sporting host over eight years ago reading WND. He'd say, "you gotta read this guy's column." I'd try. It was frustrating that I kept running into roadblocks of understanding his writing due to the limits of my intelligence. But I wanted to be able to discuss the topics with RLB so I started reading with a google tab always open (which works great until one tries to google a word that Vox created himself).

I was no where near ready to read the columns or blog posts about the nature of women. But RLB did, he'd be laughing at something Bane had written and tell me to read it (he really should have recorded my reactions, it'd be quite humorous - now). When I came to understand that my lack of rational thought regarding my own nature was destroying our marriage RLB told me to read VP for six months and not comment on anything. It was a powerful combination, I started to accept what RLB was saying because it was being echoed by all these other highly intelligent people. The responses to comments like Anon's above and other females like me who didn't get it were the most instructive (especially when Spacebunny would open a can of whoop ass on them).

I know there are quite a few ladies here who had similar experiences. Enough actually to conclude that this medium is more effective at bettering interpersonal relationships than all the self help books lining book store shelves.

Wendy said...

How does one rebut whining?

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.