Monday, July 1, 2013

An appeal to logic

Susan Walsh makes a good case for women to reject a certain type of man if she's looking for a relationship, but her advice is rendered somewhat hollow by flying in the face of the realities of Game:
If your objective is a long-term relationship or marriage, the implication of these findings is clear. Reject any potential partner who has cultivated a habit of engaging in casual sex. (There really aren’t that many of them anyway.) Whether they were damaged goods before or after the sex is immaterial, as the negative psychological outcome is the same. And if they somehow can have casual sex without feelings of anxiety of regret? Those are the most unsuitable partners of all, as they lack the capacity for healthy emotional responses and relationships (see Dark Triad).
I'm not arguing with her reasoning in the slightest.  However, it nevertheless comes off as trying to convince freshman women to not order pizza late at night in the dorm room.  There isn't a college woman alive who doesn't know that scarfing pizza is going to make her pack on the pounds, and yet, there are observably few who are capable of resisting the temptation.

Alphas and Sigmas are intrinsically desirable to women and the unsuitable Dark Triad men are like walking, talking catnip to them.  It's fine to tell women to keep them at a distance, but that's not going to make them any less attractive late at night when the phone rings.  To a certain extent, this is like telling men who want to pursue relationships that they should simply pursue plainer women.  That might be true, but it's going to be a hard pill to swallow.

39 comments:

Jack Amok said...

And yet, controlling one's emotions is the basis of civilization. In her own way, she's just suggesting women act more civilized.

IrishFarmer said...

VD, that's a spot on insight into the problem with asking women to avoid unsuitable men. I'm beginning to think that the solution isn't to ask women to pursue less attractive men, although a healthy dose of humility in that regard would be necessary too, but rather for unattractive "nice" guys to finally compete with the unsuitable men and make themselves more attractive. After all, if you're really truly a nice guy and you want what's best for women, then you should have sex with them and save them from the jerks...That's white knighting at its best.

Greg Swann said...

And no one ever quit smoking, either. An 'appeal to logic' should include all of the facts. Human behavior is caused by free will, not by any social, biological, economic, nuero-chemical or other factors in play.

Natalie said...

@Jack - Ditto. We're told that PMS/pregnancy/post-partum/menopause hormones aren't an excuse to do or say whatever we want, and many of manage to internalize that message and deal -even if dealing means we have to just shut up and fold laundry because our vocal cords reset themselves to "shrew mode." At the very least this gives good girls the knowledge that isolation is very dangerous and that they should be aware of their surroundings and stay with people who support their values instead of thinking they're morally armored enough that they can test the waters with impunity.

Stickwick Stapers said...

I don't necessarily buy what Susan is saying. It depends on the man. My husband has been with countless women, and has no regrets whatsoever. On our first date, he even shamelessly recounted a comical casual encounter he had a week before we met. (I was mortified, and yet inexplicably I kept dating him.) He says the reason he doesn't regret any of it is because he understands how meaningless it all was -- and ultimately how boring it became -- and as a result has no fantasies about what he's missing out on as a married man. We've been married over a decade now, and AFAIK he's been 100% true blue, and is a wonderful husband. His experiences didn't render him an unsuitable and unhealthy partner at all. In fact, because of his forthrightness about what he ultimately realized about his experiences, I am a very secure wife.

Trust said...

@Natalie

I get you're point, but I don't think the analogy is quite right. It's true that PMS isn't a good excuse for women, but that is more similar to how male aggression and testosterone must be controlled. Those are biological realities to contend with.

Societal constructs are different. While men certainly should behave like men, I think it is unfair to use family law so harshly against men who do only to insult their manhood when they don't want to take the risks. Some risks are appropriate for men to take, some are simply foolish to take. Taking unreasonable risks is not the Hallmark of a man, it is a sign of ignorance and immaturity.

There really isn't a prrallel bc i cannot think of a match where women face such state-sponsored risk by marrying.

And for the record, I have been married 9 years and have two children. I took that risk to be a father. But it is a huge one. More so for me and for my relationship to my daughters than it is for my wife. Just bc I haven't been burned by it doesn't mean I will shame other men into following in my footsteps.

Jack Amok said...

Trust, who said anything about marriage or family courts? Good grief, why does everything have to be about that? What on Earth does divorce law or custody law have to do with suggesting to young women that Dark Triadsters, despite their charms, may not be the most suitable mates?

Unknown said...

First Jack, you are right that it was a bit off topic. But not much. As roissy puts it, women want good guy bux and bad boy fux. The legal.situation (societal construct) has been a huge factor. This.is about.as close to a hypergamous utopia as has ever existed on earth. And it is a.huge factor in making the dark triad even more powerful.

But.that is.the macro, and this was about the micro. So u was a bit off. Sort of like the wefare state... we can encourage individuals to be responsible, but. he problem will always be magnified by the societal construct.

Unknown said...

"I was" not "u was". Apologize... little typo cause huge meaning change.

Trust said...

Apologies again. Unknown is Trust. Too little caffiene.

Res Ipsa said...

"We've been married over a decade now, and AFAIK he's been 100% true blue, and is a wonderful husband. His experiences didn't render him an unsuitable and unhealthy partner at all."

NOTE: Men can make the switch from horndog to faithful husband, women not so much.

Jill said...

Shockingly, many advice manuals advise us to fight against our human inclinations. But the inclination toward the alpha male doesn't always come with the baggage of the dark triad (I don't even know what that is), and it often happens on a level below conscious thought. But the logic inherent in modest behavior is conscious and can override compulsive behavior. It's not the desire and/or attraction that's wrong; it's the subsequent hedonistic obedience to the desire. And that can be fought against. One can choose not to order a pizza at midnight.

Ftr, I'm aware of this subconscious working of biology from observing the world, but was not aware of what was going on in myself when I quite accidentally married a sneaky alpha male. How could I not have known? Girls threw themselves at him. But I wasn't *that* type, and so I was oblivious. Now I'm married to a man who is frustratingly and quietly always in charge. I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm actually kind of glad I didn't recognize it.

Trust said...

@Jill said... One can choose not to order a pizza at midnight.
__________

I think that is a really good analogy. As good as pizza may be for immediate pleasure, individuals can override that urge in the interest of long term health.

But imagine a situation where that same individual could enter into a contract with a health-food company. Then, if they decided that the health food company just didn't satisfy them, then not only could they exit the contract, but the health food company would be required to give them pizza money. Would that result in more or less pizza overall?

We can and should encourage individuals to behave appropriately, but when incentives are different society as a whole will remain largley unchanged.

Vox said...

But the logic inherent in modest behavior is conscious and can override compulsive behavior. It's not the desire and/or attraction that's wrong; it's the subsequent hedonistic obedience to the desire. And that can be fought against. One can choose not to order a pizza at midnight.

I concur. But one is much less likely to do so when one is arguing that pizza doesn't really taste good and one doesn't even really like it anyhow. To successfully resist temptation, the first thing required is to understand that one is, in fact, tempted.

Jill said...

Trust, I understand what you're saying--I think. Are you saying that it's difficult for people to overcome their baser urges when the government gives them incentives to continue living that way? That seems fairly obvious. Free birth control, ready access to abortions, easy-outs on marriages--it used to be more difficult to be irresponsible, and that was in addition to the shaming that went along with divorce and easy sex. I was raised to be chaste and to honor contracts, and this has saved me a world of hurt and loneliness. So I'm raising my children the same way.

Jill said...

@Vox, okay, I'll go with you on that one. I wasn't willing to admit to myself that I was tempted (by the alpha), even to the point that I was surprised by my husband's behavior after marriage (what? I thought he was this polite, nice guy??). What saved me from bad behavior prior to that was my Christian upbringing. Also, on a certain level, I understood the way the world worked, but I completely censored the way it was working in me as a person. I'm not sure how one gets past these psychological barriers in people, except to help them become self-aware. But some people can be very resistant to self-awareness, especially when the truth flies in the face of everything they've been taught.

Trust said...

@Jill

Yes. And yes, it is obvious that incentivizing what is already a base urge makes it more common. Which is why it is crazy why so many are so confused by it.

I liked your analogy.

matamoros said...

Reminds me of the joke about a farmer and wife who are at a state fair. They are going through the livestock exhibit and she keeps remarking about how many times the bull was put at stud for the year. The highest was 600 times the past year. He looks at her and says, "with the same cow?"

The reason why whore houses are found everywhere is that men need an outside relief from the usual and common. A rest from the wife gives the guy more vigor.

And provides inexpensive competition to her if she doesn't want to perform; preventing her from using the sex denial to gain advantage.

matamoros said...

"Men can make the switch from horndog to faithful husband, women not so much.:

In the American West, men out numbered women by 10-1. Many women were prostitutes, who when they had their stake married a customer and became an honest woman.

I doubt that would happen much any more, however.

e96dd1c6-d05b-11e2-ad29-000bcdcb2996 said...

Vox, I have to disagree somewhat.

Men learn to avoid the hot-but-crazy women for anything but a ONS. To override instinct with reason. Susan is simply telling women to do the same thing.

As I've commented previously, Miss 1963 would consider her granddaughter, Miss 2013, to be terribly childish and impulsive. Susan has tackled the Big Headache...getting modern women to grow up.

Stickwick Stapers said...

NOTE: Men can make the switch from horndog to faithful husband, women not so much.

Instinctively, I know this is true. But it'd be interesting to know why it's true.

Giraffe said...

It is funny how hard it is to stop the beta behavior even when you know to avoid it.

I was consciously trying to not do the beer shield thing this weekend during my high school reunion. Almost everyone else was doing it.

Funny how at least some of the old hiearchy gets flipped on its head at these things. Some of those girls who were too good back then were almost invisible now.

tz said...

Apparently it is now strategic.

Check out #2

Giraffe said...

Instinctively, I know this is true. But it'd be interesting to know why it's true.

I think even more important is to be able to discern for which men it is true. Harder yet: will be true.

Perhaps knowing the why would help.

To me it seems like shopping for a good used car. You might think you've found a good one but you don't know till you've plunked your money down and driven it a few years.

Bobby Dupea said...

Absent from most of the HUS discussions is the impossibility of a woman switching gears from an ethic of casual to a lifetime of sincere. This would cause the woman to own her behavior and admit error. The last two discussion topics that focused on an LTR-seeking female's correspondence don't really address a simple fact in both cases: both women were using hookups as a lever to construct a permanent relationship, which I believe is a little like buying breakfast pizza at the convenience store, on the way to the gym to get fit.

And a great deal of the advice is akin to the quote Vox renders. Well. I don't know a lot of innocents who are entrapped by cynics; thus the better advice would be, If you are inclined to casual relations with a man who practices casual, best look in the mirror first. In this way, the website reinforces a view that women are vulnerable creatures who simply can't help themselves when they date dark. They are delicate, confused flowers being stomped by self-interested, ubiquitous males.

An alternative view would be that women who seek permanent had best ask themselves first why they are using anonymous sex to entertain themselves while they cloak themselves in the unfelt, unlearned, unexplored desires to find love. Or, why order pizza and then express astonishment that they didn't get broccoli.

Broadly, it's a bit like the ethos of The Great Divorce, in which the clever and verbose haven't quite noticed yet that they are in Hell, and thus quite unwilling and unable (by personal choice) to pursue something better.

Jack Amok said...

Instinctively, I know this is true. But it'd be interesting to know why it's true.

Because men who don't learn to control their emotions eventually get killed when they provoke a fight with someone who's a badder ass than they are. The male brain develops more capacity to suppress emotion than the female brain because of that.

Men learn to not like drama because it's dangerous. Women puddle for it. Once a woman becomes addicted to the drama of sleeping around, it's hard for her to break the addiction.

Jack Amok said...

Or, why order pizza and then express astonishment that they didn't get broccoli.

Valid points Bobby, but... well, I'm not sure you're the best salesman the institution of Marriage could hire...

Bobby Dupea said...

Jack, I don't know if it's true or not, broadly. I agree that men learn early on to calculate their survival (physically, or just professionally) if they cut loose with their visceral reactions; I agree that women find such displays rewarded ("so honest, so brave, so *true*"). But I don't know if men who practice nihilistic relations are somehow better equipped to achieve sincerity.

Maybe those guys just got tired of being alone, whether or not they were getting laid a lot, and never had sufficient interest (pop culture encouragement to the contrary) in the rake's life to make it a career.

IOW, maybe James Bond is not an alpha, but a Sigma who got on the wrong bus. Finally he reaches a bus stop he recognizes and flees. But the bus is still filled with insensate wretches.

My bet is on habit and practice, and that it's a bad bet to bet on reforming a rake. I think Stickwick won the lottery, and her good fortune says nothing about the wisdom of buying a ticket.

Bobby Dupea said...

Jack says "well, I'm not sure you're the best salesman the institution of Marriage could hire..."

I'm not auditioning for the job. Just curious, though, why you indulge in the ad hominem.

Athor Pel said...

"Stickwick Stapers said...
NOTE: Men can make the switch from horndog to faithful husband, women not so much.

Instinctively, I know this is true. But it'd be interesting to know why it's true.

July 1, 2013 at 2:43 PM "




Men can marry more than one woman. We're designed that way. It's also perfectly legal biblically.

Which means choosing to love more than one woman isn't all that different than loving one. Just like having more than one child doesn't mean you run out love for any of them.







Jack Amok said...

I'm not auditioning for the job. Just curious, though, why you indulge in the ad hominem.

It's a joke son. You were comparing marriage to broccoli.

Awoman said...

I agree with you that there are currently "few" women who can control themselves and keep the discipline.
Just as there are "few" men who can keep themselves disciplined.
But we should still teach our sons and daughters this, with the expectation that we build this civilization back toward "civilization."
There will always be players and ho's.
I'm doing all I can to make sure my daughters know the difference and have the discipline to be on the right side of the fence.
We shouldn't just give up because "discipline is hard" or "they are going to do it anyway."
No, I did not do it, and my best friends did not do it.
I "know of" a lot of "ho's" who lacked the discipline. Or lacked the self-esteem.
And I knew/know of a lot of "pricks" who were trying to get as many notches in their count as possible.
But there ARE some good men and women that mothers and fathers have raised. And I am not throwing in he towel just yet. I am glad Susan offers this advice, I will offer the same advice to everyone who will hear it too...

fc6cedc2-d6a8-11e2-b860-000bcdcb471e said...

The reason why whore houses are found everywhere is that men need an outside relief from the usual and common.

The reason there are whore houses everywhere is an abundance of low value men can't get women to sleep with them for free.

Instinctively, I know this is true. But it'd be interesting to know why it's true.

Its hard to guard your mate if you aren't around to guard her. I might also point out there is an effort vs. reward associated with it.

Most people settle in pretty close proximity to their actual value. So unless something has changed where your wife/LTR lost lots of value or you have gained a lot in value odds are you aren't going to be able to land somebody of significantly higher value than your wife/LTR, and its going to cost you that wife/LTR.

I don't know any men that have thrown away functional marriages by cheating, though I do know a few that have cheated on land whales and shrews.

The math changes a bit when you have 9s and 10s throwing themselves at you. At that point I think it takes a commitment to faith for men not to wander.

tz said...

Remember, Ann Coulter is a woman too.

One of my strongest arguments against abortion was to ask 1. are women capable of understanding sex=baby, !sex=!baby? 2. If they know are they somehow incompetent so should be under a conservatorship or guardianship because they cannot control themselves to act upon that knowledge.

I was only half kidding when I first made the argument.

Things change.

It is now a quite serious empirical observation (and a quick QED why they should not be let near a voting booth).

There are many women who can rise above their concupiscence, and many men who cannot, but once rising above and seeing the situation, logic dictates they should seek asylum instead of asking for the inmates to run it.

Rational women would prefer a patriarchy in the real world. At least the moment they discern the difference between benign and malignant evil in the sexes. The Y chromosome is a weak talisman.

Rational men would prefer a near-anarchy libertarian world to even small efforts at centralization.

matamoros said...

"The reason there are whore houses everywhere is an abundance of low value men can't get women to sleep with them for free."

You mean "low value" men like Charlie Sheen and other celebs?

No woman is "free" there is always a cost. With whorehouses one knows the cost up front. Like Charlie said, he didn't pay them for sex, he paid them to go home.

There used to be a plug in that asked various questions and then calculated the real cost of sex. It is far higher to have a wife, than just hiring a high quality girl for a few hours at a time.

Better sex too. No headaches. No, "I don't feel like it." No landwhales. No liabilities.

For alphas and sigmas who don't want the hassle of gaming bitches forever it IS the way to go.

Betas can get by with good looking girls, but gammas will get the dregs here too.

fc6cedc2-d6a8-11e2-b860-000bcdcb471e said...

Well people like Sheen think they are paying for discretion, that of course can only be rented not bought. And there are plenty of liabilities associated with call girls - legal, moral, social, spiritual, health.

Having never purchased a whore, I don't have anything to compare to in terms of quality of sex, but I can't accept as a given that on the whole it is better than having sex with girls who have a natural raw desire even if they are less experienced.



Brad Andrews said...

God made us to be in a dedicated pair. Other things may seem to work, but are unlikely to really work well in the long run because they still fall short of the ideal.

Sex outside marriage always has consequences. It may be suppressible in some situations, but it will bite any society that tries to make it the norm.

subject by design said...

Women are not equipped to choose their own husbands. By design, a husband should be chosen for them. Giving them advice and tips about who not to choose is not going to magically make them capable. The best advice to give a woman is to let her father, her brother, her grandfather, her uncle or some other man tell her who is going to take her as wife. All the other advice in the world is just a waste of words. Does Susan really believe these women don't already KNOW these men aren't likely to make good husbands? Of course they know, but they rationalize because that's what they do. They aren't sitting down making a list of pros and cons and attempting to make a decision at which they arrive by using facts and logic.

tinlaw

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.